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 pane l unani m ous l yf i nds thi s c a s e s ui t abl e f

orde c i s i on w i thout ** o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). I H / R es ear ch 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 I S AA C WI L L I AMS ON , P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N os . 08- 71722 08- 71073 A ge nc yN o. A 038- 581- 257 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i ons f

orR e vi e w of

O r de r s of

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d N ove m be r17, 2009 ** B efo re: A L A R C Ó N , T R O T T , an dT A S H IM A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. I n the s e c ons ol i da t e d pe t i t i ons f orr e vi e w , I s a a c W i l l i a m s on, ana t i ve and c i t i z e n of J a m a i c a , pe t i t i ons pr o s e f orr e vi e w of

the B oar d of

I m m i gr a t i on A pp ea l s’ orders di sm i ss i ng hi s app ea l fr om an i m m i grat i on j ud ge’ s r em ov alorder 

# FI LED DE C 08 2009 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSI H / Res ea r ch 08- 71722 2 an dd e n y in g h is m o tio n to r e c o n s id e r . W e h a v e ju r is d ic tio n u n d e r8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 . W e r e v ie w d e n o v o q u e s tio n s o f law , H usye v v . Mukasey , 528 F . 3d 1172, 1177 ( 9th C i r . 2008) , r e vi e w f orabus e of

di s c r e t i on the de ni a l of am ot i on t o r e ope n, Cano-Me r i da v. I

NS , 31 1 F . 3d 96 0, 96 4 (9th C i r. 20 02 ), and revi ew for s ub st ant i al e v id e n c e th e a g e n c y ’s f a c tu a l f in d in g s , Zehat

ye v. G on zales , 453 F . 3d 1182, 1 1 8 4 - 8 5 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) . W e d e n yth e p e titio n s f o rr e v ie w . T he w ri tt en pl eaagre em enti n the re cord es t abl i shes thatW i l l i am son w as c onvi c t e d of

“ A tt e m pt e d T r ans port a t i on of M ar i j uanaf orS a l e ” i n vi ol a t i on of A r iz o n aR e v is e dS ta tu te s § § 1 3 - 3 4 0 1 , 3 4 0 5 , 3 4 1 8 , 1 0 0 1 , 7 0 1 , 7 0 2 .0 1 , an d8 0 1 . See P arri l la v. G on zales , 41 4 F . 3d 10 38 , 10 43 (9th C i r. 20 05 ) ( a w ri tt en pl ea agre em enti s aj ud i ci al l y not i ce abl e docum entun der the m od i fi ed ca t egori ca l appr oa c h de s c r i be d i n Sh epard v. U ni ted States , 544 U . S . 13 ( 2005) ) . W i l l i a m s on d o e s n o t c h a lle n g e th e a g e n c y ’s c o n c lu s io n th a t h is c o n v ic tio n w a s an a lo g o u s to the fe dera l fe l on y of “ A tt em pt ed P osse ss i on of M ar i j uana for S al e” and there fore an a g g r a v a te df

e lo n yu n d e r8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 3 ) ( B ) an d( U ) . See L op ezv. G on zales , 549 U . S . 47, 55 ( 2006) . A c c or di ngl y , the a ge nc ydi d note rri n f i ndi ng W illia m s o n r e m o v ab le .I H / Res ea r ch 08- 71722 3 T h e B I A d idn o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in d e n y in g W illia m s o n ’s m o tio n to r e c o n s id e r . Se e U

ni te d States v . T

ay lor , 259 F . 3d 1232, 1238 ( 9th C i r . 2008) ( “A r iz o n a ’s d e f

in itio n o f a tte m p t is c o e x te n s iv e w ith th e f e d e r a l d e f

in itio n .” ) . W i l l i a m s on c ont e nds the a ge nc yvi ol a t e d due pr oc e s s byr e f us i ng t o rul e on h is m o tio n to te rm in ate an dd is r e g ar d in g th e e v id e n c e h e p r e s e n te dw ith h is ap p e a l. H e a ls o a lle g e s th e im m ig r a tio n ju d g e d idn o t e x p la in th e c h ar g e s an dp r o v id e h im w ith ad e f

in itio n o f th e c r im e b e f

o r e h e a d m itte dto th e f

a c tu a l a lle g a tio n s . C o n tr aryto W illia m s o n ’s c o n te n tio n s , th e p r o c e e d in g s w e r e n o t “s o f u n d a m e n ta lly un fa i r that[he] w as prevent ed fr om re as on abl y pre se nt i ng hi s c as e. ” C olm enar v. I NS , 210 F . 3d 967, 971 ( 9th C i r . 2000) ( c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . M or e ove r , W i l l i a m s on f a i l e d t o de m ons tr a t e tha tthe a l l e ge d vi ol at i ons m ayha ve a f f e c t e d the out c om e of th e p r o c e e d in g s . Se e id . (req u i ri n g p rej u d i ce t o p rev ai l o n a du e p ro cess c h a lle n g e ) . F i na l l y , s ubs t ant i a l e vi de nc e s upport s the a ge nc y ’ s de ni a l of r e l i e f unde rthe C onve nt i on A ga i ns tT ortur e be c aus e W i l l i a m s on di d note s t abl i s h al i ke l i hood of t orture by, atthe i nst i gat i on of, or w i th the consentor ac qu i es ce nce of the Jam ai can g o v e rn m e n t. See A rteaga v. Mukasey , 51 1 F . 3d94 0, 94 6 (9th C i r. 20 07 ). W illia m s o n ’s p e n d in g m o tio n is d e n ie da s m o o t. P E T I T I ON S F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.