NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 21 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SALVADOR CHAVEZ-GONZALEZ, No. 19-71654 AKA Salvador Chavez Salvador, AKA Salvador Gonzalez Chavez, Agency No. A209-406-617 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 13, 2020** San Francisco, California Before: McKEOWN and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges, and WHALEY,*** District Judge. Salvador Chavez-Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for * 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 Robert H. Whaley, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Washington, sitting by designation. review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the denial by an immigration judge (“IJ”) of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) and his motion for a continuance of his merits hearing to pursue adjustment of status. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition for review. 1. We do not disturb the agency’s determination that Chavez-Gonzalez is ineligible for asylum or withholding of removal. The IJ concluded that Chavez- Gonzalez’s asylum application was time-barred, and the BIA affirmed that conclusion—noting that he had failed to challenge it on appeal. In his petition for review to this court, Chavez-Gonzalez again fails to challenge the application of the time bar to his asylum claim. The IJ also found, and the BIA affirmed, that Chavez-Gonzalez’s conviction for accessory after the fact to murder under California Penal Code (“CPC”) § 32 constituted a particularly serious crime rendering him ineligible for withholding of removal. See Delgado v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1095, 1101–07 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc). Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Konou v. Holder, 750 F.3d 1120, 1127 (9th Cir. 2014), we uphold the agency’s particularly-serious-crime finding. The IJ and the BIA properly considered “the nature of the conviction, the underlying facts and circumstances and the sentence imposed,” Delgado, 648 F.3d at 1107, and reasonably interpreted the record to find that the offense was so grave 2 and his actions so reprehensible as to constitute a particularly serious crime. As the IJ summarized, “[t]he bottom line is that three people were shot in cold blood, while the respondent did nothing but help the murderer escape justice,” and “[t]hat is a particularly serious crime.” Although Chavez-Gonzalez advances a more innocuous reading of the record, the agency was not required to accept his proffered narrative. 2. Reviewing for substantial evidence, Owino v. Holder, 771 F.3d 527, 531 (9th Cir. 2014), we conclude that the BIA did not err in denying Chavez-Gonzalez CAT protection. On substantial evidence review, “[e]ven if we might have reached a conclusion different from that reached by ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals