Opinion ID: 219852
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Finding of Removability

Text: Mr. Jimenez-Guzman argues that ambiguities and inconsistencies in the record dictate the legal conclusion that the government failed to submit clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence that the facts alleged as grounds for deportation are true, Woodby v. INS, 385 U.S. 276, 286, 87 S.Ct. 483, 17 L.Ed.2d 362 (1966). On judicial review of this argument, we are generally limited to ascertaining whether the evidence relied upon by the [agency] was of sufficient quality and substantiality to support the rationality of the judgment. Id. at 282, 87 S.Ct. 483. In other words, the court does not ask itself whether it believes that the evidence establishes removability by clear and convincing evidence, but rather whether the agency's judgment is supported by substantial evidence. Id. The DHS initially has the burden to prove removability by clear and convincing evidence, but when an alien concedes removability, the government's burden in this regard is satisfied. Shin v. Mukasey, 547 F.3d 1019, 1024 (9th Cir.2008) (quotation marks omitted). See also 8 C.F.R. § 1240.10(c) (stating that [i]f the respondent admits the factual allegations and admits his or her removability under the charges and the immigration judge is satisfied that no issues of law or fact remain, the immigration judge may determine that removability as charged has been established by the admissions of the respondent.) Standing alone, Mr. Jimenez-Guzman's express concession that he had been convicted of the drug crime charged in the notice to appear was sufficient to establish his removability. Brushing aside his admission because the BIA's decision did not rely upon it, Mr. Jimenez-Guzman argues that the government did not provide clear and convincing evidence that he was convicted of precisely the offense named in the notice to appear. For instance, documentary discrepancies raise the question of whether he was convicted of possession of heroin or conspiracy to possess heroin. As the BIA stated, however, the record of conviction plainly shows that [a]ll of the alternatives suggested by the documentary evidence lead to removability on the charge brought by DHS, once heroin is understood as the substance in question. Admin. R. at 5, n. 1. Taken as a whole, the conviction record provides clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence that the facts alleged as grounds of removability are true: that is, Mr. Jimenez-Guzman's criminal conviction was for possession of a substance that is not only listed under [state] law, but also contained in the federal schedules of [the Controlled Substances Act]. Ruiz-Vidal v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 1072, 1076, 1078 (9th Cir.2007) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). Mr. Jimenez-Guzman has provided no persuasive case law to support his contention that the DHS's notice to appear must be in letter-perfect alignment with the state criminal documents. [2] Reviewing for substantial evidence, we determine that the government met its affirmative burden to establish through clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence that Mr. Jimenez-Guzman was removable based on his conviction of a crime relating to heroin, a federally controlled substance. Accordingly, the BIA committed no error in dismissing his appeal.