N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
GUGLIELM O PASQUALE, Pe titione r,
v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 11-73120 Age n c y No. A030-954-386
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Argue d a nd Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 11, 2015 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge , a nd M c KEOW

N a nd W
. FLETC H ER , C irc uit Judge s. Guglie l m o Pa squa le , a

native and c itiz e n of Ita l y , pe titions for re v ie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a l s’ (B IA) de c ision a ffirm ing the Im m igration Judge ’ s (I.J.) de nia l of his a

p p lic ation for c anc e lla

tion of re m ova l. W e have jurisdic tion



# FIL E D
MAR 02 2015 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 9th C ir. R . 36-3.pursua

nt to 8 U.S.C . § 1252, a

nd we de ny

in pa rt a nd dismiss in pa

rt the pe tition for re vie w. Pa squa le , a

la wful pe rm ane nt re side n t of the Unite d State s, wa s pla c e d into
re m ova l proc e e d ings in 2003. De s pite an e xte nsive c rim ina l re c ord, he wa s gran te d c anc e lla

t ion of re m ova l in 2006. The De pa rtm e nt of Hom e la

nd Se c urity (DHS) a ppe a le d, a

nd while its a

ppe a l wa s pe nding, Pa s qua le wa s c onvic te d of
a dditiona l c rim e s . The B IA grante d DHS’ s m otion to re m and the c a s e to the I.J., who found Pa squa le i ne ligiblefor c anc e lla tion of re m ova l on the ba s is of one of the n e w c onvic tions, whic h she c onc lude d wa s a

n a ggravate d fe l ony . The B IA disa gre e d, holding tha

t the c rim e wa s not a

n a ggravate d fe lony , but re m a n de d Pa squa le ’ s c a se to the I.J. in 2010 to dete rm ine whe t he r he re m a ine d e ntitle d to
c anc e lla tion of re m ova l a s a

m atte r of disc re tion. TheI.J. c onc lude d tha t he did not
and orde re d him re m ove d . The B IA a ffirm e d. Pa squa le argue s tha

t the B IA’ s 2010 re m and orde r wa s im prope r. First, he
argue s tha

t the B IA viola

te d his Fifth Am e ndm e nt due proc e s s rights by re m anding to the I.J. in 2010. “

A due proc e ss viola

tion oc c urs whe re (1) the proc e e ding wa s so funda m e nta lly unfa ir tha

t the a lie n wa s pre ve nte d from re a sona bly pre se n ting his c a se , a

nd (2) the a lie n de m o nstra te s pre judic e , whic h m e ans tha

t the outc om e of the p roc e e ding m a

y have be e n

a ffe c te d by

the a lle ge d viola

tion.” Vilc he

z v . 2Holde r , 682 F.3d 1195, 1199 (9th C ir. 2012) (inte rna l quota tion m a rks om itte d). He re , Pa squa le wa s a fforde d the opportunity to “ re a sona bly pre se nt[] his c a se ” : he
wa s a ble to put on e vide n c e and a rgue be fore the I.J. tha

t he m e rite d c a

nc e lla tion of
re m ova l in spite of his c rim ina l re c ord. The re wa s no due proc e ss viola tion. Pa squa le ne xt a

rgue s tha t the B IA e rre d by

re m anding his c a se without be ing
a ske d to do so. B ut Pa s qua le c a n ide ntify no re gula tion tha t pre ve nts the B IA from issuing a sua sponte

re m and. Eve n if the B IA is limi te d to a djudic at ing “ que stions be fore it,” 8 C .F.R . § 1003.1(d)(1), a que stion wene e d

not de c ide , the B IA c ould
re a s ona bly have c onc lude d in this c a se that Pa squa le ’ s e ligibility for c anc e lla

tion of re m ova l —

a s a m atte r of la

w and a s a m atte r of disc re tion —

wa s “ be fore it” in 2010. C onstrue d a s a

n a rgum e n t tha

t the B IA e rre d by

re a c hing a

n issue tha

t DHS ha d wa ive d, Pa squa le ’ s c la im like w ise fa ils. Eve n in the fe de ra l c ourts, que stions of wa ive r are “ l e ft prim arily to the disc re tion of thec ourts of a ppe a ls, to be
e xe rc ise d on the fa c ts of individua l c a se s.” Single ton v . W

ulff , 428 U.S. 106, 121 (1976) (plura lity

opinion). There fore , e ve n if we c o uld re vie w the B IA’ s de c ision for a b use of disc re tion, we would find no a buse of disc re tion on the se fa c ts. Pa squa le argue s, in thea l te rnative , tha t the I.J. a n d B IA e rre d by

ignoring
e vide nc e of his c om

m unity se rvic e in de ny ing his a

pplic at ion for c a

nc e lla tion of
re m ova l. W e disa g re e . The I.J. did not err by not e xplic itly

re fe rring to thefa c t 3that

Pa squa le onc e te stifie d

a s a sta te ’ s witne ss. S

e e Vilc h e z , 682 F.3d a

t 1201 (“ An IJ doe s not ha

ve to write an e xe ge sis on e ve ry c o nte ntion.” (inte rna l quota tion
m arks om itte d)). W e la c k jurisdic tion to re v ie w the I.J.’ s disc re tiona ry de c ision to de ny c a nc e lla tion of re m ova l. 8 U.S.C . § 1252(a )(2)(B )(i). PE T IT IO N DE NIE D IN PART , DISM ISSE D IN PART .

4