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

AM OS-R E YES, Pe t i tione r,
v. M ERR IC K B
. GARLAND, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 18-72590 Age n c y No. A070-974-306
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 Nove m

be r 8, 2021 ** Portla nd, Ore gon B e fore : GR

AB E R and C H R ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s, a nd R . C OLLINS, *** Distric t Judge
. Pe titione r M a

rtin R am os-R e y e s se e ks re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) fina l orde r de ny ing his re que s ts for c anc e lla tion of re m ova l, 

# F IL ED NOV 16 2021 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 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).

* * * The Honora

ble R ane r C . C ollins, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Distric t of Ariz ona , sitting by de signa tion.withholding of rem o v a l, a sy lum , a n d prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture . W e de ny

the pe tition in pa

rt a nd dismi ss it in pa

rt. 1. The B IA c orre c tly

he ld tha t Pe titione r’ s c onvic tion unde r Ore gon’ s la w prohibiting c oc kfighting c onstitute s a c rim e involving m

ora l turpitude
. In Orte ga Lope z v. B arr, 978 F.3d 680, 687 (9th C ir. 2020), we de fe rre d to the B IA’ s c onc lusion tha

t a c onvic tion unde r the fe de ra l c oc kfighting sta tute is a c rim e involving mora l turpitude
. Pe titione r’ s a rgum e nt tha

t his c onduc t wa s dissimila r from tha t in Orte ga -Lope z be c a

use he wa s c onvic te d m e re ly of posse ssing a fighting bird is una

va iling. Ore gon’ s la

w a llows c o nvic tion only if the owne r knows a nd inte nds tha

t the bird will be

use d in c oc kfighting or trains the bird for
c oc kfighting. Or. R

e v. Stat. § 167.428(2). 2. B e c a use the B IA c onside re d Pe titione r’ s “ im pute d nationa lity ” argum e nt on de novo re vie w, a

ny e rror c om

m itte d by the im

m igration judgewa s ha

rm le ss. B re z ilia n v. Holde r, 569 F.3d 403, 411 (9th C ir. 2009). B e fore us, Pe titione r doe s not c ha lle nge the B IA’ s c onc lusion tha t, by subm itting insuffic ie nt e vide nc e of im pute d nationa lity , Pe titione r wa s ine ligiblefor withholding of rem ova l. 3. W e la c k jurisdic tion ove r Pe titione r’ s a rgum e nts a s to them e rits of his
a sy lum a pplic ation. Pe titione r doe s not c ha lle nge the de te rm ination tha t his

2a sy lum a

pplic ation wa s tim e -barre d, a nd thus heha s fa i le d to e xha u st
a dm inistra

tive re m e die s. B a

rron v. Ashc roft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th C ir. 2004). 4. W e la c k jurisdic tion ove r the que stion whe t he r the im

m igration judge viola te d due proc e ss whe n de ny ing Pe titione r’ s a pplic ation unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture . The B IA c orre c tly de te rm ine d tha

t Pe titione r did not
m e aningfully ra i se this a

rgum e n t on a

ppe a l from the im

m igration judge ’ s de c ision
and, simila

rly , he fa ils to ra ise it suffic ie ntly he re . Id. PE T IT IO N DE NIE D IN PART and DISM ISSE D IN PART .

3