N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
FELIX DE JESUS R

AM O S, Pe titione r, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 09-74089 Age n c y No. A073-937-286 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 an d Subm itte d Nove m be r 8, 2013 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : FAR

R IS, B LAC K ** , a

n d IKUTA, C irc uit Judge s. Pe titione r Fe lix de Je sus R am os a ppe a ls the B oa

rd of Im m i gration Appe a ls’ de nia l of his Te m

pora ry Prote c te d Status. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252(a )(2)(D) a s a

re v ie w of c o nstitutiona

l c la im s or que stions of la w in a fina l orde r of re m ova l , a

nd DENY the pe tition. 

# FIL ED D EC 02 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

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

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

by 9 t h C i r. R . 36-3. ** The Honora

ble Susa n H. B la c k, Se n ior C irc uit Judgefor the U.S. C ourt of Appe a ls for the Ele ve nth C i rc uit, sitting by de s igna tion.Pe titione r, Fe lix de Je sus R am os, is a 37 y e a r old c itiz e n of El Sa lva dor who
e nte re d the Unite d State s without be ing a dm i tte d or pa role d on or a

bout April 27, 1993, a nd ha s re side d he re sinc e . In 2006, theDe pa rtm e nt of Hom e la

nd Se c urity initia te d re m ova l proc e e dings a ga inst him unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1182(a )(6)(A)(i), a s he ha d not be e n a d

m itte d or pa

role d. During this tim

e , R am os wa s c onvic te d of two m isde m e anors in Ne va da : pe tit la rc e ny , N E V . RE V . S T A T . § 205.240, on Se pte m be r 16, 1997, a

nd Driving Unde r the Influe nc e , N E V . RE V . S T A T . § 484.379-1, on August 14, 2003.The pe tit la rc e ny proc e e d i ng took pla c e in La s Ve ga s M unic ipa l C ourt, e nde d with a nolo
c onte nde re ple a , and the c onvic tion wa s ultim a te ly va c a te d for unknown re a sons. Afte r his re m ova l proc e e dings be ga n, R am os a

p plie d for Te m

pora ry Prote c te d Status re lie f. The C itiz e nship a nd Im m igration Se rvic e de nie d re lie f on the b a sis tha

t R am os wa s ine ligibleunde r the sta tute , ha ving be e n c onvic te d of two
m isde m e anors. B oth the Im m i gration Judgeand the B oa rd of Im m igrat ion Appe a ls
a ffirm e d. B e c a use this is a

Te m pora ry Prote c te d Status a

pplic a tion, R a

m o s be ars the burde n of proof with re spe c t to proving his e ligibility , disproving a ny a lle g a tions of ine ligibility , and proving tha t he m e rits a

favora b le e xe rc ise of disc re tion. 8 U.S.C . § 1229a (c )(4)(A); 8 C .F.R . § 1240.8. Ra m o s a rgue s tha t the va c a tur of his 2pe tit la

rc e ny c onvic tion m a

k e s him e ligiblefor TPS, but he m ake s no a rgum e nt that this va c a tur wa s substa

ntive and not proc e dura l, a nd sta te s only tha t “ t he
re c o rd is inc onc l usive a s to why the c a se wa s va c a te d
... .” Se e Murillo-Espinoza v
. IN S , 261 F.3d 771, 774 (9th C i r. 2001) (only substa ntive va c a turs re m ove a c onvic tion from

c onside ra tion). R am os fa ils to c arry his burde n. R am os’ s se c ond m a

jor c la im is tha t his c onvic tions in M

unic ipa l C ourt we re not “ c onvic tions” at a ll— a t le a st not for im m igration purpose s. Se e In Re Eslamizar , 23 I. & N. De c . 684, 687–88 (B IA 2004) (inte rpre ting 8 U.S.C
. § 1101(a )(48)(A) to re quire c rim ina l c onvic t ion). In de te rm i ning whe the r a

give n proc e e ding ha s re sulte d in a c rim ina l

“ c o nvic tion” for im

m igration purpose s, the B IA ha s sta te d tha t the m o st im

porta nt indic a tor is tha

t the e l e m e nts of the offe n se be prove d be y ond a re a sona ble doubt. Id. a t 688 (c iting Appre ndi v . N e w J e rse y , 530 U.S. 466 (2000)). The B IA ha s a lso
e m pha siz e d the im

porta n c e of looking to the

sta te ’ s own c l a ssific a tions, both le gisla tive and judic ia l. Id. a t 687; se e also Matte r of C ue llar-Gome

z, 25 I. & N. De c . 850 (B IA 2012) (looking to sa m e fa c tors). M ore re c e n t ly , the a uthority of the tribuna l to a d

judge guilt a

nd to im p ose pe na ltie s ha s be e n

found to beinform a tive
. Se e Matte r of C

ue llar-Gome

z , 25 I. & N. De c . 850, 853 (B IA 2012); se e also Matte r of Riv e ra-Vale nc ia , 24 I. & N. De c . 484, 487 (B IA 2008) (holding tha t a 3m ilita

ry c ourt m artia l re sulte d in a “ c onvic tion” in c rim ina l proc e e d ing be c a use of the l aws of jurisdic t ion a

nd the a uthority of c ourt). He re , the re is no indic a tion tha t a sta nda rd of proof lowe r tha

n “ be y ond a
re a s ona ble doubt” wa s a c c e pte d

by the M unic ipa l C ourt, a

nd R am os doe s not e ve n argue a s m

uc h. He ple d nolo c onte nde re to the pe tit la rc e ny m isde m e anor. M ore o ve r, the M unic ipa l C ourt “ found [pe t itione r] guilty ” an d a “ fine [wa s] im pose d.” It ha d the a

uthority to a djudge guilt a

n d to im p ose pe na ltie s. Fina lly , the pe tit la rc e ny offe nse tha

t the p roc e e ding de a lt with is c la ssifie d by the sta te a s a

“ c rim e ,” not “ viola

tion,” “ infra c tion,” or a

nything e lse : it is liste d in Title 15 of the sta te c o de , “ C rim e s a

nd punishm e nts.” N E V . RE V . S T A T . § 205.240. All re le va nt fa c t ors ide ntifie d by

the B IA point to the

c o nc lusion tha

t the pe tit la

rc e ny a djudic a tion wa s a

“ c o nvic tion” in a

“ c rim ina l proc e e d ing.” R am os doe s not distinc tly argue w h y

the DUI c onvic tion doe s not qua l ify a s a c onvic tion, a

nd the re fore fa ils to c arry

his burde n with re spe c t

to this a rgum e nt. R am os fa i ls to c arry

his burde n of proof. PETITION DENIED.

4