FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KWANG HYEN PARK, No. 21-70623 Petitioner, Agency No. A089-695-765 v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney OPINION General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted December 6, 2022 Pasadena, California Filed June 29, 2023 Before: Ryan D. Nelson, Bridget S. Bade, and Danielle J. Forrest, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge Forrest 2 PARK V. GARLAND SUMMARY * Immigration Denying Kwang Park’s petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, the panel held that the BIA applied the proper legal standard in denying withholding of removal and that the BIA properly denied relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Park pleaded guilty to 13 drug-related charges, including possession of cocaine for sale under California Health and Safety Code § 11351. In removal proceedings, the agency found Park removable for having committed a drug- trafficking aggravated felony and for having committed a controlled-substance offense. Applying the presumption established in Matter of Y-L-, 23 I. & N. Dec. 270 (A.G. 2002)—that drug-trafficking offenses are particularly serious crimes—the agency concluded that Park’s § 11351 conviction was a particularly serious crime that barred withholding. The agency also denied CAT relief. Addressing Park’s contention that the agency applied the wrong standard to its particularly-serious-crime determination, the panel explained that, in Matter of Y-L-, the Attorney General instructed that aggravated felonies involving illicit drug trafficking are presumptively particularly serious crimes and that this presumption may be overcome only in the most extenuating circumstances that are both extraordinary and compelling. The panel noted that the BIA’s particularly-serious-crime analysis here was * This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. PARK V. GARLAND 3 cursory, but concluded that the BIA applied Matter of Y-L- ’s presumption and that the BIA’s decision was supported by adequate reasoning. Observing that neither the IJ nor the BIA recited the Matter of Y-L- criteria, the panel explained that they are not required to do so. The panel also noted that the BIA considered facts not directly referenced in Matter of Y-L-’s minimum factors, but explained that those criteria were not exhaustive. The panel further concluded that, even if it had found that the BIA erred by considering facts not expressly incorporated into Matter of Y-L-’s minimum standard, it would still deny Park’s petition because it was a legal certainty that Park could not satisfy Matter of Y-L-’s minimum criteria. Thus, the panel concluded that this was one of those narrow circumstances where remand was unwarranted because the law dictates the outcome that the agency must reach. As to CAT relief, Park alleged that the BIA committed multiple errors in denying such relief. First, Park argued that the BIA exceeded its regulatory authority by impermissibly engaging in predictive fact-finding. This argument was premised on the IJ’s misstatement that Park had not shown that he would …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals