NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 10 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LEONARDO PEREZ-GARCIA, AKA No. 20-72706 Leonardo Garcia, AKA Leonardo Perez, AKA Leonardo Jose Perez, Agency No. A205-156-871 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 6, 2021** Pasadena, California Before: W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Leonardo Perez-Garcia (“Perez”), a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision dismissing his appeal of the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for * 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). asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). “We review de novo the BIA’s determinations on questions of law.” Diaz-Reynoso v. Barr, 968 F.3d 1070, 1076 (9th Cir. 2020). “We review for substantial evidence the BIA’s factual findings, which should be upheld unless the evidence compels a contrary result.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here. We deny the petition for review. 1. The BIA concluded that Perez’s conviction for assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury in violation of California Penal Code § 245(a)(4) was an “aggravated felony” barring him from asylum and a “particularly serious crime” barring him from withholding of removal under both the Immigration and Nationality Act and the CAT. Perez argues that the BIA erred because none of the types of documents or records that “shall constitute proof of a criminal conviction” under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(3)(B) were included in the Certified Administrative Record. He further contends that it was impermissible for the BIA to rely solely on his testimony to show the existence of his conviction and sentence. However, “all reliable information may be considered in making a particularly serious crime determination, including the conviction records and sentencing information, as well as other information outside the confines of a record of conviction,” and an 2 applicant’s “testimony is just the sort of ‘reliable information . . . outside the confines of a record of conviction.’” Anaya-Ortiz v. Holder, 594 F.3d 673, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). Based on Perez’s testimony, substantial evidence supports the existence of his conviction and sentence. While the BIA incorrectly noted that the Certified Administrative Record contained Perez’s conviction records, this mistake is harmless because there is no indication that the BIA relied upon information in those extra-record documents. 2. Other than challenging the evidence permissible to show the existence of his conviction, Perez does not dispute that the BIA properly determined that his conviction under California Penal Code § 245(a)(4) was an “aggravated felony,” making him ineligible for …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals