NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 25 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NORMA PATRICIA CORONA MORENO, No. 19-72341 Petitioner, Agency No. A205-052-428 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted May 14, 2021 San Francisco, California Before: HAWKINS and MILLER, Circuit Judges, and MORRIS,** District Judge. Norma Corona Moreno, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming the denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Brian M. Morris, United States District Judge for the District of Montana, sitting by designation. § 1252(a)(1), and we grant the petition and remand for further proceedings. 1. The government argues that Corona Moreno’s claims for withholding of removal and protection under the CAT are moot because she has been removed to Mexico. But under ICE Policy Directive 11061.1, the government ordinarily facilitates the return to the United States of aliens who are granted relief by this court or who obtain a remand that eventually results in a grant of relief by the agency. See Del Cid Marroquin v. Lynch, 823 F.3d 933, 936 (9th Cir. 2016) (per curiam). Because granting Corona Moreno’s petition would “at least increase [her] chances” of returning to the United States, her claims are not moot. Id. 2. The Board abused its discretion when it determined that Corona Moreno’s conviction for burglary, in violation of California Penal Code § 459, is a particularly serious crime rendering her ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(2)(A)(ii), 1231(b)(3)(B)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(d)(2). Although we lack jurisdiction over the ultimate determination of whether a crime is particularly serious, we retain jurisdiction to review whether the Board applied the wrong legal standard or relied on inappropriate factors or improper evidence to reach its conclusion. Flores-Vega v. Barr, 932 F.3d 878, 884 (9th Cir. 2019). Under Matter of Frentescu, 18 I. & N. Dec. 244 (B.I.A. 1982), the Board must decide “whether ‘the nature of the conviction, the underlying facts and 2 circumstances and the sentence imposed justify the presumption that the convicted immigrant is a danger to the community.’” Avendano-Hernandez v. Lynch, 800 F.3d 1072, 1077 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Delgado v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1095, 1107 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc)). The Board erred when it relied on Corona Moreno’s sentence of one year of imprisonment without considering that her sentence had been suspended so that she spent only two months in jail. See Flores-Vega, 932 F.3d at 885–86. Contrary to the Board’s determination, Corona Moreno’s criminal history confirms that her sentence was suspended, and her sworn asylum declaration states that …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals