Oropeza-Paz. v. Bondi

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 24-3091 GURKIRAT SINGH, Petitioner, v. PAMELA J. BONDI, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent. ____________________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. No. A216-183-486 ____________________ ARGUED APRIL 14, 2025 — DECIDED JUNE 23, 2025 ____________________ Before BRENNAN, ST. EVE, and LEE, Circuit Judges. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge. Gurkirat Singh, a citizen of India, fled his home in Punjab for the United States after being beaten and threatened for his political activities. Upon his ar- rival, Singh applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). The Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denied Singh’s requests for relief on multiple grounds, including because Singh could 2 No. 24-3091 reasonably relocate within India to avoid persecution. The Board of Immigration Appeals (the “Board”) affirmed. Be- cause substantial evidence supports the IJ and Board’s reloca- tion determination, we deny Singh’s petition for review. I. Background Petitioner Gurkirat Singh is an Indian national and a mem- ber of the Sikh ethnoreligious group. While residing in his home state of Punjab, Singh joined a Sikh separatist party, commonly known as the Mann Party. His political participa- tion rapidly attracted the attention of members of the compet- ing Congress Party, who approached Singh and told him that it “would be good for him” to switch parties. Singh was un- swayed. A year later, Singh had a more serious run-in with the Congress Party. While hanging up flyers for a Mann Party- sponsored blood donation event, a small group of men con- fronted Singh and beat him with baseball bats and hockey sticks for ten to twelve minutes. The men reminded Singh that they had told him to join the Congress Party. Singh attempted to report the attack to the local police, but they refused to ac- cept his report and advised him that he ought to join the Con- gress Party. Congress Party members beat Singh for a second time a few months later. His attackers also threatened him, warning: “we told you to quit you [sic] party and join our party, but this time we will kill you, we will take your life.” The beating ended when Singh’s cries drew the attention of nearby resi- dents. Again, local police refused to investigate, instead in- structing Singh to join the Congress Party. No. 24-3091 3 Following this second attack, Singh left India for the United States, entering the country without authorization or inspection. Within a month of his arrival, the Government commenced removal proceedings against him. Singh con- ceded his inadmissibility but filed an application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the CAT. At an Immigration Court hearing, Singh testified to the above facts. The IJ found his testimony credible but denied his applications because he had not suffered persecution, would not face a “substantial risk” of torture if deported, and could relocate to safety within India. Expecting Singh to internally relocate was reasonable, the IJ elaborated, because “he is a twenty-five-year-old male in good health” and he “was able to relocate to the United States, a predominately English- speaking nation, and maintain a livelihood.” Singh appealed and the Board affirmed the IJ’s decision pursuant to Matter of Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 1994), explaining that it discerned no clear error in the IJ’s relocation or past persecu- tion findings. II. Discussion Singh now petitions our court for review. He presses three principal arguments: (1) the Board improperly deferred to the IJ when deciding his appeal, (2) the IJ and Board erred by finding he could reasonably relocate to safety within India, and (3) the IJ and Board erred by finding that he had not suf- fered past persecution. We reach only Singh’s first two con- tentions, as they resolve the petition. A. Scope of the Board’s Review We begin with Singh’s charge that the Board examined the IJ’s decision under an erroneous standard of review. Whether 4 No. 24-3091 the Board applied the correct standard of review is a legal question we consider de novo. F.J.A.P. v. Garland, 94 F.4th 620, 638 (7th Cir. 2024). Board precedent mandates that the Board apply a dual review standard for mixed questions of law and fact. See Matter of R-A-F, 27 I. & N. Dec. 778, 779–80 (A.G. 2020). So

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 9 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ALEJANDRO ROSAS MORLET, No. 24-1735 Agency No. Petitioner, A215-881-567 v. MEMORANDUM* PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 5, 2025** San Francisco, California Before: CALLAHAN, BADE, and KOH, Circuit Judges. Alejandro Rosas Morlet, a citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing an appeal from an order by an immigration judge (“IJ”) denying his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Where, as here, the BIA * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel previously granted the parties’ joint motion to submit this matter without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(f). adopts and affirms the decision of the IJ and provides additional reasoning, we review both decisions. See Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition. The agency determined that Rosas Morlet was not eligible for cancellation of removal because he did not establish that his removal “would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to his U.S. citizen children under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D). We have jurisdiction to review this determination as a mixed question of fact and law, but because “this mixed question is primarily factual,” our “review is deferential.” Wilkinson v. Garland, 601 U.S. 209, 225 (2024).1 The agency’s findings of fact underlying this determination—“[f]or instance, an IJ’s factfinding on credibility, the seriousness of a family member’s medical condition, or the level of financial support a noncitizen currently provides”—are unreviewable. Id. To establish an “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship,” a petitioner “must prove that his citizen relatives would suffer hardship substantially beyond that which would ordinarily be expected to result from” his removal. Chete Juarez v. Ashcroft, 376 F.3d 944, 949 n.3 (9th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks and 1 While Wilkinson did not define the “deferential” review required for review of “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” determinations, 601 U.S. at 225, we recently held that “substantial evidence” review applies, see Gonzalez-Juarez v. Bondi, No. 21-927, slip op. at 11 (9th Cir.). No matter what “deferential” review applies, we would deny the petition. 2 24-1735 citation omitted). Rosas Morlet argues that the agency failed to consider the possible future progression of his daughter’s hypothyroidism and improperly weighed the evidence as to Rosas Morlet’s financial and emotional support for his children. We disagree. The agency acknowledged that Rosas Morlet’s daughter suffers from hypothyroidism, that Rosas Morlet’s children rely upon him financially, and that Rosas Morlet’s removal to Mexico would cause his children emotional hardship. See Ramirez-Perez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir. 2003) (explaining the agency must consider “the ages, health, and circumstances of qualifying relatives” (internal quotation marks and footnote omitted)). The agency also found that Rosas Morlet’s daughter would continue to receive medical treatment in Arizona if Rosas Morlet were removed to Mexico, so did indeed consider the possible future progression of the daughter’s medical condition. The agency ultimately determined that although Rosas Morlet’s removal would impact his children financially and emotionally, those impacts were not “beyond that which would ordinarily be expected to result from” his removal. Chete Juarez, 376 F.3d at 949 n.3 (citation omitted).2 Given the “deferential” standard of review, 2 In a single sentence, Rosas Morlet also argues that “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship . . . is unconstitutionally vague and is extremely subjective.” Because Rosas Morlet does not develop this argument further, we need not address this bare assertion. See Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) (“We 3 24-1735 Wil

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 9 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT EUGENE FRANCIS MENGUITO No. 24-2450 MONTERDE, Agency No. A087-171-123 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submission Deferred March 19, 2025** Submitted June 6, 2025 Before: BOGGS,*** FRIEDLAND, and BRESS, Circuit Judges. Eugene Francis Menguito Monterde, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision dismissing * 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). *** The Honorable Danny J. Boggs, United States Circuit Judge for the Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit, sitting by designation. his appeal from an Immigration Judge (IJ) order denying his application for cancellation of removal. “Where, as here, the BIA cites Matter of Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 1994) and also provides its own review of the evidence and law, we review both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions.” Cordoba v. Barr, 962 F.3d 479, 481 (9th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition. 1. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Monterde’s qualifying relatives, his two United States citizen children, would not experience “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” upon Monterde’s removal from the United States, and that Monterde is therefore ineligible for cancellation of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D). Although we lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s ultimate discretionary decision whether to grant cancellation of removal or any underlying findings of fact, we have jurisdiction to review the agency’s hardship determination as a mixed question of law and fact under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). See Wilkinson v. Garland, 601 U.S. 209, 212, 225 & n.4 (2024); Gonzalez-Juarez v. Bondi, ---F.4th---, 2025 WL 1440220, at *3 & n.2 (9th Cir. May 20, 2025). To demonstrate the required hardship, an alien must show hardship “that is substantially different from, or beyond, that which would normally be expected from the deportation of an alien with close family members [in the United States].” Gonzalez-Juarez, ---F.4th---, 2025 WL 1440220, at *8 (quoting In re Monreal- 2 24-2450 Aguinaga, 23 I. & N. Dec. 56, 65 (B.I.A. 2001)). In making this determination, the agency “evaluates ‘the ages, health, and circumstances’ of qualifying relatives.” Id. (quoting Monreal-Aguinaga, 23 I. & N. Dec. at 63). We review the agency’s hardship determination for substantial evidence. See id. at *7. “Under this standard, we must uphold the agency determination unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion.” Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Monterde did not demonstrate the required hardship for purposes of cancellation of removal. Monterde testified that his family would accompany him to the Philippines in the event of his removal. The agency found that Monterde could find housing and work in the Philippines, that his children could adapt, and that the evidence did not show that his older child would face greater risk in the Philippines due to his peanut allergy. The agency also found that Monterde did not show that any of his children’s medical or schooling needs could not be met in the Philippines. Given these findings, the record does not compel the conclusion that Monterde’s children would experience exceptional and extremely unusual hardship in the event of his removal. See Gonzalez-Juarez, ---F.4th---, 2025 WL 1440220, at *9 (“[T]he hardship determination requires hardship that deviates, in the extreme, from the hardship that ordinarily occurs in removal cases.”). 2. Monterde argues that the agency violated his due-process rights by not 3 24-2450 expressly discussing his fear of retur

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 9 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 24-2577 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 4:19-cr-06065-MKD-1 v. MEMORANDUM* HUGO SANCHEZ-MERINO, SPANISH INTERPRETER REQUIRED, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington Mary K. Dimke, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 5, 2025** Seattle, Washington Before: HAWKINS, GOULD, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges. Defendant Hugo Sanchez-Merino appeals the district court’s denial of his first, third, and fourth motions to dismiss criminal charges brought against him under 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm. * 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 denial of a motion to dismiss an indictment under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 for illegal reentry when the motion is based on alleged due process defects in an underlying deportation proceeding.” United States v. Guizar- Rodriguez, 900 F.3d 1044, 1047 (9th Cir. 2018) (simplified). “We review the district court’s findings of fact for clear error.” United States v. Cisneros-Rodriguez, 813 F.3d 748, 755 (9th Cir. 2015) (simplified). 1. Section § 1326(d) bars a defendant charged with unlawful reentry from collaterally attacking their conviction unless they demonstrate that three conditions are met. United States v. Palomar-Santiago, 593 U.S. 321, 326 (2021). “The requirements are connected by the conjunctive ‘and,’ meaning defendants must meet all three.” Id. One of those conditions requires a defendant to demonstrate that the entry of the order against them was “fundamentally unfair.” 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d)(3). Under this prong, a defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that his due process rights were violated and that the defendant suffered prejudice as a result. United States v. Arrieta, 224 F.3d 1076, 1079 (9th Cir. 2000). To show prejudice, a defendant must show “that he had a plausible ground for relief from deportation.” United States v. Ubaldo-Figueroa, 364 F.3d 1042, 1050 (9th Cir. 2004) (simplified). Even assuming his due process rights were violated, Sanchez-Merino cannot show he suffered prejudice here. Sanchez-Merino argues he suffered prejudice from alleged due process 2 24-2577 violations because he was a plausible candidate for relief from removal. He makes this argument with respect to both his May 2000 and August 2001 removal orders. But Sanchez-Merino cannot demonstrate that the reasons for his admissibility “establish that it would be in the interest of justice” for him “to avoid a formal removal order.” United States v. Cisneros-Resendiz, 656 F.3d 1015, 1021 (9th Cir. 2011) (simplified). The “factors directly relating to the issue of inadmissibility indicate” whether “the granting of [a] withdrawal would be in the interest of justice.” Id. at 1020. Here, Sanchez-Merino presented himself at the U.S. border and falsely claimed he was a U.S. citizen—showing customs officials a birth certificate belonging to somebody else. And fraudulently or willfully misrepresenting a material fact, including procuring fraudulent documentation, makes an arriving noncitizen inadmissible. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i). So when a noncitizen “has willfully defied U.S. immigration laws by making a false claim of citizenship . . . the [immigration judge (“IJ”)] can reasonably decide that it is not in the ‘interest of justice’ to grant . . . relief from a formal removal order.” Cisneros-Resendiz, 656 F.3d at 1022. Factors such as Sanchez-Merino’s “age and family ties to the United States” are not relevant to this inquiry. See id. at 1021. Because he cannot show that he could plausibly have obtained approval to withdraw his application for admission, Sanchez-Merino fails to satisfy his burden of showing that he suffered 3 24-2577 prejudice. See United States v. Valdez-Novoa, 780 F.3d 906, 916 (9th Cir. 2015). 2