NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 19 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSE BARRERA HUERTA, AKA Joel No. 18-70598 Solorio Moya, Agency No. A205-024-508 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 13, 2020** San Francisco, California Before: McKEOWN and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges, and WHALEY,*** District Judge. Jose Barrera Huerta challenges the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision denying his requests for withholding of removal and relief under the * 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 Robert H. Whaley, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Washington, sitting by designation. Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). We deny his petition for review. 1. Particularly Serious Crime. We review the BIA’s particularly serious crime determination for abuse of discretion. Arbid v. Holder, 700 F.3d 379, 383 (9th Cir. 2012). The Attorney General may not remove a noncitizen to a country if the Attorney General decides that the noncitizen’s “life or freedom would be threatened in that country because of the [noncitizen]’s race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A). However, this restriction does not apply if the Attorney General decides that the noncitizen has been convicted of a “particularly serious crime” and is therefore “a danger to the community of the United States.” Id. § 1231(b)(3)(B)(ii). There exists a strong presumption that a drug trafficking offense constitutes a particularly serious crime. Miguel-Miguel v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 941, 949 (9th Cir. 2007); Matter of Y-L-, 23 I. & N. Dec. 270, 275–76 (Att’y Gen. 2002). In a “very rare case,” a noncitizen can overcome the presumption by showing, at a minimum, (1) a very small quantity of controlled substance; (2) a very modest amount of money paid for the drugs in the offending transaction; (3) merely peripheral involvement by the [noncitizen] in the criminal activity, transaction, or conspiracy; (4) the absence of any violence or threat of violence . . . ; (5) the absence of any organized crime or terrorist organization involvement . . . ; and (6) the absence of any adverse or harmful effect of the activity or transaction on juveniles. Y-L-, 23 I. & N. Dec. at 276–77. 2 While Barrera Huerta does not dispute the presumption applies, he contends the Immigration Judge (IJ) failed to meaningfully review whether he rebutted the presumption. The IJ determined that Barrera Huerta had not established the six factors set out in Y-L- to rebut the presumption and disbelieved his testimony that he did not intend to sell the drugs in the 2013 and 2015 convictions. Barrera Huerta pleaded no contest to ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals