Felipe Guardado v. Loretta E. Lynch

636 F. App'x 961

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: February 16, 2016
• Docket: 12-73314
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

MEMORANDUM ***

Felipe Guardado appeals a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision affirming an immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of his applications for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U:S.C. § 1252.

Guardado did not appeal the IJ’s denial of his asylum application to the BIA. We therefore lack jurisdiction to review Guar-dado’s claim that he was improperly denied asylum. See Zara v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 927, 930 (9th Cir.2004) (“We have held that ‘[fjailure to raise an issue in an appeal to the BIA constitutes a failure to exhaust remedies with respect to that question and deprives this court of jurisdiction to hear the matter.’”) (quoting Vargas v. U.S. Dep’t of Imm. & Nat., 831 F.2d 906, 907-08 (9th Cir.1987)).

Guardado’s conviction for possession for sale of methamphetamine under California Health & Safety Code § 11378 is an aggravated felony that contains a drug trafficking element; it therefore presumptively qualifies as a particularly serious crime. Matter of Y-L-, 23 I. & N. Dec. 270, 275 (A.G.2002); see Rendon v. Mukasey, 520 F.3d 967, 976 (9th Cir.2008). The BIA did not abuse its discretion when it concluded that the underlying circumstances and nature of Guardado’s conviction were insufficient to rebut this presumption. Because the BIA identified and applied the correct legal standard, we lack jurisdiction to “reweigh evidence to determine if the crime was indeed particularly serious.” Konou v. Holder, 750 F.3d 1120, 1127 (9th Cir.2014) (quoting Blandino-Medina v. Holder, 712 F.3d 1338, 1343 (9th Cir.2013)).

PETITION DISMISSED.

*** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir, R. 36-3.