N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
C ARLOS ALB ER TO C ASTILLO,

Pe t i tione r,
v. M ERR IC K B
. GARLAND, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 20-73125 Age n c y No. A096-795-038
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 Subm itte d De c e m

be r 8, 2021 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : W . FLETC HER , R AW LINSON, a

nd OW ENS, C i rc u it Judge s. Pe titione r C arlos Albe rto C a stillo (C a stillo), a native an d c itiz e n of El Sa lva d or, pe titions for re vie w of a de c ision from

the B oa rd of Im m i gration Appe a ls (B IA) upholding the orde r from

the Im m igration Judge(IJ) finding 

# FIL ED FEB 8 2022 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, 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 pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).C a stillo re m ova b le a s a n a lie n c onvic te d of a

n a ggravat e d fe lony , se xua l a buse of a
m inor, a nd de ny ing his m o tion to re m and to a pply for a wa i ve r of ina dm issibility
. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C
. § 1252 a nd re vie w que stions of la

w de
novo. Se e Villav ic e nc i o v . Se ssions , 904 F.3d 658, 663 (9th C ir. 2018), as
ame nde d . W e re vie w the de nia l of a m otion to re m an d for a

b use of disc re tion, a

nd it is thepe titione r’ s burde n to e sta blish prim a

fa c i e e l igibility

for the re lie f sought. Se e K onstantinov

a v . I.N .S. , 195 F.3d 528, 529 (9th C i r. 1999); se e also N g v . I.N .S. , 804 F.2d 534, 538 (9th C ir. 1986). 1 1. W e have “ de ve lope d two de finitions spe c ify ing the e le m e nts of the fe de ra l ge ne ric offe nse of se xua l a buse of a m inor.” Quinte ro-C

isne ros v . Se ssions , 891 F.3d 1197, 1200 (9th C ir. 2018). Thefirst de finition, a rtic ulate d in Estrada-Espinoza v

. Muk ase y , 546 F.3d 1147, 1152 (9th C ir. 2008) (e n ba nc ),

“ a p plie s m a inly

to sta tutory ra pe offe nse s.” Quinte ro-C isne ros , 891 F.3d a

t 1200. The se c ond de finition, a

rtic ulate d in

Unite d State

s v . Me dina-Villa , 567 F.3d 507, 513 (9th C i r. 2009), “ a

pplie s to a ll othe r offe nse s.” Quinte ro-C isne ros , 891 F.3d a

t 1200. The gove rnm e n t c onc e de s tha t the B IA e rre d in finding tha t the sta tute

1 The B IA he ld tha

t C a stillo waive d a

ny argum e nts surrounding the IJ’ s pa rtic u la rly se rious c rim e de te rm ination, a s we ll a s the IJ’ s de nia l of C a stillo’ s c la im for prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion a g a i nst Torture . He doe s not c onte st those holdings on a

ppe a l, a nd those argum e nts a

re wa ive d
. Se e Martine

z-Se rrano v . I.N .S. , 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th C ir. 1996). 2unde r whic h C a stillo wa s c onvic te d, C a lifornia Pe na l C ode (C PC ) § 288a (b)(2),
wa s a c ate goric a l m at c h for the Me dina-Villa de finition. Howe v e r, the gove rnm e nt urge s us to a

pply the Estrada-Espinoza

de finition in the

first insta nc e to c onc lude that C a stillo wa s a c t

ua lly c onvic te d of a

n a ggrav ate d fe lony . B ut “ [o] ur re vie w is lim ite d to thosegrounds e xp lic itly re lie d upon by

the [B oa rd] .” Diaz-Re

y noso v . Barr , 968 F.3d 1070, 1075 (9th C ir. 2020) (c ita tion omitte d). W e m

ust re m and for the B IA to a

pply the c orre c t de finition in the first insta nc e . Se e Singh v
. Gonzale s , 494 F.3d 1170, 1173 (9th C ir. 2007); se ealso Barroso v. Gonzale s , 429 F.3d 1195, 1209 (9th C ir. 2005). 2. The B IA did not a d dre ss C a stillo’ s a rgum e nt tha

t his c onvic tion unde r C a lifornia He a lth & Sa fe ty

C ode § 11350(a) wa s prope rly va c at e d a nd should be de e m e d inva lid for im

m igration purpose s. Ac c ordingly , tha t issue is not prope rly be fore us a

nd is dism

i s se d without pre

judic e to re ne wa l on re m and. Se e Singh , 494 F.3d at 1173; se e also Barroso , 429 F.3d a t 1209. 3. W e have jurisdic tion to a na ly z e the B IA’ s de nia l of a m otion to re m and to
a pply for a djustm e nt of sta

tus. Se e K

onstantinov

a , 195 F.3d a

t 529 (re vie wing de nia l of m otion to re m and). The B IA de te rm ine d tha t C a stillo fa ile d to e sta

blish prim a fa c ie e ligibility

for a djustm e nt of sta

tus. The B IA note d tha

t C a stillo’ s Form I-130 ha d be e n file d but ha d not be e n a pprove d, re n de ring C a s tillo’ s “ e ligibility for 3suc h

re lie f . . . spe c ulat ive .” C a stillo ha s not c ite d a ny a uthority to support his
argum e nt tha

t a pe nding a

pplic ation is suffic ie nt to e sta blish a prim a

fa c ie c a se of
e ligibility . Inde e d, our pre c e de nt ha s only re c ogniz e d a

pprove d a pplic at ions a s
e sta blishing prim

a fa c ie e ligibility for re lie f. S e eHe r nande z v . Ashc roft , 345 F.3d 824, 842 (9th C ir. 2003) (“ Of c ourse , a n im m i grant visa

c annot be im

m e diate ly
ava ila ble to a pe t itione r unle s s a pe tition on her be h a lf ha s be e n a pprove d .” ) (c ita tions a nd footnotere fe re nc e om itte d); se e also Agy e man v . I.N .S. , 296 F.3d 871, 879 n. 2 (9th C ir. 2002) (“ The approv e d I–130 provide s prim a

fa c ie e vide nc e that the a lie n is e ligiblefor a djustm e nt a s a n im m e d i ate re lative of a

Unite d State s
c itiz e n. . . .” ) (c ita

tion omitte d) (e m

pha sis a dde d). The B IA did not a buse its disc re tion in de ny i ng C a s tillo’ s m otion to re m a n d. The pe tition is G RANT E D and RE M ANDE D a s to theB IA’ s de te rm i nation tha

t C PC § 288a (b)(2) is a

c ate goric a l “ s e xua l a

b use of a m inor”
a ggrav at e d fe lony

a s de fine d in Me dina-Villa , 567 F.3d a t 513. On re m and, the B IA sha ll de te rm ine , a fte r a pply ing the E

strada-Espinoza

ge ne ric de finition, whe the r C a stillo’ s c onvic tion unde r C a lifornia Pe na l C ode § 288a (b)(2) wa s for a n
a ggrav at e d fe lony
. The pe tition is DE NIE D a s to C a stillo’ s m otion to re m and a nd his c la im s for withholding of rem o v a l a nd C AT re lie f. 4The pe tition is DISM ISSE D a s to C a stillo’ s c onvic t ion unde r C a lifornia

He a lth & Sa fe ty C ode § 11350(a), without pre judic e to re n e w a l on re m and. Ea c h pa rty sha ll be a r its c osts on a

ppe a l.

5