NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LUIS MANUEL QUEZADAHERNANDEZ, AKA Luis Manuel 

Hernandez, AKA Luis Quezada-Hernandez, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 17-71960 

Agency No. A044-126-819 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 1, 2020**

Portland, Oregon

Before: BERZON, COLLINS, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

Luis Manuel Quezada-Hernandez petitions for review of the order of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the decision of the immigration 

judge (“IJ”) denying his applications for cancellation of removal, asylum, 

withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture

(“Torture Convention”). Quezada-Hernandez challenges the BIA’s decision solely 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as 

provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral 

argument. See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C).

FILED

DEC 7 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

on the grounds that the IJ should have inquired sua sponte into his mental

competency before going forward with removal proceedings and that the BIA 

therefore erred in failing to grant his request to remand the matter for a mental 

competency hearing. We have jurisdiction pursuant to § 242 of the Immigration 

and Nationality Act. 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Regarding the agency’s handling of an 

alien’s competency, “[w]e review for abuse of discretion whether the BIA clearly 

departs from its own standards” as set forth in Matter of M-A-M-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 

474 (B.I.A. 2011). Mejia v. Sessions, 868 F.3d 1118, 1121 (9th Cir. 2017). We 

deny the petition.

Under the BIA’s decision in Matter of M-A-M-, an alien is “competent to 

participate in immigration proceedings” when “he or she has a rational and factual 

understanding of the nature and object of the proceedings, can consult with the 

attorney or representative if there is one, and has a reasonable opportunity to 

examine and present evidence and cross-examine witnesses.” 25 I. & N. Dec. at 

479. An alien is presumed competent, and, “[a]bsent indicia of mental 

incompetency, an Immigration Judge is under no obligation to analyze an alien’s 

competency.” Id. at 477. If there are indicia of incompetency, however, the IJ 

must make further inquiry in order to ensure that the alien is competent to proceed 

without additional procedural safeguards. Id. at 480–81. Here, the BIA did not 

abuse its discretion in holding that the record did not reflect sufficient indicia of 
3

incompetency to warrant further inquiry. 

We and the BIA have previously recognized that an alien’s in-court behavior 

may raise a question as to his or her competency, such as when the alien “had 

difficulty following the IJ’s questions[] and many of his responses were confused 

and disjointed.” Mejia, 868 F.3d at 1121–22; see also Matter of J-R-R-A-, 26 I. & 

N. Dec. 609, 610 (B.I.A. 2015) (further inquiry into competency was required 

where an alien “was confused and frequently provided nonresponsive testimony” 

and “laughed inappropriately during the hearing”). Quezada-Hernandez’s in-court 

behavior, however, revealed no indicia of incompetency. He was able to ask 

appropriate questions seeking clarification, and he was able to explain why he 

wanted to apply for asylum and protection under the Torture Convention. And he 

gave many pages of coherent testimony, without apparent difficulty, in response to 

questions from the IJ and government counsel. The BIA did not abuse its 

discretion in concluding that Quezada-Hernandez’s behavior at his hearings did not 

indicate incompetence. See Salgado v. Sessions, 889 F.3d 982, 988 (9th Cir. 2018)

(insufficient indicia of incompetency where an alien exhibited “poor memory” but 

otherwise “did not show an inability to answer questions” and “was alert, asked for 

clarification when he did not understand, and sometimes answered before the 

translator finished his translation”). 

We have also held that there were “clear indicia” of incompetency where an 
4

alien had “a history of serious mental illness, including hallucinations, bipolar 

disorder, and major depression with psychotic features,” and the alien stated at the 

hearing that “he was not taking his medications and was feeling unwell.” Mejia,

868 F.3d at 1121–22. Quezada-Hernandez contends that the medical records he 

submitted to the IJ reflect serious mental illness and that the IJ should have 

inquired further about those records before proceeding. Although these records do 

advert to mental issues, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that

these documents did not require the IJ to sua sponte inquire into QuezadaHernandez’s competence. 

Quezada-Hernandez submitted these medical records in support of his 

contention that he was “sick,” not due to mental illness, but due to “surgery on 

[his] hips” and because his “back also is not in . . . good condition.” QuezadaHernandez notes that, in a section labeled “Chronic Problems,” several of the 

records from one clinic list “Nonorganic psychosis, reactive confusion” alongside 

other, non-psychiatric ailments. But the only comments in those reports that 

specifically address and explain this remark discount its significance. On one 

occasion, the treating physician added the comment, “[u]nclear re diagnosis, mild 

whatever it is.” At another appointment five months later, the doctor characterized 

the diagnosis as “[u]nclear but not very important.” The most the treating 

physician stated in reference to this diagnosis was that Quezada-Hernandez was a 
5

“tad confused, maybe a trace cognitive impairment, [but] functional and under 

excellent care of very intelligent mother.” Beyond that, the other medical records 

listing this diagnosis generally assess his mental condition favorably, with the 

exception of one occasion in which the report noted that Quezada-Hernandez was 

“positive for anhedonia, is anxious.” Quezada-Hernandez also points to other 

evidence, including school records indicating that he had a “report on file in 

Psychoeducational Services” and a letter from a neighbor stating that QuezadaHernandez “is kind of slow in comprehending the orders given to do things.” 

Considering this documentary evidence together with Quezada-Hernandez’s 

behavior at his hearings, the BIA did not act “arbitrarily” or “irrationally” in 

concluding that there was not enough to warrant an inquiry into his competency. 

Velasquez-Escovar v. Holder, 768 F.3d 1000, 1003 (9th Cir. 2014) (citation 

omitted).

The petition for review is DENIED.