NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 29 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARIO ROLANDO RODAS, No. 17-70311 Petitioner, Agency No. A070-780-893 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted February 13, 2020 Pasadena, California Before: SCHROEDER, BYBEE, and COLLINS, Circuit Judges. Mario Rolando Rodas (“Rodas”), a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the decision of the immigration judge (“IJ”) denying his request for “special rule cancellation of removal” under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (“NACARA”), Pub. L. No. 105-100, title II, 111 Stat. 2193 (1997), and ordering him removed. The BIA concluded that Rodas was * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. subject to the “persecutor bar,” a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) that bars certain types of relief for aliens who have “ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of an individual because of the individual’s race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(B)(i); see also Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (“IIRIRA”) § 309(f)(1)(B)(ii), as added by NACARA § 203(b), 111 Stat. at 2198, 8 U.S.C. § 1101 note (applying the persecutor bar to NACARA’s special rule cancellation of removal).1 We have jurisdiction under § 242 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the BIA’s legal conclusions de novo, and we review the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence. Arrey v. Barr, 916 F.3d 1149, 1157 (9th Cir. 2019). The BIA upheld the IJ’s application of the persecutor bar based on actions taken by Rodas while he was a member of Guatemala’s Treasury Guard during the country’s civil war in the 1980s. Specifically, the BIA stated that Rodas had policed anti-government political protests, where he “arrest[ed] some of the 1 NACARA’s special rule allows specified aliens to obtain cancellation of removal “under section 240A” of the INA under criteria that differ in certain respects from those that would normally apply under that section. See IIRIRA § 309(f)(1). However, NACARA explicitly incorporates the very same persecutor bar that ordinarily applies to any application for cancellation of removal under INA § 240A. See INA § 240A(c)(5), 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(c)(5) (an alien “who is described in section 1231(b)(3)(B)(i) of this title” is ineligible for cancellation of removal under § 240A). 2 protesters and turn[ed] them over to the authorities.” The BIA concluded that the record supported the view that, while Rodas did “not know what happened to any of the individuals he arrested at the protests, . . . he knew that some of the individuals arrested were beaten and killed after being turned over to the authorities.” On that basis, the BIA held that, ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals