Vic Videz v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 585 F. App'x 555 ( 2014 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 22 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VIC PASCUAL VIDEZ, No. 13-72049
Petitioner, Agency No. A047-885-385
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 9, 2014**
Honolulu, Hawaii
Before: TASHIMA, RAWLINSON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Vic Pascual Videz (Videz) petitions for review of the decision of the Board
of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal of the denial of cancellation
of removal. Videz contends that he was not removable because neither of his
assault convictions qualified as a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT). In
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
addition, Videz asserts that his due process rights were violated because the
Immigration Judge (IJ) considered facts outside his record of conviction and
impermissibly questioned witnesses. Videz also maintains that his equal protection
rights were violated because other aliens convicted of assault have been granted
cancellation of removal.
The BIA properly declined to address Videz’s challenge to his convictions,
raised for the first time before the BIA, because Videz’s admission that he was
removable based on his commission of a CIMT was binding. See Perez-Mejia v.
Holder, 663 F.3d 403, 414 (9th Cir. 2011), as amended (holding that “if at the . . .
pleading stage an alien, individually or through counsel, makes admissions of fact
or concedes removability, and the IJ accepts them, no further evidence concerning
the issues of fact admitted or law conceded is necessary. . . .”).
We lack jurisdiction over Videz’s challenge to the BIA’s discretionary
denial of cancellation of removal because Videz failed to present a colorable
constitutional claim. See Arteaga-De Alvarez v. Holder, 704 F.3d 730, 736 (9th
Cir. 2012) (“We have jurisdiction over a constitutional challenge to a BIA decision
denying cancellation of removal only if the constitutional claim is colorable, i.e., if
it has some possible validity.”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see
also Vilchez v. Holder, 682 F.3d 1195, 1198 (9th Cir. 2012) (confirming that “we
2
lack jurisdiction to review the merits of a discretionary decision to deny
cancellation of removal”) (citations omitted). Videz’s due process rights were not
violated because the IJ, in denying cancellation of removal, properly considered
the facts surrounding Videz’s assault conviction and did not exhibit any bias in
questioning the witnesses. See Ridore v. Holder, 696 F.3d 907, 920 n.5 (9th Cir.
2012) (observing that the IJ may consider “the existence of a criminal record and,
if so, its nature, recency, and seriousness, and the presence of other evidence
indicative of a [petitioner’s] bad character or undesirability as a permanent resident
of this country”) (citation omitted); see also Yan Liu v. Holder, 640 F.3d 918, 931
(9th Cir. 2011), as amended (holding that the IJ’s active questioning of petitioner
did not support a finding of bias). Additionally, “[b]ecause [Videz] cannot show
that his treatment differed from that of similarly situated persons, [his] equal
protection claim is unavailing.” Gutierrez v. Holder, 662 F.3d 1083, 1090 n.11
(9th Cir. 2011) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
PETITION DISMISSED in part and DENIED in part.
3