T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yf i nds thi s c a s e s ui t abl e f

orde c i s i on w i thout ** o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). I H / R es ear ch NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON

UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T E VIN A L E J AN DR O A B R E GO HERNAN DEZ, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 07- 73916 A ge nc yN o. A 043- 735- 121 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o a r do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d N ove m be r17, 2009 ** B e f o r e : A L A R C Ó N , T R O T T , an dT A S H I M A , C ir c u it Ju d g e s . E vi n A l ej andro A brego-H ernand ez , a nat i ve and ci t i ze n o f E l S al vado r, p e titio n s f

o rr e v ie w o f

th e B o a r do f

I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls ’ o r d e rd is m is s in g h is appe a l f r om a n i m m i gr a t i on j udge ’ s de c i s i on de ny i ng hi s appl i c a t i ons f or 

# FI LED DE C 08 2009 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSI H / Res ea r ch 07- 73916 2 c a nc e l l a t i on of

r e m ova l , a s y l um , w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l , a nd pr ot e c t i on unde rthe Co n v e n t i o n A g a i n s tTo rtu r e ( “ CA T” ) . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r8 U . S. C. § 1 2 5 2 . W e r e v ie w f

o rs ub s tan tia l e v id e n c e th e a g e n c y ’s f a c tu a l f in d in g s , Zehat

ye v. G on zales , 453 F . 3d 1182, 1184- 85 ( 9th C i r . 2006) , a nd r e vi e w de novo que s t i ons o f law , H usye v v . Mukasey , 528 F . 3d 1172, 1177 ( 9th C i r . 2008) . W e de nythe p e titio n f o rr e v ie w . T he tr a ns c r i ptof

the pl e ac ol l oquyi n the r e c or d e s t abl i s he s tha tA br e goH e rn a n d e z p le d“n o c o n te s t” to th e C a lif o rn iao f f e n s e o f b e in g af

e lo n in po ss es si on of a f

i re arm . T he agency a cc ordi ng l y di d n oterr i n con clud i ng that A br e go- H e rna nde z ’ s c onvi c t i on f orvi ol a t i ng C a l i f

orni aP e na l C ode § 12021( a ) ( 1) w as for an o ff

ense “ desc ribed i n” 18 U . S . C . § 9 22 (g)( 1) and there fore an a g g r a v a te df

e lo n yu n d e r8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 3 ) ( E ) ( ii) . Se e Un i te d Sta tes v . De Jesu s Ca st i l lo -R i vera , 2 4 4 F .3 d1 0 2 0 , 1 0 2 3 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) ; see a l so 8 U . S. C. § 1 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 8 ) ( A ) ( ap le ao f n o lo c o n te n d r e r e s u ltin g in s o m e f o rm o f p u n is h m e n t is ac o n v ic tio n f

o rim m ig r a tio n p u rp o s e s ) . W e r e j e c tA br e go- H e rna nde z ’ s c ont e nt i ons r e gar di ng hi s a l l e ge dl yde f e c t i ve c r im in a l c o n v ic tio n s , a s w e c a n n o t c o lla te r a llyr e e x a m in e th e s e c o n v ic tio n s h e r e . Se e O r teg a de Ro b les v . I NS , 58 F . 3d 13 55 , 13 58 (9th C i r. 19 95 ).I H / Res ea r ch 07- 73916 3 S ub st ant i alevi dence s up po rt s the agency’ s deni alof w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al o n th e g r o u n dth a t A b r e g o - H e rn an d e z f a ile dto e s tab lis h an e x u s to as ta tu to r ily p r o te c te dg r o u n d . See A rteaga v. Mukasey , 5 1 1 F .3 d9 4 0 , 9 4 6 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) ; L im v . I NS , 2 2 4 F .3 d9 2 9 , 9 3 8 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) . F i nal l y, subst ant i alevi dence s up po rt s the agency’ s deni alof C A T re l i ef be c aus e A br e go- H e rna nde z di d note s t abl i s h al i ke l i hood of t ortur e by , a tthe in s tig a tio n o f

, o rw ith th e c o n s e n t o ra c q u ie s c e n c e o f th e S a lv a d o r an g o v e rn m e n t. Se e A r te aga , 511 F . 3d a t948- 49. P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.