N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
M UHAM M A D FAISAL ASHFAQUE,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. W ILLIAM P. B ARR , Attorne y Ge ne ra l; e t a l., De fe nda

n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 18-56084 D.C . No. 2:16-c v-09059-PSG-SS
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Philip S. Gutierre z , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d an d Subm itte d Nove m be r 5, 2019 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : FAR

R IS, M c KEOW

N, a nd PAR KER , ** C irc u it Judge s. Pe titione r Ashfa que sought la wful pe rm ane nt re side nc y unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1159(b). His re que st for a djustm e nt of sta tus wa s de nie d. Ashfa que sought re vie w in fe de ra l c ourt. The Distric t C ourt dismisse d his c la im for la c k of jurisdic tion. 

# FIL ED DEC 05 2019 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble B arrington D. Pa

rke r, Jr., Unite d State s C irc u i t Judge for the U.S. C ourt of Appe a ls for the Se c ond C i rc uit, sitting by de s igna tion.W e re vie wthe Distric t C ourt’ s dism i ssa l for la c k of subje c t m atte r jurisdic tion de

novo. Pride

v . C orre a , 719 F.3d 1130, 1133 (9th C i r. 2013). W e a ffirm
. The APA provide s a

n ave nue for judic ia l re vie w of the de nia l of c e rta in im m igration be ne fits, se e

, e .g. , Pe re

z Pe r e z v . W o lf , No. 18-35123, 2019 W

L 6224421 (9th C ir. 2019), but 8 U.S.C . § 1252(a )(2)(B )(ii) pre c lude s judic i a l re vie w of any de c ision or a c tion “ the a uthority for whic h

[the INA spe c ifie s] to be in the disc re tion of theAttorne y Ge ne ra l or the Se c re ta

ry of Hom e la

nd Se c urity .” The Distric t C ourt e rrone ously re l ie d on 8 U.S.C . § 1252(a )(2)(B )(i), whic h pre c lude s re vie w of disc re t iona

ry de c isions ta

ke n in the c o n te xt of c e rta in e num e ra te d form s of im m igration re lie f. That se c tion doe s not inc orporate § 1159(b), theprovision a t issue in this c a se , a

n d a ll pa rtie s a gre e tha

t § 1252(a )(2)(B )(i) doe s not a pply he re . Ne ve rthe le ss, be c a

use we hold tha

t the Distric t C ourt la c ke d jurisdic t ion be c a use of subc la use (ii), the Distric t C ourt’ s m ispla c e d re lia nc e on subc la

u s e (i) is irre le va

nt to this a p pe a l . Notwithsta

nding § 1252(a

)(2)(B )(ii), no sta

t ute “ p re c lud[e s ] re vie w of c onstitutiona

l c la im s or que stions of la w ” tha t a rise in the c onte xt of suc h disc re tiona

ry de te rm i nations. Id. § 1252(a )(2)(D); se e also Mamigonian v
. Biggs , 710 F.3d 936, 945 (9th C ir. 2013). The re lie f sought by

Ashfa que
— a djustm e nt of sta t us for a sy le e s—

wa s ultim ate ly disc re tiona

ry . Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1159(b) (providing tha t the Se c re ta

ry of
2Hom e la

nd Se c urity

or the Attorne y

Ge ne ra l “ m ay ,” “ in [the ir] disc re tion a nd unde r suc h re gula tions a s [the y ] m ay

pre sc ribe , ” a djust thesta tus of a n a lie n who m e e ts
e num e ra te d sta

tutory c rite ria ); se e also Die go v . Se s sions , 857 F.3d 1005, 1011 (9th C ir. 2017) (holding tha t § 1252(a)(2)(B )(ii) ba

rs re vie w of “ any

disc re tiona

ry a spe c t of the a g e nc y ’ s de c ision to deny Die go’ s a

pplic ation for a djustm e nt of sta tus . . . under 8 U.S.C . § 1159(b)” ). Although Ashfaque sty le s his c ha lle nge a s one involving le ga l e rror, the Distric t C o urt c orre c tly de t e rm i ne d tha

