NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED FEB 27 2023 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ALEX RANGEL MONTEJO AKE, No. 20-70294 AKA Alex Montejo-Rangel, Petitioner, Agency No. A200-823-530 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 6, 2022** San Francisco, California Before: NGUYEN and KOH, Circuit Judges, and BATAILLON*** District Judge. * 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). ** The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska, sitting by designation. 1 Alex Rangel Montejo Ake (“Petitioner”), a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”). As relevant here, the Board denied Petitioner’s motion to terminate proceedings pursuant to Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), and denied Petitioner’s motion to reconsider and remand for consideration of a cancellation of removal claim under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b).1 We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.2 We review the Board’s denial of a motion to reconsider and remand for abuse of discretion. See Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir. 2004); Movsisian v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th Cir. 2005). The Board abuses its discretion if its decision is “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.” Lopez-Galarza v. I.N.S., 99 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir. 1996) (citation omitted). The agency’s “findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). Thus, in order to reverse the Board, “we must determine that the evidence not only supports a contrary 1 Petitioner does not appeal the Board’s decision to dismiss his appeal of the Immigration Judge’s denial of withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture, nor the Board’s refusal to reopen proceedings sua sponte. 2 As Petitioner concedes, our precedent forecloses his argument that a defective notice to appear (“NTA”) deprives the immigration court of jurisdiction. See United States v. Bastide-Hernandez, 39 F.4th 1187, 1190–94 (9th Cir. 2022) (en banc); see also Aguilar Fermin v. Barr, 958 F.3d 887, 895 (9th Cir. 2020). 2 conclusion, but compels it—and also compels the further conclusion that the petitioner meets the requisite standard for obtaining relief.” Ling Huang v. Holder, 744 F.3d 1149, 1152 (9th Cir. 2014) (cleaned up). “Where, as here, the [Board] adopts the [Immigration Judge’s] decision while adding its own reasons, this court reviews both decisions.” Vahora v. Holder, 641 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir. 2011). To qualify for cancellation of removal, a person must demonstrate (1) continuous physical presence in the United States for ten years immediately prior to being served with a NTA; (2) good moral character; …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals