Hector Javier ESPINO SOLORIO, Petitioner, v. William P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.
Decided: September 25, 2020
Before: HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges, and CALDWELL,* District Judge.
Nicholas W. Marchi, Carney & Marchi, PS, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Robert Dale Tennyson, Jr., Ph. D., Trial Attorney, DOJ - U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent
Petitioner Hector Javier Espino Solorio petitions for review of an order by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the Immigration Judge's (“IJ”) denial of his motion to terminate removal proceedings and his application for cancellation of removal, and denial of his motion to remand. We review factual findings for substantial evidence and legal conclusions de novo. Azanor v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1013, 1018 (9th Cir. 2004).
The BIA affirmed the IJ's finding that Petitioner's conviction for a drug offense made him removable pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i), and that his conviction did not qualify for that provision's “personal use exception” to removability. The BIA did not err in so finding because the circumstance-specific approach applies to section 1227(a)(2)(B)(i)’s exception to removability, and the record establishes that the circumstances of Petitioner's conviction disqualify him for the exception. See Nijhawan v. Holder, 557 U.S. 29, 33-39, 129 S.Ct. 2294, 174 L.Ed.2d 22 (2009).
Further, this Court has no jurisdiction to review the merits of the BIA's decision to affirm the IJ's discretionary denial of Petitioner's application for cancellation of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Szonyi v. Whitaker, 915 F.3d 1228, 1258 (9th Cir. 2019).
Finally, the BIA did not err by denying Petitioner's motion to remand because the record establishes that Petitioner did not present previously unavailable, material evidence, as the applicable regulation requires. See Angov v. Lynch, 788 F.3d 893, 897 (9th Cir. 2015); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1).
PETITION DENIED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART.
Was this helpful?
Response sent, thank you
Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.