NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 31 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JULIO BALVANEDA RADDATZ, AKA No. 19-72800 Julio Balvaneda, AKA Julio Raddatz, AKA Julio Raddatz Balvaneda, Agency No. A044-344-876 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 30, 2021** Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges Julio Balvaneda Raddatz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to remand and dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision * 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). denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), cancellation of removal, and waivers under INA § 212(c) and § 212(h). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion whether the agency clearly departs from its own standards. Mejia v. Sessions, 868 F.3d 1118, 1121 (9th Cir. 2017). We review de novo questions of law, including claims of due process violations. Padilla- Martinez v. Holder, 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 2014). We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to remand. Romero-Ruiz v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. The agency did not abuse its discretion in determining Balvaneda Raddatz was mentally competent to be in proceedings, where he was able to fully participate in his proceedings, gave no indication he did not understand the nature and purpose of the proceedings, and put forth several legal arguments. See Calderon-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 878 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2018) (“[T]he test for determining whether an alien is competent to participate in immigration proceedings is whether he or she has a rational and factual understanding of the nature and object of the proceedings, can consult with the attorney or representative if there is one, and has a reasonable opportunity to examine and present evidence and cross-examine witnesses.” (quoting Matter of M-A-M-, 25 I. 2 19-72800 & N. Dec. 474, 479 (BIA 2011)). Balvaneda Raddatz’s conviction for assault with a deadly weapon under California Penal Code (“CPC”) § 245(a)(1) is an aggravated felony. See United States v. Vasquez-Gonzalez, 901 F.3d 1060, 1068 (9th Cir. 2018) (determining a prior version of CPC § 245(a)(1), which penalized more conduct than the amended version, is categorically an aggravated felony crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 16(a)). Thus, the agency properly determined Balvaneda Raddatz is removable and ineligible for cancellation of removal and asylum. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii); 1229b(a)(3); 1158(b)(2)(A)(ii), (B)(i). Because Balvaneda Raddatz is removable for an aggravated felony …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals