NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 12 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GUILLERMO ANTONIO GRIMALDY No. 17-71069 IRAHETA, Agency No. A044-020-955 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 14, 2020** Pasadena, California Before: GOULD and LEE, Circuit Judges, and KORMAN,*** 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 Edward R. Korman, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation. Guillermo Grimaldy Iraheta (“Grimaldi”)1, a citizen of El Salvador, has filed a Petition for Review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying of waivers of inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(h) and (i). After a hearing, the IJ found Grimaldi removable and ineligible for waivers of inadmissibility for purposes of adjustment of status, and denied his objections to the admissibility of a transcript of his victim’s testimony from his 1982 conviction and to the probation officer’s report concerning that conviction. Grimaldi appealed, and the BIA affirmed the IJ. This appeal presented by Petition for Review followed. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 as to Grimaldi’s objections to the admissibility of the transcript and probation report, and deny as to this part of the Petition. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), we lack jurisdiction to review the IJ’s rejection of Grimaldi’s requested 212(h) waiver, and so we dismiss as to this part of the Petition. When the BIA conducts its own review of the evidence and law, rather than adopting the IJ’s decision, we review decisions of the BIA except to the extent that the IJ’s opinion is expressly adopted. See Bingxu Jin v. Holder, 748 F.3d 959, 964 1 As noted by Appellant, it appears that the BIA incorrectly transcribed Mr. Grimaldi’s last name as “Grimaldy” in its March 20, 2017 Decision. C.A.R. 3 (Board Decision), 58 (IJ Decision, spelling his name as “Grimaldi”). For this reason, this memorandum disposition will use the correct spelling “Grimaldi,” rather than the wrongly transcribed “Grimaldy.” 2 (9th Cir. 2014). The BIA’s decision may only be upheld under the reasoning actually relied on by the BIA. See Andia v. Ashcroft, 359 F.3d 1181, 1184 (9th Cir. 2004). The Immigration and Nationality Act generally bars us from exercising jurisdiction over discretionary decisions of the immigration authorities, including whether an applicant for adjustment of status merits a waiver of inadmissibility under section 212(h), and whether an offense is a “violent or dangerous crime,” triggering the heightened hardship standard set forth in 8 C.F.R. § 1212.7(d). But we retain jurisdiction to review any colorable legal question or constitutional claims, which are reviewed de novo. Mejia v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 991, 998 ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals