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 H on orabl e E dw ar d R . K orm an, S eni or U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ct ** J udge f orthe E a s t e rn D i s tr i c tof N e w Y ork, s i tt i ng byde s i gna t i on.

1 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 R OB E R T O D UR AN - GA L AV I Z , AK A Jose B ar aj as M art i nez P et i t i on er , v. E R IC H . H O L D E R JR . , A tt orney G ener al o f th e U n i t ed S t at es, R e s p o n d e n t. N os . 09- 70021, 09- 72338 A ge nc yN o. A 095- 682- 888 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P et i t i on for R evi ew of an O rderof the B o a r d o f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d M a y15, 2013 S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B e f o r e : C L I F T O N , a n d B E A , C ir c u it J u d g e s , a n dK O R M A N ,

S eni or D i stri ctJudg e. ** 

# FI LED JU N 05 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

R obe rt o D ur a n- G a l a vi z ( “ D u ran ” ) s e e ks r e vi e w of the B oa r d of

I m m i gr a t i on A pp e a l s ’ ( “ BI A ” ) or de rdi s mi s s i ng hi s app e a l f r om a n i mm i gr a t i on j ud ge ’ s ( “ I J” ) deci si on t o d eny hi s app l i ca t i on for c ance l l at i on of re m ov al , an d the B IA ’ s order d e n y in g h is m o tio n to r e c o n s id e rth e d is m is s a l. D u r a n a d m itt e d h e w a s r e m o v ab le pu rs uantt o 8 U .S . C . § 1 18 2(a) (6)( A )( i ), w hi ch autho ri ze s r em ov al of any “ al i en pr e s e nti n the U ni t e d S t a t e s w i thout be i ng a dm i tt e d or pa r ol e d, or w ho a rr i ve s i n the U n ite d S ta te s a t a n ytim e o r p la c e o th e rth a n a s d e s ig n a te db yth e A tto rn e yG e n e r a l.” In hi s app l i ca t i on s s ee ki ng cancel l at i on of re m ov al D uran adm i tt ed thathe had p l ed gu i l ty t o d rug p osse ss i on . S ub se qu ent l y, i n t es t i m on y b ef o re th e IJ he a dm i tt ed that h e serv ed ro u g h l y a year i n p ri s o n fo r p o ssessi o n o f crackco cai n e. B ased o n th ese a dm i s s i ons , the I Jf

ound tha tD ur a n w a s s t a tut or i l yi n el i g i b l e f orc a nc e l l a t i on of r e m o v a l. See 8 U . S . C . § 1182( a ) ( 2) ( A ) ( i ) ( I I ) (m ade appl i c abl e t o appl i c a t i ons f or cancel l at i on of re m ov al by 8 U . S . C . § 1 22 9b (b)( 1)(C )) . D u r a n u n s u c c e s s f

u llyap p e a le dto th e B I A , a r g u in g th a t, n o tw ith s ta n d in g h is o w n a d m is s io n s , th e r e c o r d in f r o n t o f th e I Jd idn o t c o n ta in a n yju d ic ia lly no t i ce abl e e vi dence of hi s c on vi ct i on and there fore w as i nsuffi ci entt o j ust i fy de ni a l of hi s appl i c a t i on f

orc a nc e l l a t i on of

r e m ova l . W e de nyhi s pe t i t i on f or r e vi e w of

the B I A ’ s de c i s i on a s w e l l hi s pe t i t i on f orr e vi e w of

the B I A ’ s de ni a l of hi s m ot i on f

orr e c ons i de r a t i on.I f

D ur a n’ s c ontr ol l e d s ubs t a nc e c onvi c t i on ha d be e n the ba s i s f orthe 1 N o tic e to A p p e a r , th e n th e g o v e rn m e n t w o u ldh a v e h a dth e b u r d e n o f p r o o f . B u t in th is c a s e , D u r a n a lr e a d ya d m itte d h e w a s r e m o v ab le o n o th e rg r o u n d s , a n dh e is appl y i ng f

orc a nc e l l a t i on of

r e m ova l . T hus , the bur de n f a l l s on hi m a nd the un cl ear r ec ord m eans he has notm ethi s burden o f proof. 3 W here there i s e vi dence thaton e of the grou nd s f or m andat ory deni al of an appl i c a t i on f

orc a nc e l l a t i on of

r e m ova l appl i e s , “ the a l i e n [ ha s ] the bur de n of prov i ng by a pre po nd er ance of the evi dence thatsuch grou nd s do n otappl y. ” 8 C .F .R . § 1 2 4 0 .8 ( d ) ; s e e al s o 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 9 a ( c ) ( 4 ) . M o r e o v e r , w e r e c e n tlyh e ld tha tw he r e the gr ound f orm a nda t oryde ni a l of

c a nc e l l a t i on i s ac r i m i na l c onvi c t i on the appl i cantm ustm ake an aff i rm at i ve show i ng thathe “ has notbeen conv i ct ed o f ” ad is q u a lif

y in g c r im e . Y

ou ngv. H

older , 69 7 F . 3d 97 6, 98 8 (9th C i r. 20 12 ) ( en b a n c ) ( q u o tin g 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 9 b ( a ) ( 3 ) ) . T h is b u r d e n c a n n o t b e m e t “b ym e r e ly es t abl i shi ng thatthe re l evantre cord of conv i ct i on i s i ncon cl usi ve as t o w hether” th e c o n v ic tio n w a s f

o ra n o f f e n s e th a t w o u ldm a k e th e a lie n in a d m is s ib le . I d. at 979–80. 1 D u r a n ’s o w n a d m is s io n s w e r e m o r e th a n s u f f ic ie n t to r a is e th e p o s s ib ility thathe w as di squal i fi ed and requi re d h i m t o sho w thathe had n otbeen conv i ct ed of a n of f e ns e tha tw oul d ba rhi m f r om r e l i e f

. D ur a n di d notc om e f

orw a r d w i th a ny e vi de nc e s ugge s t i ng tha the di d noti n f a c tc om m i tadi s qua l i f

y i ng c r i m e ortha tthe4

c r i m e he c om m i tt e d w a s notdi s qua l i f y i ng. T hus , he f

a i l e d t o c a rryhi s bur de n of pr ovi ng hi s e l i gi bi l i tyf

orthe r e l i e f

r e que s t e d. P E T I T I ON S F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.