NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 5 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RONALD VEER SINGH, AKA Ronald V. No. 19-72242 Singh, Agency No. A070-148-397 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted February 10, 2021 San Francisco, California Before: WARDLAW and GOULD, Circuit Judges, and CAIN,** District Judge. Ronald Singh (“Singh”), a native and citizen of Fiji, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal from the decision of the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) (collectively the “Agency”), * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable James David Cain, Jr., United States District Judge for the Western District of Louisiana, sitting by designation. denying his applications for adjustment of status, a waiver of inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1159(c), asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We dismiss the petition with respect to Singh’s application for adjustment of status and deny the petition with respect to Singh’s application for deferral of removal under the CAT. 1. Singh contends that the Agency erred in denying his application for an adjustment of status. Grounds for inadmissibility, including convictions for crimes involving moral turpitude and multiple criminal convictions, may be waived “for humanitarian purposes, to assure family unity, or when it is otherwise in the public interest.” 8 U.S.C. § 1159(c). We lack jurisdiction to review the Agency’s discretionary decision whether to grant or deny a waiver of inadmissibility. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C). We retain jurisdiction to review only questions of law and constitutional challenges. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D); see also Anaya-Ortiz v. Holder, 594 F.3d 673, 676 (9th Cir. 2010). Singh claims to raise both legal and constitutional challenges concerning the exercise of that discretion. Because Singh does not raise a colorable constitutional claim or question of law, but rather asks us to re-weigh the equities involved in the Agency’s decision, we lack jurisdiction over these challenges. See Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 979–80 (9th Cir. 2009). Singh first contends that the Agency committed legal error when it did not 2 consider country conditions evidence and public interest factors with respect to his application for a waiver of inadmissibility. But the IJ stated that she “reviewed all evidence and weighed all factors regarding humanitarian and hardship factors, as they pertain both to [Singh] and his family members.” Furthermore, in the IJ’s analysis of the CAT claim, she reviewed the country conditions evidence at length. See Almaghzar v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 915, 922 (9th Cir. 2006) (“Because there is no evidence that the IJ failed to consider [the petitioner]’s documentary evidence, we accept the IJ’s general statement that he considered all the evidence before him.”). Contrary to Singh’s contentions, he does not establish that the Agency …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals