Court Opinion

ID: 9374667
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-23 18:01:05.833172+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:52.154849
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FEB 22 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARIA ANGELICA MILLAN,                          No.    18-73491

                Petitioner,                     Agency No. A205-714-299

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

                Respondent.

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

                          Submitted February 14, 2023**

Before:      FERNANDEZ, FRIEDLAND, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

      Maria Angelica Millan, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal

from an immigration judge’s decision denying her request to terminate,

pretermitting her application for cancellation of removal, and denying her

      *
             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).
applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the

Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Jauregui-Cardenas v. Barr, 946

F.3d 1116, 1118 (9th Cir. 2020). We review for abuse of discretion the agency’s

particularly serious crime determination. Avendano-Hernandez v. Lynch, 800 F.3d

1072, 1077 (9th Cir. 2015). We review for substantial evidence the agency’s

factual findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020).

We deny the petition for review.

      Millan’s contention that jurisdiction did not vest with the immigration court

due to the missing information in her Notice to Appear is foreclosed by United

States v. Bastide-Hernandez, 39 F.4th 1187, 1188, 1193 (9th Cir. 2022) (en banc)

(lack of hearing information in notice to appear does not deprive immigration court

of subject matter jurisdiction, and 8 C.F.R. § 1003.14(a) is satisfied when later

notice provides hearing information).

      The BIA did not err in concluding that Millan failed to establish that her

conviction under Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11366 is not an aggravated felony

drug trafficking offense that renders her ineligible for cancellation of removal and

asylum. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(43)(B), 1229b(a)(3); Salviejo-Fernandez v.

Gonzales, 455 F.3d 1063, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2006) (conviction under Cal. Health

and Safety Code § 11366 constitutes an aggravated felony); Pereida v. Wilkinson,

                                          2                                    18-73491
141 S. Ct. 754, 766 (2021) (an applicant for relief bears the burden of showing

eligibility and cannot meet burden with an inconclusive conviction record).

      The agency did not abuse its discretion in determining Millan’s conviction

under Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11366 constituted a particularly serious crime

barring her from withholding of removal, where it applied the appropriate factors

to weigh the seriousness of the crime in a case-specific inquiry. See Avendano-

Hernandez, 800 F.3d at 1077 (The court’s review “is limited to ensuring that the

agency relied on the appropriate factors and proper evidence to reach [its]

conclusion.” (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted)); see also Miguel-

Miguel v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 941, 949 (9th Cir. 2007) (recognizing the “strong

presumption” that drug trafficking offenses are particularly serious).

      Substantial evidence supports the denial of CAT protection because Millan

failed to show it is more likely than not she would be tortured by or with the

consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See Aden v.

Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).

      The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the

mandate.

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                          3                                      18-73491