NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 13 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RUDIS O. VASQUEZ CHAVEZ, AKA No. 17-71544 Rudis Omar Vasquez Chavez, Agency No. A095-019-996 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted February 5, 2020 San Francisco, California Before: PAEZ, BEA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Rudis Vasquez Chavez (“Vasquez”) petitions for review of his final order of removal after the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) reversed the decision of the Immigration Judge (“IJ”), which had allowed Vasquez to avoid removal by adjusting his status to that of a lawful permanent resident under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, grant the petition, and remand the * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. matter to the BIA. Although we lack jurisdiction to review the discretionary decisions of the BIA to deny adjustment of status, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), we have jurisdiction to address “questions of law” pertaining to the BIA’s exercise of discretion, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). Whether the BIA accorded the factual findings of the IJ appropriate deference under the “clear error” standard and whether the BIA engaged in impermissible fact finding are legal claims we evaluate de novo. Rodriguez v. Holder, 683 F.3d 1164, 1170 (9th Cir. 2012); see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(i), (iv). After the government agreed that Vasquez was eligible for adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i), the IJ held an evidentiary hearing to determine whether to exercise his discretion to grant Vasquez’s application for adjustment of status. At the conclusion of the hearing, after receiving Vasquez’s testimony and reviewing documentary evidence, the IJ took “into account the social and humane considerations presented in [Vasquez’s] favor and balance[ed] them against the adverse factors that evidence[d] [Vasquez’s] undesirability as a permanent resident.” Then the IJ, in his discretion, granted Vasquez’s application for adjustment of status. Despite Vasquez’s history of arrests and convictions for DUIs, the IJ found that Vasquez “readily admitted his wrongdoings” and that Vasquez was “both able and willing to take the steps necessary to ensure that he 2 does not drink again and, more importantly, that he never drinks and drives again.” The IJ credited Vasquez’s testimony that this time would be different because the removal proceedings “appear[ed] to have been the incident that served as [Vasquez’s] rock bottom.” The IJ found that Vasquez’s commitment to substance abuse counseling and his family’s professed willingness to support him—both emotionally and by driving him to future counseling sessions—would assist him in “maintain[ing] his newfound sobriety.” Supporting his decision to grant adjustment of status, the IJ’s decision is best read as making the predictive, factual finding that Vasquez is unlikely to commit another DUI offense. The scope of this finding is embodied in the IJ’s statement ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals