NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 24 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RUBEN VERA-PEREZ, No. 20-73247 Petitioner, Agency No. A216-051-641 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 17, 2022** Las Vegas, Nevada Before: D.M. FISHER,*** BENNETT, and KOH, Circuit Judges. Ruben Vera-Perez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions this Court for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA’s) dismissal of his appeal of an * 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). *** The Honorable D. Michael Fisher, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, sitting by designation. Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s) denial of his application for adjustment of status. We lack jurisdiction and therefore dismiss the petition.1 Vera-Perez is potentially eligible for a statutory exception that allows adjustment of status if an alien, among other criteria, is the subject of a properly filed I-130 Petition for Alien Relative dated on or before April 30, 2001. 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i). Discretion to grant or deny a § 1255(i) petition rests with the Attorney General. Id. § 1255(i)(2) (“[T]he Attorney General may adjust the status of the alien. . . .”). We are deprived of jurisdiction to review this determination. Id. § 1252(a)(2)(B) (“[N]o court shall have jurisdiction to review . . . any judgment regarding the granting of relief under section . . . 1255.”). However, we are not precluded from “review of constitutional claims or questions of law.” Id. § 1252(a)(2)(D). Vera-Perez argues that the IJ and BIA committed legal error because they violated BIA precedent by erroneously weighing the significance of two police reports: the reports of his December 21, 2000 arrest for corporal injury of a spouse and related charges, and his May 17, 2019 arrest for driving under the influence and related charges. Neither of these arrests have resulted in a conviction. The charges stemming from the 2000 arrest were dropped. Some of the charges stemming from the 2019 arrest resulted in fines, and some remain pending. 1 The motion for temporary stay of removal is denied as moot. 2 Contrary to Vera-Perez’s arguments, the IJ and BIA were permitted to consider the arrest reports. “In determining whether an application for relief is merited as a matter of discretion, evidence of unfavorable conduct, including criminal conduct which has not culminated in a final conviction . . . , may be considered.” Matter of Thomas, 21 I. & N. Dec. 20, 20 (B.I.A. 1995). The evidence is weighed according to its strength and the facts and circumstances of the case. Id. at 20, 24. The IJ and BIA considered that the arrests bookended two DUI convictions and noted the …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals