GARCIA LOPEZ v. GARLAND (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-08-24No. No. 15-72727

Summary · law.co

Holding. The petition for review was denied because Garcia-Lopez failed to meet his burden of establishing he was not convicted of a controlled substance offense, making him ineligible for cancellation of removal, and his due process claim was without merit.

Jose Garcia-Lopez, a Mexican citizen, sought review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision upholding an immigration judge's denial of his application for cancellation of removal. The central dispute involved whether Garcia-Lopez had a prior conviction for a controlled substance offense, which would make him ineligible for cancellation relief. Garcia-Lopez bore the burden of proving he did not have such a conviction, but the court found his conviction record inconclusive and therefore insufficient to satisfy his burden of proof under applicable immigration law.

Garcia-Lopez also raised a due process challenge to the agency's proceedings. The court rejected this claim, finding no error in how the agency handled his case. The opinion affirmed the BIA's dismissal of his appeal while maintaining a temporary stay on his removal pending issuance of the court's mandate.

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

Key issues

Burden of proof for demonstrating ineligibility based on prior drug conviction in cancellation of removal proceedings
Sufficiency of inconclusive conviction records to satisfy applicant's burden of proof
Due process rights in immigration removal proceedings

Procedural posture

Garcia-Lopez petitioned for review of the BIA's order affirming the immigration judge's denial of cancellation of removal.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Jose A. Garcia-Lopez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judges decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. 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. Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA properly denied cancellation of removal where Garcia-Lopez failed to meet his burden of proof to establish he was not convicted of a controlled substance offense. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II), 1229b(b)(1)(C); Pereida v. Wilkinson, ––– U.S. ––––, 141 S. Ct. 754, 763, 209 L.Ed.2d 47 (2021) (an inconclusive conviction record is insufficient to meet applicants burden of proof to show eligibility for relief); United States v. Barragan, 871 F.3d 689, 714-15 (9th Cir. 2017) (California Health & Safety Code § 11379(a) is divisible as to the controlled substance element).

Garcia-Lopezs contention that the agency violated his right to due process fails. Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim).

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

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.