Antonio Castelo-Linares v. Merrick Garland ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 19 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANTONIO CASTELO-LINARES, No. 16-73480
Petitioner, Agency No. A206-262-756
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 12, 2021**
Before: TALLMAN, RAWLINSON, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Antonio Castelo-Linares, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision pretermitting his application for cancellation of
removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo
*
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).
questions of law, including claims of due process violations in immigration
proceedings. Padilla-Martinez v. Holder, 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 2014). We
deny the petition for review.
The agency did not err in pretermitting Castelo-Linares’s application for
cancellation of removal, where the evidence “indicates that one or more of the
grounds for mandatory denial of the application for relief may apply.” See
8 C.F.R. § 1240.8(d); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(C) (a conviction for a crime
of domestic violence, as set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i), is a ground for
mandatory denial of an application for cancellation of removal).
Castelo-Linares failed to meet his burden to establish that he is not subject to
mandatory denial of relief. See 8 C.F.R. § 1240.8(d); see also Pereida v.
Wilkinson, 141 S. Ct. 754, 760 (2021) (applicant for removal relief bears the
burden of establishing eligibility for discretionary relief, including that the
applicant has not been convicted of certain disqualifying offenses).
The BIA did not err or violate Castelo-Linares’s right to due process by
concluding the IJ did not fail to provide him an opportunity to meet his burden of
proof, where Castelo-Linares was on notice for approximately eleven months of
the need to provide evidence that he was not convicted of a crime of domestic
violence in order to establish his eligibility for relief. See Padilla-Martinez, 770
F.3d at 830 (requiring demonstration of a violation of rights to prevail on a due
2 16-73480
process claim).
The stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 16-73480