t USC IS’ s disc re tiona

ry de nia l wa s fre e of the le ga l e rror a lle g e d a nd thus im

m un e from
re vie w. USC IS de nie d the a

pplic ation on two se

pa ra te grounds, e a c h of whic h is inde pe nde ntly

suffic ie nt. First, USC IS found Ashfa que “ ina dm issibleunde r [8 U.S.C . § 1182(a )(3)(B )(i)(I)] for having e nga g e d in te rrorist a c tivitie s a s de fine d by [8 U.S.C . § 1182(a )(3)(B )(iv)(VI)(dd)] . . . .” Se c ond, USC IS stat e d tha t “ [i] n the a lte rnat ive , [Ashfa que ’ s] a pplic at ion is be i ng de nie d in the e xe rc ise of disc re tion due to [his] fa ilure to re spond to the re q ue st for inform ation a

b out the
c irc um s ta nc e s of [his] unde rly i ng a rre st.” Ashfa que c la im s tha t USC IS’ s disc re tiona

ry de te rm i nation wa s the produc t of le ga l e rror for two re a sons. First, Ashfa que points out tha

t he did re spond to USC IS’ s re que st for inform at ion. Se c ond, Ashfa q

u e c la im s tha

t USC IS c om

m itte d le ga l e rror by

de fy ing binding
3a ge nc y pre c e de nt a n d im prope rly re ly ing on dispute d

and unc o rroborate d
a c c usations of c rim ina l c onduc t tha t did not re sult in c rim ina l c onvic tions. S e e In
reArre guin de Rodrigue z , 21 I. & N. De c . 38, 42 (B IA 1995) (e xpla ining tha t
a djudic ators should gene ra l ly not “ give substa

ntia l we ight to a

n a rre st re port,
a bse nt a c onvic tion or c orroborating e vide nc e of the a lle gations” ). Although Ashfa que wa s c ha

rge d with willful crue lty

to a c hild, inflic ting injury

upon a c hild,
and dissua ding a

witne ss in 2004, the

prose c utor droppe d those c h arge s a nd Ashfa que wa s e ve ntua lly

c onvic te d only

of disturbing the

pe a c e , a m isde m e anor viola tion of C a lifornia

Pe na l C ode § 415. B oth of Ashfa q

u e ’ s c la im s fa i l for the sam e re a son— Ashfa q ue did not
a de quate ly

re spond to USC IS’ s re que s t for “ an e xpla nation a nd a de sc ription of the
c irc um s ta nc e s surrounding [his] arre s t a nd c onvic t ion.” Ashfa que re sponde d to the
re que s t by

subm itting mi nute orde rs from his c rim i na l c a s e in C a lifornia sta te c ourt
and le ga l a

na ly sis a rguing tha

t his c onvic tion did not c onstitute a c rim e involving
m ora l turpitudeand should not justify the de nia l of his a

pplic ation on disc re tiona

ry grounds. B ut Ashfa que did not provide what USC IS spe c ific a lly re que ste d— an

“ e xpla nation a n d a d e sc ription of the c irc umstanc e s surrounding

” his a rre st. USC IS wa s pe rm itte d

to re que st suc h a

n e xpla nation in orde r to inform

its disc re tiona

ry de te rm i nation. Se e

, e .g. , Matte r of Thomas , 21 I. & N. De c . 20, 23

4(B IA 1995) (e xpla ining tha t the B IA m ay

“ c onside r e vide nc e of unfa v ora ble
c onduc t, inc l uding c rim ina l c onduc t whic h ha s not c ulm inate d in a fina l
c onvic tion” ). As a

c orolla ry , USC IS wa s pe rm itte d to de ny Ashfa que ’ s a

pplic ation for fa iling to provide it. W e the re fore re

je c t Ashfa que ’ s c la im

of le ga l e rror. USC IS de nie d Ashfa que ’ s a

pplic at ion be c a

use he fa ile d to provideUSC IS with the inform ation it spe c ific a lly

re que ste d— i nform ation tha t the a ge nc y ne e de d a s a

pre re quisiteto
we ighing the re lative signific anc e of the e vide nc e in the re c ord. USC IS’ s de c ision
wa s disc re tiona

ry and not pre dic a te d on le g a l e rror, and is thus im m une from
re vie w in the fe de ra l c o urts unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252(a )(2)(B )(ii). Ashfa q ue fa ile d to pla usibly a lle g e a c olora ble le ga l or c onstitutiona

l e rror. The Distric t C ourt’ s dism issa l for la c k of jurisdic tion is AFFIRM E D.

5