VASQUEZ GARCIA v. GARLAND (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-03-24No. No. 19-73134

Summary · law.co

Holding. The petition for review is denied in part and dismissed in part. The agency did not abuse its discretion in determining that the petitioner's conviction constituted a particularly serious crime barring withholding of removal, and issues regarding deferral of removal, asylum termination, and procedural errors were either waived or outside the court's jurisdiction.

Rene Vasquez-Garcia, a Guatemalan citizen, challenged the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision to terminate his asylum status and deny his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. The court examined whether the agency properly determined that his California drug-trafficking conviction constituted a particularly serious crime barring him from withholding of removal.

The court found no abuse of discretion in the agency's determination that the conviction was a particularly serious crime. The court applied the appropriate standard of review, confirming that the agency used the correct legal factors in its case-specific analysis. Because the withholding of removal claim failed on its merits, Vasquez-Garcia's petition could not succeed on that basis.

The court also found that Vasquez-Garcia failed to raise challenges to the agency's denial of deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture or the termination and denial of asylum in his briefing, thereby waiving those issues. Additionally, the court lacked jurisdiction to consider allegations about procedural errors and delays because these issues were not presented to the Board of Immigration Appeals during the administrative proceedings.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether a California drug-trafficking conviction qualifies as a particularly serious crime under immigration law
Standard of review for agency determinations of crime seriousness
Waiver of claims not raised in administrative briefs
Jurisdictional limits regarding procedural allegations not presented to the BIA

Procedural posture

The petitioner sought review in the Court of Appeals of the BIA's affirmance of the immigration judge's decision terminating asylum status and denying related relief applications.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Rene Vasquez-Garcia, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming an immigration judges (“IJ”) decision terminating asylum status and denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the agencys particularly serious crime determination. Avendano-Hernandez v. Lynch, 800 F.3d 1072, 1077 (9th Cir. 2015). We review for substantial evidence the agencys factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in determining that Vasquez-Garcias conviction under Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11352(a) was a particularly serious crime that barred him from withholding of removal, where it applied the appropriate factors to weigh the seriousness of the crime in a case-specific inquiry. See Avendano-Hernandez, 800 F.3d at 1077 (“Our review is limited to ensuring that the agency relied on the appropriate factors and proper evidence to reach this conclusion.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). Thus, Vasquez-Garcias withholding of removal claim fails.

Vasquez-Garcia does not raise, and therefore waives, any challenge to the agencys denial of deferral of removal under CAT and the termination and denial of asylum. Thus, these issues are waived. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (concluding petitioner waived challenge to issue not specifically raised and argued in the opening brief).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Vasquez-Garcias contentions as to the conduct of proceedings and alleged errors and delays by the IJ, government counsel, and government agency officials because he did not raise any of these issues to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (petitioner must exhaust issues or claims in administrative proceedings below).

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate. The motion for a stay of removal (Docket Entry No. 1) is otherwise denied.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.