FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 15 2021 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RICARDO ROBERTO GONZALEZ No. 18-72250 CAMACENA, Agency No. A090-780-522 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 16, 2021** San Francisco, California Before: BERZON, MURGUIA, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. Ricardo Gonzalez Camacena, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision dismissing his appeal from an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) order denying withholding of removal pursuant to 8 * 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). U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) and withholding and deferral of removal pursuant to the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), and we dismiss the petition in part, and deny it part.1 1. The IJ determined as a matter of discretion that Camacena’s conviction for conspiracy to commit alien smuggling in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(v)(I) was a particularly serious crime, id. § 1231(b)(3)(B). An alien is ineligible for statutory withholding of removal if “the alien, having been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime is a danger to the community of the United States.” Id. § 1231(b)(3)(B)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(d)(2) (ineligibility for withholding of removal pursuant to CAT). But the IJ also determined that Camacena’s conviction was an aggravated felony and Camacena does not challenge that ruling. Pursuant to 8 § 1252(a)(2)(C), “no court shall have jurisdiction to review any final order of removal against an alien who is removable by reason of having committed [among other crimes, an aggravated felony].” There are two exceptions to the jurisdiction- stripping provision of § 1252(a)(2)(C). First, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), we retain jurisdiction to review questions of law and 1 The parties are familiar with the facts, so we recite only those necessary to decide the petition. 2 constitutional challenges. Second, we have jurisdiction if the immigration court denied relief on the merits of the claim to withholding. See Lemus-Galvan v. Mukasey, 518 F.3d 1081, 1083 (9th Cir. 2008), overruled on other grounds, Maldonado v. Lynch, 786 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir. 2015). The second exception is not implicated by the BIA’s ruling and Camacena does not contend the IJ’s determination implicates “a constitutional or legal question,” Pechenkov v. Holder, 705 F.3d 444, 448–49 (9th Cir. 2012); he merely invites us to “reweigh evidence to determine if the crime was indeed particularly serious,” which we lack jurisdiction to do. Blandino-Medina v. Holder, 712 F.3d 1338, 1343 (9th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted). 2. Camacena may still seek deferral of removal under CAT. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(d)(2). The BIA concluded Camacena failed to show it was more likely than not …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals