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

EGON-RIC O, AKA Jua

n Ore g on, Jua

n R . Ore gon, AKA Jua

n Ore g on R i c o, AKA Jua

n R ic o, AKA Jua

n R ic o Ore gon, Pe titione r, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . Nos. 12-72920 Nos. 13-70123 Age n c y No. A075-123-845 M EM O R ANDUM *

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

ry 17, 2015 * * B e fore : O’ SC ANNLAIN, LEAVY, a n d FER N ANDEZ, C irc uit Judge s. In the se c onsolida

te d pe t itions for re vie w, Jua n Ore gon-R ic o, a

nat ive and c itiz e n of M e xic o, pe titions pro se for re vie w of the B o ard of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) orde rs dism issing his a ppe a l from

an im m igration judge ’ s orde r 

# F IL ED FEB 26 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. ** The pa

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

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).of re m ova l, a nd de ny ing his motion to re ope n . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re v ie w de n ovo que stions of la w and due proc e ss c la im s, for a buse o f disc re tion the de n i a l of a m o tion to re ope n, a

nd for substa

ntia l e vide nc e the a ge nc y ’ s fa c tua l findings. Mohamme d v . Gonzale s , 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th C ir. 2005). W e de ny

the pe titions for re vie w. The a ge n c y

c o rre c tly de te rm ine d tha

t Ore gon-R ic o’ s c onvic tion unde r C a lifornia He a lth a nd Sa fe ty C ode § 11351 for posse ssion of c oc a ine for sa le c onstitute s a

drug tra ffic k ing a g gravate d fe l ony unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1101(a)(43)(B ). Se e Re ndon v . Muk

ase y , 520 F.3d 967, 976 (9th C ir. 2008) (“ [P] osse ssion of a c ontrolle d substa

nc e with theinte nt to se ll c onta ins a tra ffic king e le m e nt a

nd is a n a ggrav at e d fe lony .” ). This c onvic t ion re nde rs him ine ligiblefor a sy lum , se e 8 U.S.C . § 1158(b)(2)(A)(ii), (B )(i), and c anc e lla t ion of re m o v a l, se e 8 U.S.C . § 1229b(a)(3). The a ge n c y

use d the c orre c t sta

nda rd and did not err in de te rm i ning Ore gonR ic o’ s drug tra ffic king offe nse is pre sum ptive ly a pa rtic ula rly se rious c rim e tha

t re nde rs him

ine ligiblefor withholding of rem o va l, se e id. § 1231(b)(3)(B ); Re ndon , 520 F.3d a

t 976 (“ [A] n

a ggravate d fe lony

c onta ining a

drug tra ffic king e le m e nt is pre sum e d to be a pa rtic ula rly se rious c rim e whic h would m ake [the a pplic ant] ine ligiblefor withholding of rem ova l .” ), a nd Ore gon-R ic o ha s not

12 - 7 29 2 0 & 1 3 - 7 0 1 2 3 2re butte d this “ e xtra ordina rily strong pre sum

ption,”Migue l-Migue l

v . Gonzale

s , 500 F.3d 941, 947 (9th C ir. 2007). Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the a ge nc y ’ s de nia l of Ore gon-R i c o’ s C onve ntion Against Torturec la im be c a u se he fa ile d to e s ta

blish it is m

ore like ly tha n not he would be torture d by or with thec onse nt or a c quie s c e nc e of the gove rnm e nt if re turne d to M e xic o. S e e Silay a v . Muk

a se y , 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th C ir. 2008). The B IA did not a

buse its disc re tion in deny ing Ore gon-R ic o’ s m otion to re ope n ba se d on ine ffe c t ive a ssista nc e whe re he fa ile d to e s ta blish pre judic e arising from any a lle g e d ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e by his form e r c ounse l. Se e Mohamme d , 400 F.3d a

t 793-94 (“ [P] re

judic e re sults whe n

the pe rform anc e of c ounse l wa s so ina d e quate tha

t it m ay have a ffe c te d the outc om e of the proc e e dings.” (inte rna l quota t ion m arks om itte d)). W e de ny Ore gon-R ic o’ s m otion for re m and to thea ge n c y or re fe rra l to the c ourt’ s m e d iation unit. PE T IT IO NS FO R

RE V IE WDE NIE D.

12 - 7 29 2 0 & 1 3 - 7 0 1 2 3

3