NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 6 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARTIN CRUZ-BRIONES, No. 16-70610 Petitioner, Agency No. A200-673-890 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 19, 2022** Seattle, Washington Before: WARDLAW, GOULD, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges. Petitioner Martin Cruz-Briones, a native and citizen of Mexico, challenges the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, cancellation of removal, administrative closure, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction * 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). under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition in part and dismiss it in part. Petitioner entered the United States without permission in 1991 and 1994. Petitioner was arrested in April 2011 as an “Alien in Possession of a Firearm,” and removal proceedings against him began in the same month. The Immigration Judge (“IJ”) found that Petitioner’s asylum application was time-barred because “he became fearful of a possible return to Mexico after he was apprehended by Immigration in [April] 2011” but “did not file . . . for asylum until August 9, 2012.” The IJ denied Petitioner’s request for administrative closure, citing “extreme[] hesita[tion]” to review decisions of the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) “in terms of prosecutorial discretion” and finding that Petitioner had failed to show “good moral character as required for a grant of cancellation of removal.” The IJ noted that Petitioner had been convicted of drunk driving and falsely indicated in his tax returns that he was married to the mother of his children, thus causing fraudulent returns to be filed. The IJ held that Petitioner failed to show “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to a qualifying relative. The IJ noted that Petitioner’s “family receives food stamps and free medical care for the children” and two of the children in school did not perform badly. Although the IJ acknowledged that the mother of Petitioner’s children “has been diagnosed with . . . [an] abnormality in her breast,” the IJ also noted the condition was “simply being monitored by medical professionals” according to Petitioner. The IJ also found Petitioner’s case to be comparable to other 2 petitioners who had been denied relief. The IJ also found that Petitioner did not show past persecution because, although his father was murdered in 1991 in Mexico, Petitioner had “no information as to just who did this or why it was done.” Petitioner also stated that he came to the United States “[t]o look for a better life,” “as opposed to . . . some fear that if he did not leave [Mexico], he might be at risk.” Although one of Petitioner’s sisters was …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals