N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT AZU IB E OTAH, Pe titione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 13-73242 Age n c y No. A024-264-583 M EM O R ANDUM *

AZU IB E OTAH, Pe titione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 14-70528 Age n c y No. A024-264-583

On Pe titions for Re vie w of Orde rs of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls 

# FIL ED M AY02 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a

ppropria te for public ation a

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

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. 1Subm itte d April 15, 2016 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : NOONAN, B E A, a nd C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s. Az u Ota h is a c itiz e n of Nige ria

who e nte re d the Unite d State s in 1980 on a six-m o nth visitor visa

and ne ve r le ft. In 2004, Ota h wa s c onvic te d

of a m isde m e anor viola

tion of C a l . He a lth & Sa fe ty C ode § 11550(a) (using or be ing unde r the influe nc e of a

c ontrolle d substa

nc e ), for whic h he re c e ive d a 120-da y se nte nc e . In 2006, Ota

h wa s c onvic te d of a fe lony viola tion of C a l. Ve h. C ode § 10851(a) (tak i ng or driving a ve hic le without the c onse nt of the owne r), for whic h he re c e ive d a

two-y e a r se nte nc e . Im

m igrat ion a

uthoritie s de t a ine d Ota

h in 2010 a nd issue d him

a Notic e to Appe ar. An im m igration judge(“ IJ” ) found Ota h re m ova ble for hav ing ove rsta

y e d his visa and for ha

ving be e n c onvic t e d of a c ontrolle d-substa

nc e offe nse . The IJ a lso de n ie d Ota h’ s re que sts for a sy lum , a djustm e nt of sta

tus, volunta

ry de pa rture , withholding of rem ova l, a nd re lie f unde r the C onve ntion Against Torture(“ C AT” ). The B oa rd of Im m i gration Appe a ls (“ B IA” ) dism isse d Ota

h’ s a ppe a l, a nd a lso de nie d Ota

h’ s m otion for re c o nside ration. Ota

h pe titions for re vie w of the B IA’ s de c i sions. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252, a nd we de ny

the pe titions for re vie w.

** T he pa ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c i sion without ora l argum e nt. S

e e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2). 21. Ota h c onc e de d tha

t he is re m ova

ble for having ove rsta

y e d his visa . W e a gre e with theB IA that Ota h is a lso re m ova

ble for hav i ng be e n c onvic te d of viola ting a sta te la w “ re lating to a

c ontrolle d substa

nc e (a s de fine d

in [21 U.S.C . § 802] ).” 8 U.S.C . § 1227(a)(2)(B )(i). C a lifornia ’ s c ontrolle d-substa nc e s la ws a re divisible by substa nc e , a nd a viola tion of C a l. He a lth & Sa fe ty C ode § 11550(a) re nde rs a n a l ie n re m o va

b l e unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1227(a)(2)(B )(i) if the c onvic t ion re late s to a

fe de ra lly c ontrolle d substa

nc e . Se e , e . g. , U nite d State

s v . Torre

– J i me ne z , 771 F.3d 1163, 1165–67 (9th C ir. 2014). He re , the Notic e to Appe a r a lle ge d tha

t Ota h wa s c onvic te d of viola

ting C a l. He a lth & Sa fe ty C ode § 11550(a) for using or be i ng unde r the influe nc e of c o c a ine , a fe de ra lly c ontrolle d substa nc e . Ota h a dm i tte d, at the ple a ding sta ge , to this c ha rge , whic h is suffic ie nt to e s ta b lish re m ova

bility . Se e Pagay on v . Holde r , 675 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th C ir. 2011) (pe r c uriam ) (am e nde d opinion) (“ [I] t is c le ar that Pa g ay on m a de a ‘ ple a ding sta ge ’ a dm i ssion tha

t he ha d be e n c onvic te d of a drug offe nse involving

3m e tha

m phe tam ine ; tha

t a dm ission a lone e sta

b lishe d his re m ova

b ility .” ); Pe re z–Me jia v . Holde r , 663 F.3d 403, 410–15 (9th C ir. 2011). 1 2. The B IA c orre c tly c o n c lude d tha t Ota h is ine ligiblefor a djustm e nt of sta tus be c a u se his C a l . He a lth & Sa fe t y C ode § 11550(a) c onvic t ion— for using or be ing unde r the influe nc e of c oc a ine

— re nde rs him

ina dm i ssible . Se e 8 U.S.C . §§ 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II), 1255(a ). 3. The B IA c orre c tly c o n c lude d tha t Ota h’ s C a l. Ve h. C ode § 10851(a) c onvic tion is a

n “ a ggravat e d fe lony ” c onvic t ion tha t re nde rs him

ine ligible for a sy lum and volunta

ry de pa rture . Se e 8 U.S.C . §§ 1101(a)(43)(G), 1158(b)(2)(A)(ii), (B )(i), 1227(a )(2)(A)(iii), 1229c (a )(1); 8 C .F.R . § 1240.26(b)(1), (c )(1)(iii). C a l. Ve h. C ode § 10851(a) is a n “ a ggravate d fe lony ” if c om m itte d a s a princ ipa l . Se eDue nas–Alvare z v . Holde r , 733 F.3d 812, 814–15 (9th C ir. 2013). Ota h’ s ple a ding-sta ge a dm ission to the c h arge s in theNotic e to Appe ar e sta blishe s

