NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 24 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT REYNALDO MANUEL, No. 22-601 Agency No. Petitioner, A097-228-773 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 20, 2023** San Francisco, California Before: SILER, WARDLAW, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.*** Petitioner Reynaldo Manuel, a citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order dismissing his appeal of the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his applications for adjustment of status and cancellation of removal. Because the parties are familiar with the * 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). *** The Honorable Eugene E. Siler, United States Circuit Judge for the Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation. facts, we do not recount them here except as necessary to provide context. We lack jurisdiction to review “any judgment regarding the granting of” discretionary immigration relief, including cancellation of removal and adjustment of status. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); see also Patel v. Garland, 142 S. Ct. 1614, 1622 (2022) (holding that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) strips courts of jurisdiction over “any judgment relating to the granting of relief[, which] plainly includes factual findings.”). Because the BIA denied Petitioner’s applications as a matter of discretion, we have jurisdiction over his petition only to the extent it raises colorable constitutional and legal claims. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). 1. We lack jurisdiction to consider the petitioner’s factual challenges to the agency’s adverse credibility finding. See Patel, 142 S. Ct. at 1622; Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 789 (9th Cir. 2014) (noting that “adverse credibility determinations” are “factual findings”). Manuel disputes the agency’s evaluation of testimony regarding his prior relationships and criminal history, suggesting that the IJ’s “faulty factual findings . . . led to a flawed balancing of the equities” culminating in a legally erroneous adverse credibility finding. However, each of the petitioner’s challenges concern the IJ’s weighing of certain facts. We lack jurisdiction to consider such challenges. 2. Petitioner contends that the IJ committed legal error by admitting the police report related to his 2011 arrest, which resulted in his convictions for 2 22-601 domestic battery and exhibiting a deadly weapon,1 and relying on the report in the IJ’s balancing of favorable and unfavorable factors. However, IJs may consider “any reliable and probative evidence regarding [an applicant’s] actual conduct . . . to determine the factual circumstances underlying his conviction” and, consequently, whether a favorable exercise of discretion is warranted. Matter of D-A-C-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 575, 580 (BIA 2019) (citing In Re Mendez- Moralez, 21 I. & N. Dec. 296, 303 n.1 (BIA 1996)); see also Torres-Valdivias v. Lynch, 786 F.3d 1147, 1152 …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals