Case: 19-60633 Document: 00515779318 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/12/2021 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED March 12, 2021 No. 19-60633 Lyle W. Cayce Summary Calendar Clerk Mario Ruiz-Garcia, Petitioner, versus Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A091 555 717 Before Davis, Stewart, and Ho, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Mario Ruiz-Garcia is a native and a citizen of Mexico who came to the United States without inspection sometime in 1985. He became a legal permanent resident in 1991 but not a citizen. In 2007, he pleaded guilty to transporting illegal aliens in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A). Because * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. Case: 19-60633 Document: 00515779318 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/12/2021 No. 19-60633 that crime is an “aggravated felony” as explicitly defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(N), Ruiz-Garcia was “deportable” under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). But Ruiz-Garcia sought relief from removal by seeking adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a) based on an application by his son, a U.S. citizen. However, adjustment required him to show, among other things, that he is “admissible”—that is, not inadmissible—to the United States. See § 1255(a)(2). The immigration judge (IJ) denied adjustment after concluding that Ruiz-Garcia’s alien transporting conviction rendered him inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(E), which concerns smuggling aliens into the United States. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) remanded the case for the IJ to further assess whether Ruiz-Garcia was inadmissible because it was unclear whether the conduct underlying the alien transporting offense amounted to aiding illegal entry as required by § 1182(a)(6)(E)(i). On remand, the IJ held a hearing at which Ruiz-Garcia testified. The IJ also considered documentary evidence, including a Border Patrol agent’s Report of Investigation and the presentence report (PSR) from the transporting case. The IJ concluded that Ruiz-Garcia’s testimony was not credible and that the evidence established that the conduct underlying the transporting conviction amounted to aiding illegal entry, which rendered Ruiz-Garcia inadmissible and thus ineligible for adjustment. Despite limitations on court jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), we may review constitutional claims and questions of law. § 1252(a)(2)(D). Questions of law include “the application of a legal standard to undisputed or established facts.” Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1062, 1068 (2020); see Alvarado de Rodriguez v. Holder, 585 F.3d 227, 234 (5th Cir. 2009) (holding that the application of law to the facts is a 2 Case: 19-60633 Document: 00515779318 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/12/2021 No. 19-60633 reviewable legal issue). In addition, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment applies in removal proceedings. Okpala v. Whitaker, 908 F.3d 965, 971 (5th Cir. 2018). When Ruiz-Garcia’s pro se pleadings are liberally construed, he raises legal issues that we may …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals