NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 7 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS LUIS MANUEL QUEZADA- No. 17-71960 HERNANDEZ, AKA Luis Manuel Hernandez, AKA Luis Quezada-Hernandez, Agency No. A044-126-819 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 1, 2020** Portland, Oregon Before: BERZON, COLLINS, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges. Luis Manuel Quezada-Hernandez petitions for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the decision of the immigration judge (“IJ”) denying his applications for cancellation of removal, asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“Torture Convention”). Quezada-Hernandez challenges the BIA’s decision solely * 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)(C). on the grounds that the IJ should have inquired sua sponte into his mental competency before going forward with removal proceedings and that the BIA therefore erred in failing to grant his request to remand the matter for a mental competency hearing. We have jurisdiction pursuant to § 242 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Regarding the agency’s handling of an alien’s competency, “[w]e review for abuse of discretion whether the BIA clearly departs from its own standards” as set forth in Matter of M-A-M-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 474 (B.I.A. 2011). Mejia v. Sessions, 868 F.3d 1118, 1121 (9th Cir. 2017). We deny the petition. Under the BIA’s decision in Matter of M-A-M-, an alien is “competent to participate in immigration proceedings” when “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.” 25 I. & N. Dec. at 479. An alien is presumed competent, and, “[a]bsent indicia of mental incompetency, an Immigration Judge is under no obligation to analyze an alien’s competency.” Id. at 477. If there are indicia of incompetency, however, the IJ must make further inquiry in order to ensure that the alien is competent to proceed without additional procedural safeguards. Id. at 480–81. Here, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in holding that the record did not reflect sufficient indicia of 2 incompetency to warrant further inquiry. We and the BIA have previously recognized that an alien’s in-court behavior may raise a question as to his or her competency, such as when the alien “had difficulty following the IJ’s questions[] and many of his responses were confused and disjointed.” Mejia, 868 F.3d at 1121–22; see also Matter of J-R-R-A-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 609, 610 (B.I.A. 2015) (further inquiry into competency was required where an alien “was confused and frequently provided nonresponsive ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals