Jack Antonio v. Merrick Garland ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 23 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JACK DONALD ANTONIO, AKA Jack No. 13-71256
Antonio, AKA Jack Donald Castillo,
Agency No. A041-326-779
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 19, 2021 **
Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Jack Donald Antonio, a native and citizen of Belize, 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. Jauregui-Cardenas v. Barr, 946 F.3d 1116, 1118 (9th Cir.
2020). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not err in concluding that Antonio failed to meet his burden to
establish that his conviction under Arizona Revised Statutes (“Ariz. Rev. Stats.”)
§ 13-3405(A)(4) is not an aggravated felony drug trafficking offense that renders
him ineligible for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a)(3); Pereida v.
Wilkinson, 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); see also Rosas-Castaneda v. Holder, 655 F.3d 875, 885-86 (9th Cir. 2011)
(applying the modified categorial approach to Ariz. Rev. Stats. § 13-3405(A)(4)),
overruled on other grounds by Young v. Holder, 697 F.3d 976, 979-80 (9th Cir.
2012) (en banc).
We grant the unopposed motion for leave to file a brief of amicus curiae.
The stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 13-71256