Court Opinion

ID: 9379930
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-16 18:00:36.613438+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:49.680566
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                          FILED
                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         MAR 16 2023
                                                                     MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Damian Lopez Ayala,                             No. 21-682

              Petitioner,                       Agency No.       A200-244-953

  v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
Merrick B. Garland, U.S. Attorney
General,

              Respondent.

                   On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                       Board of Immigration Appeals

                            Submitted March 13, 2023**
                               Pasadena, California

Before: PAEZ, CHRISTEN, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

       Damian Lopez Ayala, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review

of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from

an order of an immigration judge denying his application for cancellation of

removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.

       The Board adopted and affirmed the immigration judge’s determination

       *
            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).
that Lopez Ayala was ineligible for cancellation of removal because he had

been convicted of an offense described in 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2). See 8 U.S.C.

§ 1229b(b)(1)(C). Because the Board adopted the immigration judge’s decision

and contributed its own reasoning, we review both decisions. Rodriguez-

Ramirez v. Garland, 11 F.4th 1091, 1092–93 (9th Cir. 2021) (per curiam).

      1. Lopez Ayala objects to the Board’s interpretation of “conviction”

under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) for including offenses that did

not produce a criminal conviction in state court. See Matter of Medina-Jimenez,

27 I. & N. Dec. 399, 400 (B.I.A. 2018) (determining that a non-criminal

contempt judgment for violating a protection order constituted a “conviction”

under the INA). Our precedent forecloses his argument. In Diaz-Quirazco v.

Barr, we upheld the Board’s interpretation of the term “conviction.” 931 F.3d

830, 835 (9th Cir. 2019). In any event, Lopez Ayala does not dispute that his

violation of a domestic violence protection order resulted in a criminal

conviction in state court.

      2. The Board did not err in determining that Lopez Ayala had been

convicted of an offense under section 1227(a)(2)(E)(ii). That provision covers

aliens subject to court-issued protective orders “whom the court determines

[have] engaged in conduct that violates the portion of a protection order that

involves protection against credible threats of violence, repeated harassment, or

bodily injury to the person or persons for whom the protection order was

issued.” 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(ii). The categorical approach does not govern

                                        2                                     21-682
whether a protective order violation makes a petitioner ineligible for

cancellation of removal. Diaz-Quirazco, 931 F.3d at 841–42. Rather, if an

immigration judge determines that a protective order violation resulted in a

conviction as defined by the INA, the judge must then decide whether the state

court found that the alien engaged in conduct that violated the portion of the

protective order described in section 1227(a)(2)(E)(ii). Medina-Jimenez, 27 I. &

N. Dec. at 401–02. In conducting this inquiry, the immigration judge “should

review the probative and reliable evidence regarding whether the State court’s

findings . . . meet the requirements” of section 1227(a)(2)(E)(ii). Id. at 402.

      A state court imposed a protection order on Lopez Ayala under California

Penal Code § 136.2 as a condition of probation for his domestic battery

conviction. That order required him not to “molest, annoy, threaten, harass or

stalk” his victim. He was later charged with and convicted of contempt of court

under California Penal Code § 166 for violating that order. Lopez Ayala failed

to submit evidence showing that his conduct, as determined by the state court,

was outside the scope of section 1227(a)(2)(E)(ii). The immigration judge based

his decision on the record evidence of Lopez Ayala’s convictions that gave rise

to the protective order as well as the charges and convictions that he incurred in

conjunction with the protective order violation. The immigration judge thus did

not err in determining that Lopez was convicted of an offense rendering him

ineligible for cancellation of removal, and the Board correctly affirmed his

decision.

                                         3                                        21-682
      The motion to stay removal (Dkt. No. 5) is denied. The temporary stay of

removal is lifted.

      PETITION DENIED.

                                      4                                  21-682