Court Opinion

ID: 9369395
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-08 18:01:10.861091+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:14.753617
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       FEB 8 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JUAN PEREZ-SERNA,                                No.   18-71357

                Petitioner,                      Agency No. A205-671-964

 v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK GARLAND,
Attorney General,

                Respondent.

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

                              Submitted February 6, 2023**
                                   Portland, Oregon

Before: M. SMITH, FORREST, and SUNG, Circuit Judges.

      Petitioner Juan Perez-Serna challenges the Board of Immigration Appeals’

(BIA) dismissal of his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s denial of his application

for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we

deny the petition.

      *
             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).
      We review de novo the BIA’s denial of cancellation of removal based on

Perez-Serna’s judgment of contempt for violating a restraining order issued against

him under Oregon’s Family Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA), Or. Rev. Stat.

§§ 107.700–107.735. See Diaz-Quirazco v. Barr, 931 F.3d 830, 838 (9th Cir. 2019).

Our decision in Diaz-Quirazco forecloses Perez-Serna’s application for cancellation

of removal because there we held that a judgment of contempt for violating a FAPA

restraining order is an offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2) that renders a petitioner

statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal. Id. at 846; 8 U.S.C. §

1229b(b)(1)(C).

      PETITION DENIED.

                                         2