LAW.coLAW.co

GARCIA LOPEZ v. GARLAND (2021)

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

Summary

Holding. The petition for review was denied because Garcia-Lopez failed to meet his burden of establishing that he was not convicted of a controlled substance offense, and his due process claim lacked merit.

Jose Garcia-Lopez, a Mexican citizen, sought review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision that upheld an immigration judge's denial of his application for cancellation of removal. Garcia-Lopez argued he did not have a qualifying drug conviction and that his due process rights were violated. The court examined whether Garcia-Lopez satisfied his burden of proving he was not convicted of a controlled substance offense, which is required for cancellation of removal eligibility under immigration law.

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

Key issues

  • Whether petitioner met burden of proof to show no drug conviction
  • Whether inconclusive conviction record suffices for cancellation of removal eligibility
  • Whether denial of cancellation of removal violated due process rights

Procedural posture

Garcia-Lopez petitioned for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' dismissal of his appeal from an immigration judge's denial of cancellation of removal.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion

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.