NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 19 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOAO PATRAO, No. 18-71896 Petitioner, Agency No. A035-290-110 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 16, 2021** Before: GRABER, R. NELSON, and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges. Joao Patrao, a native and citizen of Portugal, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision finding him removable and denying his applications for cancellation of removal, asylum, withholding of removal, and * 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). relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo the agency’s determination that a crime is as an aggravated felony. Jauregui-Cardenas v. Barr, 946 F.3d 1116, 1118 (9th Cir. 2020). We review for abuse of discretion the agency’s particularly serious crime determination. Avendano-Hernandez v. Lynch, 800 F.3d 1072, 1077 (9th Cir. 2015). We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 2010). We review de novo due process claims in immigration proceedings. Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review. In his opening brief, Patrao does not raise any challenge to the BIA’s determination as to his removability. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). The agency did not err in concluding that Patrao’s crime of conviction, California Penal Code (“CPC”) § 245(a)(4), is categorically a crime of violence and, thus, an aggravated felony that bars cancellation of removal and asylum. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a)(3); 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(A)(ii), (B)(i); see also United States v. Vasquez-Gonzalez, 901 F.3d 1060, 1065-68 (9th Cir. 2018) (petitioner’s offense under CPC § 245(a)(1) was a crime of violence and thus an aggravated felony); United States v. Grajeda, 581 F.3d 1186, 1192 (9th Cir. 2009) (“If the conviction 2 18-71896 is based on ‘force likely to produce great bodily injury,’ such force . . . represents ‘actual force’ that is violent in nature.”). Patrao’s contention that agency failed to consider evidence or otherwise erred in its analysis fails as unsupported by the record. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[BIA] does not have to write an exegesis on every contention” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006) (concluding petitioner did not overcome the presumption that the BIA reviewed the record). In light of this disposition, we need not reach Patrao’s challenges to the agency’s determination that his …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals