NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 16 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PHILIP CHI YAN MAN, No. 13-70840 16-70732 Petitioner, 17-70054 v. Agency No. A075-538-479 WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM* Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted March 15, 2019 San Francisco, California Before: WALLACE, SILER,** and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges. In this consolidated action, Philip Man petitions for review of three orders issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”). One order dismissed Man’s appeal of an immigration judge’s denial of his application for adjustment of status under § 245(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Eugene E. Siler, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation. § 1255(a). Two orders denied Man’s requests to reopen his removal proceedings so that he could seek a waiver of inadmissibility to obtain a U visa. We deny all three petitions. Man acknowledges that his direct appeal is controlled by Roman-Suaste v. Holder, 766 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2014). There, we held that convictions under California Health and Safety Code (“CHSC”) § 11359 categorically constitute drug trafficking aggravated felonies under the INA. Id. at 1037. Man’s conviction under CHSC § 11359, therefore, rendered him inadmissible, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II), and ineligible for adjustment of status, 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a). We deny Man’s petition appealing the denial of his application for adjustment of status. We review the Board’s denials of Man’s motions to reopen for abuse of discretion and consider whether they were “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.” Go v. Holder, 744 F.3d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Man argues the Board erred under this standard because it erroneously concluded that an immigration judge lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate Man’s request for a U visa waiver if his case was reopened. This case thus turns on the following question: In removal proceedings commenced against a non- citizen after the non-citizen has already entered the country, can an immigration judge grant the non-citizen a U visa waiver of inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 2 1182(d)(3)(A)(ii)? In Matter of Khan, the Board told us the answer to that question was no. 26 I & N Dec. 797, 802-03 (BIA 2016) (holding that “the regulations do not give Immigration Judges authority to grant a waiver of inadmissibility under section 212(d)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act to a petitioner for U nonimmigrant status who is in the United States”). That decision rests on the Board’s interpretation of provisions in the INA, and is entitled to deference if the provisions are ambiguous and the holding is reasonable. Negusie v. Holder, 555 U.S. 511, 516 (2009). Here, ambiguity reigns: Congress has not explained how to reconcile its grant ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals