NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 24 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT QUAN BIN JIN, No. 13-70415 Petitioner, Agency No. A087-957-040 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 11, 2018** Honolulu, Hawaii Before: WARDLAW, BERZON, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges. Quan Bin Jin petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision dismissing his appeal from an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) order finding him removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I). * 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). We agree with the BIA that Jin is removable under § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I). Jin offers several arguments for why he is not, but Minto v. Sessions, 854 F.3d 619, 623–26 (9th Cir. 2017) squarely forecloses those arguments. We reject Jin’s remaining arguments. First, Jin argues that the IJ and BIA erred in assigning the burden of proof to him, rather than to the government. Because he is an imputed applicant for admission, however, Jin indeed bears the burden of proof. See id. at 624–25 (quoting 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229a(c)(2)(A)–(B)). Second, Jin argues that the single-member BIA decision violated his due process rights because some issues presented by his case were novel and thus inappropriate for streamlining. The BIA reviewed Jin’s appeal before Minto was decided, and so these issues may have been novel at the time. But even assuming streamlining was inappropriate when it occurred, remand would be futile in light of Minto, which now forecloses Jin’s arguments. See 854 F.3d at 623–26. Finally, because our review is limited to the grounds upon which the BIA relied, we decline to reach the issue of whether Jin is removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i).1 See Andia v. Ashcroft, 359 F.3d 1181, 1184 (9th Cir. 2004). DENIED. 1 Neither the IJ nor the BIA reached this issue. We nonetheless note—as the BIA did—that the administrative record is “devoid” of any evidence that Jin was lawfully present in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands on November 28, 2009 for purposes of Jin’s removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). See 48 U.S.C. § 1806(a)(1)(A). 2 13-70415 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Quan Jin v. Jefferson Sessions, III 24 October 2018 Agency Unpublished fdda98822b98e3fc733f81bb413b4d5a286b8c71
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals