FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 09 2019 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROMAN BUSEV, No. 17-73118 Petitioner, Agency No. A076-035-712 v. MEMORANDUM* * WILLIAM P. BARR, ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.* On Petition for Review of a Final Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 17, 2019* * * Portland, Oregon Before: N. RANDY SMITH and PAUL J. WATFORD, Circuit Judges, and * William Barr has been substituted for his predecessor, Matthew G. Whitaker, as Attorney General under Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2). ** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. *** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. 34(a)(2). * ** * The Honorable James V. Selna, United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation. 1 JAMES V. SELNA,* * * * District Judge. Petitioner Roman Busev (“Busev”), a native and citizen of Ukraine, challenges the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) upholding a final order of removal against him. This Court has jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. The issues on appeal are limited to (1) whether the categorical approach, as outlined in Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990), applies when determining removability under Immigration and Naturalization Act (“INA”) § 237(a)(2)(E)(ii), 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(ii) (2018), and (2) whether the state trial court determined that Busev violated a portion of a protection order designed to protect against possible future domestic violence.1 After the parties briefed these issues, we held in Diaz-Quirazco v. Barr, 931 F.3d 830 (9th Cir. 2019), that the categorical approach does not apply when determining removability under INA § 237(a)(2)(E)(ii). Id. at 835; Matter of Obshatko, 27 I. & N. Dec. 173 (BIA 2017). Since that holding applies to Busev’s 1 The Immigration Judge (“IJ) denied Busev’s applications for asylum, withholding of removal, protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and cancellation of removal. The BIA affirmed the denials of the applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and cancellation of removal, and considered any issues related to his application for protection under the CAT waived. CAR 3. Busev only challenges his removability under INA § 237(a)(2)(E)(ii). He has therefore waived any other issues related to the denial of his applications. 2 case, we need only determine the second issue. Because substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that the state trial court determined that Busev violated the applicable portion of the protection order, we deny Busev’s petition for review. “When the BIA conducts its own review of the evidence and law rather than adopting the IJ’s decision, our review ‘is limited to the BIA’s decision, except to the extent that the IJ’s opinion is expressly adopted.’” Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Hosseini v. Gonzales, 471 F.3d 953, 957 (9th Cir. 2006)). “We review factual findings of the ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals