MARTINEZ v. GARLAND (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-08-20No. No. 14-73637

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court denied the petition for review in part and dismissed it in part, upholding the denial of cancellation of removal because Martinez did not establish he was not convicted of an aggravated felony, and dismissing the remainder because Martinez failed to present certain contentions to the agency.

Rafael Martinez, a Mexican citizen, sought judicial review of an immigration board decision that upheld the denial of his application to cancel a removal order. Martinez argued he was ineligible for cancellation because he had not been proven to have committed an aggravated felony, and he also challenged whether his conviction actually fell under certain California drug statutes. The court found that Martinez failed to meet his burden of proving he was not convicted of an aggravated felony, relying on Supreme Court precedent requiring clear evidence of eligibility for such relief. Additionally, the court determined it lacked authority to review Martinez's argument about the specific California statutes because he had not raised this issue before the immigration agency.

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

Key issues

Whether applicant met burden of proof to show non-conviction of aggravated felony for cancellation of removal eligibility
Whether court has jurisdiction to review claims not previously presented to the immigration agency
Sufficiency of conviction record evidence in removal proceedings

Procedural posture

Martinez petitioned for judicial review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision affirming an immigration judge's denial of his cancellation of removal application.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Rafael Martinez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judges decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Coronado v. Holder, 759 F.3d 977, 982 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The agency properly denied cancellation of removal, where Martinez failed to establish that he was not convicted of an aggravated felony. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a)(3); 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). We lack jurisdiction to consider Martinezs contention that the record does not establish that he was convicted under California Health and Safety Code Sections 11351 and 11352. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency). Thus, Martinezs cancellation of removal claim fails.

In light of this disposition, we need not reach Martinezs contention that he was lawfully admitted for permanent residence. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (the courts are not required to decide issues that are unnecessary to the results).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.