MAYAN v. ATTORNEY GENERAL (2021)

Sohail Mayan has petitioned for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision denying his application for cancellation of removal from the United States and ordering removal. The BIA concluded that Mayan failed to prove he had not been convicted of an “aggravated felony,” 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), because the record of his Florida marijuana conviction was inconclusive as to whether the crime he committed was such a felony. Thus, the BIA found him ineligible for cancellation of removal. Id. § 1229b(b)(1)(C). Mayan petitioned this Court for review, arguing that in the face of such ambiguity the BIA should have presumed his conviction was for the least of the acts the Florida statute criminalized, a determination that would have made him eligible for the relief he sought.

After we ordered that the case be orally argued, the United States Supreme Court held that a petitioner in Mayan's shoes—whose record of conviction is ambiguous as to whether the conviction was for an aggravated felony—has failed to meet his burden of proof to demonstrate he is eligible for cancellation of removal. See Pereida v. Wilkinson, ––– U.S. ––––, 141 S. Ct. 754, ––– L.Ed.2d –––– (2021). Because Pereida controls the outcome of this case, we deny Mayan's petition.

PETITION DENIED.

PER CURIAM: