Juan Madrigal Navarro v. Jefferson Sessions, III ( 2018 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SEP 11 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
JUAN RAMON MADRIGAL No. 15-71398
NAVARRO,
Agency No. A092-244-654
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted February 16, 2018
San Francisco, California
Before: SCHROEDER, TORRUELLA,** and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Juan Madrigal Navarro (Madrigal) petitions for review of a decision by the
Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming a ruling by the Immigration Judge
(IJ) that Madrigal was statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal, asylum,
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The Honorable Juan R. Torruella, United States Circuit Judge for the
First Circuit, sitting by designation.
and withholding of removal based on his conviction for possession of cocaine base
for sale in violation of California Health & Safety Code § 11351.5.
Madrigal contends on appeal that the BIA engaged in impermissible
factfinding and that inadequate sign-language interpretation violated due process.
We do not agree.
Madrigal does not dispute that he was convicted of a violation of California
Health & Safety Code § 11351.5, or that the conviction constitutes an aggravated
felony barring him from asylum relief. Rather, he argues that the conviction
should not be considered a particularly serious crime barring him from withholding
of removal. Specifically, Madrigal attempts to make a distinction between the IJ’s
finding that Madrigal associated with members of a street gang involved with
drugs, and his characterization of his cohorts as “just bad people.” However, we
must accept the factual findings made by the IJ unless the evidence compels a
contrary result. See Abufayad v. Holder, 632 F.3d 623, 629 (9th Cir. 2011), as
amended. The evidence in this case does not do so where Madrigal explicitly pled
guilty to a drug trafficking offense.
Madrigal also contends that the BIA engaged in impermissible factfinding.
However, the BIA merely noted the absence of evidence to rebut the presumption
that a drug trafficking aggravated felony is a particularly serious crime. Comments
2
on the lack of evidence do not equate to impermissible factfinding by the BIA. See
Perez-Palafox v. Holder, 744 F.3d 1138, 1145 (9th Cir. 2014) (concluding that no
impermissible factfinding occurred when the BIA applied the law to the facts
found by the IJ).
Finally, Madrigal asserts that he was deprived of due process because of
inadequate sign-language interpretation. However, because Madrigal is ineligible
for any relief, any due process violation was harmless. See Yan Liu v. Holder, 640
F.3d 918, 931 (9th Cir. 2011), as amended.1
PETITION DENIED.
1
Madrigal’s speculation that he might have shown government involvement
to qualify for relief under the Convention Against Torture is too speculative to
establish prejudice. See Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011).
3