NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 15 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JORGE CANDELAS-GARCIA, No. 19-71064 Petitioner, Agency No. A091-658-537 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 2, 2020** Pasadena, California Before: CALLAHAN and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges, and R. COLLINS,*** District Judge. Jose Candelas-Garcia, the petitioner, entered the United States without inspection or admission from Mexico in 1996. From that time until recently, he * 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 Raner C. Collins, United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation. did not commit any crimes and avoided deportation. A series of domestic abuse incidents several years ago, however, brought Candelas to the attention of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which sought to reinstate his prior order of removal based on his 1991 conviction for attempted robbery, in violation of California Penal Code section 211. Candelas applied for withholding of removal and withholding and deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). An immigration judge (IJ) found that Candelas was barred from withholding of removal because of his conviction of a “particularly serious crime,” but granted Candelas deferral of removal under the CAT on the ground that he would likely be tortured if he were removed to Mexico because of his numerous, gang-related tattoos. In separate decisions, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ’s denial of withholding of removal and sustained DHS’s appeal of the IJ’s grant of deferral of removal. Petitioning for review of both BIA decisions, Candelas argues that (1) the BIA abused its discretion in concluding that his crime was “particularly serious,” disqualifying him from withholding; and (2) the BIA erred in overturning the IJ’s determination that Candelas met his burden of showing a likelihood of future torture. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing the BIA’s particularly-serious-crime determination for abuse of discretion and its CAT-relief determination for substantial evidence, Arbid v. Holder, 700 F.3d 379, 383, 385-86 2 (9th Cir. 2012) (per curiam), we deny the petition.1 1. The BIA applied the correct legal standard for determining whether Candelas’s attempted robbery conviction was “particularly serious.” See Gomez- Sanchez v. Sessions, 892 F.3d 985, 991 (9th Cir. 2018) (“[A] crime is particularly serious if the nature of the conviction, the underlying facts and circumstances[,] and the sentence imposed justify the presumption that the convicted immigrant is a danger to the community.” (alterations in original) (quoting Alphonsus v. Holder, 705 F.3d 1031, 1041 (9th Cir. 2013))). In Candelas’s case, the BIA examined (1) “the nature of the crime itself (with its requirement that the taking be by force or fear)”; (2) the circumstances ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals