NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 18 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT IVONNE CONTRERAS CRUZ, No. 20-71141 Petitioner, Agency No. A044-162-916 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 14, 2021** San Francisco, California Before: HAWKINS and MILLER, Circuit Judges, and MORRIS,*** District Judge. Petitioner Ivonne Contreras Cruz (“Contreras”) seeks judicial review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) decision affirming the denial of her * 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 Brian M. Morris, United States District Judge for the District of Montana, sitting by designation. application for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) .1 We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), and we deny the petition, in part, and remand, in remaining part. 1. The Board applied the proper legal standard and did not abuse its discretion when it determined that Contreras had been convicted of a particularly serious crime, thereby rendering her ineligible for withholding of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(B)(ii); Avendano-Hernandez v. Lynch, 800 F.3d 1072, 1077 (9th Cir. 2015). The law limits our review to “whether ‘the agency relied on the appropriate factors and proper evidence.’” Flores-Vega v. Barr, 932 F.3d 878, 884 (9th Cir. 2019) (quoting Avendano-Hernandez, 800 F.3d at 1077). The Board agreed with and adopted the immigration judge’s decision finding Contreras ineligible for withholding of removal and protection under the CAT. “When the [Board] adopts an [immigration judge]’s decision, but also adds its own reasoning, as occurred here, we review both decisions.” Kaur v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 734, 736 (9th Cir. 2004). On review, Contreras argues that the immigration judge failed to rely on proper evidence in its determination that 29.50 kilograms of methamphetamine did 1 Although Contreras’s original application included a request for asylum, the Board determined that Contreras’s concession regarding her aggravated felony conviction rendered her ineligible for asylum under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(B)(i). Contreras did not raise a challenge to this determination in her petition to this Court. 2 not qualify as a “very small quantity of controlled substance” under Matter of Y-L-, 23 I. & N. Dec. 270, 276 (Op. Att’y Gen. 2002). Contreras further contends that the immigration judge misapplied the correct legal standard in determining the seriousness of her drug trafficking crime by failing to consider Contreras’s mental health and whether she had demonstrated “extraordinary and compelling circumstances.” Given Contreras’s concession that her conviction for importation of methamphetamine under 21 U.S.C. §§ 952, 960 qualifies as an aggravated felony drug trafficking crime, the immigration judge correctly concluded that the Matter of Y-L- presumption applies in this case. Miguel-Miguel v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 941, 949 (9th Cir. 2007). …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals