FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT March 23, 2021 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court VICTOR ZARATE-ALVAREZ, Petitioner, No. 19-9570 v. (Petition for Review) MERRICK B. GARLAND,* United States Attorney General, Respondent. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT† _________________________________ Before HARTZ, SEYMOUR, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Victor Zarate-Alvarez, a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. Exercising jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), we deny the petition. * Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2) Merrick B. Garland is substituted for William P. Barr, former Attorney General, as a respondent in this matter. † After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). Accordingly, this court entered an order on March 11, 2021, submitting the case without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1 Background Zarate pleaded guilty to knowing or reckless child abuse in violation of Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-6-401(1)(a), (7)(b)(I). Several years later, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings, charging him with removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) because he was present without having been admitted or paroled. Zarate conceded removability and filed an application for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b). After a hearing, an Immigration Judge (IJ) denied the application, concluding that Zarate is ineligible for cancellation under § 1229b(b)(l)(C) because his state child abuse conviction constitutes “a crime of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment” within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i). The BIA agreed with the IJ’s determination and dismissed Zarate’s appeal. Discussion Zarate challenges the Board’s decision on two grounds. First, he argues that the BIA’s most recent interpretations of § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i) are not entitled to deference. Second, he argues that his state conviction is not a categorical match to a “crime of child abuse” as defined by the Board. We reject both arguments. 1. Jurisdiction and Standard of Review We do not have jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary determinations under § 1229b regarding applications for cancellation of removal, § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), but we do have jurisdiction to review questions of law arising in removal 2 proceedings, § 1252(a)(2)(D); see also Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1062, 1067 (2020) (interpreting § 1252(a)(2)(D) to allow review of “application of a legal standard to undisputed or established facts”); Shepherd v. Holder, 678 F.3d 1171, 1179 (10th Cir. 2012) (holding that § 1252(a)(2)(D) allows review of issues of statutory construction). We review de novo the BIA’s conclusions on questions of …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals