Andres Islas v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANDRES ISLAS,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 18-70368
Agency No. A072-543-329
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 20, 2021**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Andres Islas, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for cancellation of
removal, asylum, withholding of removal, relief under the Convention Against
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
APR 28 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 18-70368
Torture (“CAT”), and special rule cancellation of removal under § 203 of the
Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (“NACARA”). Our
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law.
Bhattarai v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 1037, 1042 (9th Cir. 2016). We review for
substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d
1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review.
The BIA correctly concluded that Islas’s robbery conviction under
California Penal Code (“CPC”) § 211 is categorically a conviction for a crime
involving moral turpitude (“CIMT”) that makes him ineligible for cancellation of
removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(C); Mendoza v. Holder, 623 F.3d 1299,
1302-04 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding robbery under CPC § 211 is a CIMT).
Because Islas was found removable due to his conviction for a CIMT, our
jurisdiction to review the agency’s particularly serious crime determination is
limited to constitutional claims and questions of law. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(a)(2)(C)-(D); Pechenkov v. Holder, 705 F.3d 444, 448-49 (9th Cir. 2012).
To the extent Islas contends that the agency misapplied the legal standard or
otherwise erred in its determination that Islas’ conviction under CPC § 211 is a
particularly serious crime, we reject his contentions where the agency considered
the appropriate factors in a case-specific inquiry. See Flores-Vega v. Barr, 932

-- 2 of 3 --

3 18-70368
F.3d 878, 884 (9th Cir. 2019) (“[W]e lack jurisdiction over the BIA’s ultimate
determination that [petitioner] committed a particularly serious crime . . . But we
retain jurisdiction to determine whether the BIA applied the correct legal
standard.” (internal citation and quotation marks omitted)); Anaya-Ortiz v. Holder,
594 F.3d 673, 679-80 (9th Cir. 2010) (concluding that the agency engaged in the
appropriate particularly serious crime analysis). To the extent Islas challenges the
agency’s weighing of factors, we lack jurisdiction to review it. See Pechenkov,
705 F.3d at 448-49. Thus, Islas’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(2)(A)(ii), 1231(b)(3)(B)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(d)(2).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of deferral of removal
under CAT because Islas failed to show it is more likely than not he would be
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to
Guatemala. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
The BIA properly determined that Islas is subject to the heightened hardship
standard under NACARA due to his conviction. See 8 C.F.R. § 1240.66(c).
As stated in the court’s April 24, 2018 order, the temporary stay of removal
remains in place until the issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --