ESTRADA GUTIERREZ v. GARLAND (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-08-26No. No. 15-73766

Summary · law.co

Holding. The petition for review is denied, and the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing the applicant's appeal is upheld.

Salomon Estrada Gutierrez, a Mexican citizen, challenged the Board of Immigration Appeals' dismissal of his appeal against an immigration judge's decision to reject his applications for cancellation of removal and voluntary departure. The central issue was whether his conviction under California Health & Safety Code section 11366.5(a) constituted a controlled substance violation that would disqualify him from relief.

The court upheld the agency's denial, finding that Estrada Gutierrez failed to establish that his conviction was not a drug-related offense. Under immigration law, a conviction for a controlled substance violation renders an applicant ineligible for cancellation of removal and prevents the applicant from demonstrating good moral character, which is required for voluntary departure. Because the conviction record did not clearly establish his eligibility, he could not meet his burden of proof.

Estrada Gutierrez also claimed the agency violated his due process rights by dismissing his applications without full consideration. The court rejected this argument, holding that to succeed on a due process claim, a petitioner must show both a rights violation and resulting prejudice, neither of which he demonstrated.

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

Key issues

Whether a conviction under California Health & Safety Code section 11366.5(a) constitutes a controlled substance violation disqualifying the applicant from cancellation of removal
Whether an inconclusive conviction record satisfies the applicant's burden to prove eligibility for relief
Whether the agency violated due process rights in denying applications for relief

Procedural posture

The applicant petitioned for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision affirming an immigration judge's denial of his applications for cancellation of removal and voluntary departure.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Salomon Estrada Gutierrez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judges decision pretermitting his applications for cancellation of removal and voluntary departure. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law and claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Padilla-Martinez v. Holder, 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.

The agency properly denied Estrada Gutierrezs applications, where Estrada Gutierrez failed to establish that his conviction under California Health & Safety Code section 11366.5(a) is not a controlled substance violation that renders him ineligible for cancellation of removal, see 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II), 1229b(b)(1)(C); Pereida v. Wilkinson, ––– U.S. ––––, 141 S. Ct. 754, 766, 209 L.Ed.2d 47 (2021) (an inconclusive conviction record is insufficient to meet applicants burden of proof to show eligibility for relief), and which precludes him from establishing good moral character for voluntary departure, see 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(f)(3), 1229c(b)(1)(B).

Estrada Gutierrezs contention that the agency violated his right to due process in pretermitting his applications for relief fails. See Padilla-Martinez, 770 F.3d at 830 (“To prevail on a due-process claim, a petitioner must demonstrate both a violation of rights and prejudice.”).

The stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.