1 The doc um e nts of c onvic tion a lso e sta b lish tha t Ota h wa s c onvic te d of viola ting C a l. He a lth & Sa fe ty C ode § 11550(a) for using or be ing unde r the influe n c e of c oc a ine . Se e Me d i na–Lara v . Holde r , 771 F.3d 1106, 1111–15 (9th C ir. 2014) (a

m e nde d opinion). B e fore us, Ota

h obje c ts to theuse of unc e rtifie d c opie s of the doc um e nts of c onvic tion, but Ota h did not raise tha

t obje c t ion to the IJ or the B IA, and we the re fore la c k jurisdic tion to re vie w it. Se e Barron v
. Ashc roft , 358 F.3d 674, 677–78 (9th C ir. 2004). Furthe rm ore , the dism issa l of Ota h’ s C a l. He a lth & Sa fe ty

C ode § 11550(a) c onvic tion unde r C a l . Pe na l C ode § 1203.4 doe s not c ha

nge the im

m igration c onse que nc e s of tha t c onvic t ion. Se e N une z–Re y e s v . Holde r , 646 F.3d 684, 695 & n.7 (9th C i r. 2011) (e n ba nc ). 4that

he wa s c onvic te d

of viola ting C a l. Ve h. C o de § 10851(a) a s a princ ipa l, a

nd, thus, tha t he wa s c onvic te d of a

n “ a g gravate d

fe l ony ,” re nde ring him

ine ligiblefor the s e form s of re lie f. Se ePagay on , 675 F.3d a t 1190; Pe re

z–Me j ia , 663 F.3d a

t 410–15, 418–19. 2 4. Although Ota

h pre se nte d se ve ra l grounds supporting his withholding-ofre m ova l c la im

to the IJ a

nd the B IA, be fore us, he argue s only tha t, if he we re re m ove d to Nige ria , he would bepe rse c ute d by Nige rian offic ia l s due to his C a lifornia drug c onvic tion. W e a gre e with the B IA that “ drug c onvic ts” do not c onstitute a “ p artic ula

r soc ia l group” e ntitle d

to se e k withholding of re m ova l. Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1231(b)(3); Arte aga v . Muk ase y , 511 F.3d 940, 946 (9th C ir. 2007); Shafie i v . IN

S , 877 F.2d 64 (9th C ir. 1989) (unpublishe d ta ble de c ision); Toussaint v . Attorne y Ge n . of the

Unite d State

s , 455 F.3d 409, 417–18 (3d C ir. 2006); Elie n v . Ashc roft , 364 F.3d 392, 397 (1st C ir. 2004); B astanipour v. IN S , 980 F.2d 1129, 1132 (7th C ir. 1992). W e the re fore find no e rror in the B IA’ s de nia l of Ota h’ s withholding-of-rem ova l c la i m . 5. Ota h c la im s tha

t he is e ntitle d to C AT re lie f be c a use , if he we re re m ove d to Nige ria , he would be i m p risone d for ha

v ing be e n c onvic te d of a

drug c rim e in

2 The doc um e nts of c onvic tion a lso e sta b lish tha t Ota h wa s c onvic te d of viola ting C a l. Ve h. C ode § 10851(a) a s a princ ipa l. Se e Due nas–Alvare z , 733 F.3d at 814–15. 5the U nite d State s, a nd tha t he would c o nse q

ue ntly be de nie d

ne c e ssa ry m e dic a l tre atm e n t for dia

be te s a nd a kidne y

c ondition. The IJ found Ota h’ s fe ar of torture spe c ulative , a

nd the B IA sum

m arily a ffirm e d the IJ’ s de c ision. Thee v ide nc e in the re c o rd doe s not c om

pe l the c o n c lusion tha

t it is m ore like ly

tha n not tha t Ota h would be torture d by

or with thea c quie s c e nc e of Nige rian offic ia ls if he we re re m ove d to Nige ria . S

e e Shre s tha v . Holde r , 590 F.3d 1034, 1048–49 (9th C ir. 2010); s e e also, e .g. , In reJ -F-F- , 23 I. & N. De c . 912, 917–22 (A.G. 2006); In re M-B-A- , 23 I. & N. De c . 474, 479–80 (B IA 2002). Ene h v . Holde r , 601 F.3d 943, 946–49 (9th C ir. 2010), a nd Bose dev . Muk

ase y , 512 F.3d 946, 951–52 (7th C ir. 2008), a re distinguisha

b le . In those c a se s, the IJ a nd the B IA did not fully

c onside r the e vide n c e pre se nte d, a

nd the e vide nc e showe d tha t Nige rian offic ia ls inte ntiona lly

m istre ate d

prisone rs with HIV. Ota

h doe s not sugge st tha

t the IJ or the B IA fa ile d fully

to c onside r the e vide nc e tha t he proffe re d, a

n d he proffe re d no e vide nc e sugge sting tha

t Nige ria n offic ia ls singleout prisoners with dia be t e s or kidne y proble m s for m istre atm e nt. 6. Although Ota

h pe titions for re vie w of the B IA’ s orde r de ny i ng his m otion for re c onside ration, heha s pre se nte d no a rgum e nt sugge sting tha

t the B IA e rre d in de ny ing tha

t m otion. W e de e m the issue wa ive d. Se e Martine z–Se rrano v . IN

S , 94 F.3d 1256, 1259–60 (9th C i r. 1996). 6PE T IT IO NS FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D. 3

3 Ota h file d a m otion to proc e e d pro se , whic h wa s doc ke te d a fte r we file d a n orde r granting his prior c ounse l’ s m otion to withdra w , re m oving Ota

h from the C ourt’ s pro bono repre se ntation progra m , a nd a llowing Ota

h to proc e e d pro se . To the e xte nt it is ne c e ssa

ry to do so, we G RANT Ota h’ s m otion to proc e e d pro se . All othe r outsta

nding m o tions a

re DE NIE D .

7