NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 20 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSE EDUARDO ESQUIVEL-MATEO, No. 16-73952 Petitioner, Agency No. A200-686-403 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted August 15, 2018** Before: FARRIS, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Jose Eduardo Esquivel-Mateo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision finding him inadmissible and denying his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We * 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). review for substantial evidence the agency’s “reason to believe” determination and we review de novo questions of law. Chavez-Reyes v. Holder, 741 F.3d 1, 3 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that there was “reason to believe” Esquivel-Mateo had knowingly assisted in drug trafficking, where the declaration of probable cause formed the factual basis for Esquivel- Mateo’s plea and reflects his involvement in the purchase of controlled narcotics, during which multiple suspects were arrested and 518.5 grams of cocaine and 523.6 grams of methamphetamine were seized. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(C)(i) (providing that an individual is inadmissible if there is “reason to believe” that he has knowingly assisted in the illicit trafficking of a controlled substance); Chavez- Reyes, 741 F.3d at 2-3; Suazo Perez v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1222, 1226-27 (9th Cir. 2008) (an immigration judge may rely upon a statement of probable cause supplied by the prosecution to establish a factual basis for the plea). Accordingly, the agency did not err in finding Esquivel-Mateo inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(C)(i). Nor did it err in finding him ineligible for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(f)(3), 1229b(b)(1)(A). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 16-73952 16-73952 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Jose Esquivel-Mateo v. Jefferson Sessions, III 20 August 2018 Agency Unpublished efe88c138c4b0cd99284512d2eddc72f017e838b
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals