NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 10 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DMITRIY IVANOVICH SOLOD, No. 19-72075 Petitioner, Agency No. A071-322-117 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted August 5, 2020** Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and LEE, Circuit Judges. Dmitriy Ivanovich Solod, a native of the U.S.S.R. and citizen of Russia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying asylum, withholding of removal, and cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d * 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). 575, 581 (9th Cir. 2016). We deny the petition for review. Solod does not raise, and therefore waives, any challenge to the agency’s denial of asylum and withholding of removal on the merits. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in an opening brief are waived). Thus, we do not reach Solod’s contentions that the agency erred in its particularly serious crime analysis. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (the courts and the agency are not required to decide issues that are unnecessary to the results). Our jurisdiction to review the agency’s determination that Solod did not merit cancellation of removal as a matter of discretion is limited to questions of law, see Ridore v. Holder, 696 F.3d 907, 911 (9th Cir. 2012), and Solod’s contention that the BIA erred by not considering evidence of rehabilitation is not supported by the record, see Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 980 (9th Cir. 2009). Solod’s contentions that the BIA did not act as a neutral adjudicator or engaged in impermissible factfinding are not supported. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 19-72075 19-72075 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Dmitriy Solod v. William Barr 10 August 2020 Agency Unpublished 9123ed4dc763632fba7330669cb58daf0fe62857
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals