United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 19-1944 ___________________________ Agustin Gurrola Rojas lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner v. Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General of the United States lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent ____________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ____________ Submitted: January 13, 2021 Filed: May 27, 2021 ____________ Before SMITH, Chief Judge, KELLY and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. ____________ KELLY, Circuit Judge. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), a noncitizen is inadmissible to the United States if “the Attorney General knows or has reason to believe” that the noncitizen is or has been either “an illicit trafficker in any controlled substance,” or “a knowing aider, abettor, assister, conspirator, or colluder with others” in such trafficking. 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(C)(i). Mexican citizen Agustin Gurrola Rojas petitions this court for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) finding him inadmissible under § 1182(a)(2)(C). We dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction. Id. § 1252(a)(2)(C). I. Rojas has lived in the United States since 1997, when he entered the country without inspection. On January 17, 2018, he was arrested for drug trafficking in Des Moines, Iowa, along with his nephew, Paulino Delgado, and a friend, Jose Gutierrez Rodriguez. Rojas was subsequently charged in the Southern District of Iowa with possession of methamphetamine with the intent to distribute, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(viii), and with conspiracy to deliver methamphetamine, id. § 846. These charges were ultimately dismissed in June 2018. That same month, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against Rojas, charging him with being present in the United States without having been admitted or paroled, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i), and with being an illicit trafficker in a controlled substance, or aiding and abetting such trafficking, id. § 1182(a)(2)(C). Although Rojas conceded removability under § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i), he denied the § 1182(a)(2)(C) charge and applied for cancellation of removal and adjustment of status, id. § 1229b(b), and, alternatively, for voluntary departure, id. § 1229c. At his merits hearing before the Immigration Judge (IJ), Rojas testified that he was with Delgado and Rodriguez near his home in Anaheim, California, on January 16, 2018—the day before the arrest—when Delgado invited them on a trip to Las Vegas, approximately four hours away. Rojas and Rodriguez accepted, thinking they would return the next day. According to Rojas, though, he fell asleep in the car and did not realize until much later that Delgado had driven past Las Vegas. Rojas testified that at one point he asked Delgado where they were going, and Delgado responded that they were delivering drugs to Iowa. But Delgado was apparently laughing when he said this, so Rojas did not believe him. Rojas also testified that he overheard Delgado talking about how they would get $30,000 or $45,000 for the trip, -2- but Rojas did not fully understand him because he was speaking in English. Rojas said he was afraid to inquire further because, if Delgado was in fact trafficking drugs, Rojas did not want to …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals