NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 25 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HECTOR JAVIER ESPINO SOLORIO, No. 18-72636 Petitioner, Agency No. A098-584-628 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted September 3, 2020 Seattle, Washington Before: HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges, and CALDWELL,** District Judge. Petitioner Hector Javier Espino Solorio petitions for review of an order by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his motion to terminate removal proceedings and his application for cancellation of removal, and denial of his motion to remand. We review factual * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Karen K. Caldwell, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Kentucky, sitting by designation. findings for substantial evidence and legal conclusions de novo. Azanor v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1013, 1018 (9th Cir. 2004). The BIA affirmed the IJ’s finding that Petitioner’s conviction for a drug offense made him removable pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i), and that his conviction did not qualify for that provision’s “personal use exception” to removability. The BIA did not err in so finding because the circumstance-specific approach applies to section 1227(a)(2)(B)(i)’s exception to removability, and the record establishes that the circumstances of Petitioner’s conviction disqualify him for the exception. See Nijhawan v. Holder, 557 U.S. 29, 33-39 (2009). Further, this Court has no jurisdiction to review the merits of the BIA’s decision to affirm the IJ’s discretionary denial of Petitioner’s application for cancellation of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Szonyi v. Whitaker, 915 F.3d 1228, 1258 (9th Cir. 2019). Finally, the BIA did not err by denying Petitioner’s motion to remand because the record establishes that Petitioner did not present previously unavailable, material evidence, as the applicable regulation requires. See Angov v. Lynch, 788 F.3d 893, 897 (9th Cir. 2015); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1). PETITION DENIED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART. 2 18-72636 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Hector Espino Solorio v. William Barr 25 September 2020 Agency Unpublished 01ef140e2f7ee85f79d4de98f7c3f118d428bd44
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals