Chi on Tso v. Holder

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SEP 28 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
CHI ON TSO, No. 05-74579
Petitioner, Agency No. A035-021-315
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted August 31, 2011
San Francisco, California
Before: BERZON and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and GRAHAM, Senior District
Judge.**
The facts and procedural posture of the case are known to the parties, and we
do not repeat them here. Petitioner Chi On Tso seeks review of the decision of the
Immigration Judge (IJ), affirmed without opinion by the Board of Immigration
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The Honorable James L. Graham, Senior District Judge for the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Columbus, sitting by designation.
Appeals (BIA), denying Tso discretionary relief from removal under § 212(c) of
the Immigration and Nationality Act. He claims that the IJ acted contrary to law in
violating BIA precedent by relying upon uncorroborated police reports. When the
BIA affirms without opinion, as it did here, we review the IJ’s decision as the final
agency determination. Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 855 (9th Cir.
2003).
This court may review whether the BIA acted contrary to law in resting its
decision on a basis that is improper according to its own precedent. Hernandez v.
Ashcroft, 345 F.3d 824, 828–29 (9th Cir. 2003). The BIA has indicated that great
weight should not be afforded to uncorroborated police reports. See In re Arreguin
De Rodriguez, 21 I. & N. Dec. 38, 42 (B.I.A. 1995). Here, the IJ did look to
several police reports but relied principally on other, corroborating evidence. The
IJ relied on Tso’s testimony about the circumstances underlying his drug arrests in
addition to the police report for one of them, including Tso’s admission that he had
drugs in his possession both times. Although the IJ considered at least one police
report regarding domestic violence, the report was accompanied by a signed
statement of Tso’s wife asserting that he struck her. The IJ also relied on the
testimony of Tso and his wife, including testimony that Tso left the house while
she was threatening to commit suicide. The IJ used that evidence to conclude that
Tso either engaged in domestic violence or that he left his wife to fend for herself
while in a distressed condition. The IJ did not rely on one of the other police
reports at all, and the last was corroborated by a conviction that was uncontested.
Thus, the IJ did not impermissibly rely on any uncorroborated police reports in
reaching his conclusions.
Tso requests that we remand to the BIA for consideration for further relief if
we were to find him ineligible for § 212(c) relief. Because we assume his
eligibility and review the IJ’s discretionary determination on the merits, there is no
basis for remand.
Tso’s petition is DENIED.