ESPINO SOLORIO v. BARR (2020)

MEMORANDUM **

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.