NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 8 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SANTOS LORENA DIAZ, AKA Santos No. 16-72809 Lorena Beltran-Ruiz, AKA Lorena Diaz, Agency No. A089-668-363 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 4, 2019** Pasadena, California Before: SCHROEDER and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and ROSENTHAL,*** District Judge. Santos Lorena Diaz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing her appeal of an * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Lee H. Rosenthal, Chief United States District Judge for the Southern District of Texas, sitting by designation. Immigration Judge’s denial of asylum,1 withholding of removal, and deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.2 We review the Board’s factual findings for substantial evidence and will uphold those findings unless the record compels the court to conclude differently. Rayamajhi v. Whitaker, 912 F.3d 1241, 1243 (9th Cir. 2019) (citing Doe v. Holder, 736 F.3d 871, 877 (9th Cir. 2013)). When the Board determines that a noncitizen was convicted of a “particularly serious crime,” we review for abuse of discretion. Arbid v. Holder, 700 F.3d 379, 385 (9th Cir. 2012). When, as here, the Board expressly adopts the Immigration Judge’s decision, we review both 1 Diaz does not challenge that she is ineligible for asylum, because she was convicted of an aggravated felony. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(B). 2 Section 1252 provides that “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law . . . no court shall have jurisdiction to review any final order or removal against an alien who is removable by reason of having committed” certain criminal offenses, but preserves jurisdiction over “constitutional claims or questions of law raised upon a petition for review filed with an appropriate court of appeals.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C)-(D). The United States Supreme Court recently granted certiorari in Nasrallah v. Barr, No. 18-1432 (Oct. 18, 2019), which presents the question “[w]hether, notwithstanding Section 1252(a)(2)(C), the courts of appeals possess jurisdiction to review factual findings underlying denials of withholding (and deferral) of removal relief.” Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, Nasrallah v. Barr, No. 18-1432 (May 14, 2019). We decide this case in accordance with current Ninth Circuit precedent, under which we have jurisdiction over Diaz’s challenge to the denial of deferral of removal under the CAT. See Pechenkov v. Holder, 705 F.3d 444, 448 (9th Cir. 2012). Because any determination by the Supreme Court that we lack jurisdiction would have no effect on the outcome of this case, we proceed under our existing caselaw. 2 decisions. Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals