Juan Flores v. Merrick Garland

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 3 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ABISUK SINSAENG, AKA Apisuk Andy No. 18-72975 Sinsaeng, AKA Avisuk Andy Sinsaeng, Agency No. A037-571-413 Petitioner,

v. MEMORANDUM*

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

JUAN FLORES, AKA Juan Flores, Jr., No. 19-73089

Petitioner, Agency No. A090-214-113

v.

JOSE ROSAS-ARROYO, No. 20-70100

Petitioner, Agency No. A072-128-281

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Argued and Submitted February 11, 2022, as to Nos. 18-72975 and 19-73089 Submitted August 26, 2022, as to No. 20-70100** San Francisco, California

Before: HURWITZ and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges, and MOSKOWITZ,*** District Judge.

Abisuk Sinsaeng, Juan Flores, and Jose Rosas-Arroyo—citizens of Thailand,

Mexico, and Peru, respectively—each have petitioned for review of decisions of the

Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing their appeals from removal orders issued

by Immigration Judges. Exercising jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, we deny the

petitions.

Each petitioner was convicted of violating California Penal Code

§ 136.1(b)(1) and sentenced to at least one year in prison. Each was then charged as

removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(S) for having committed an offense related

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz, United States District Judge for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation.

2 to obstruction of justice. We initially granted the petition for review in each case

because Ninth Circuit precedent held that the federal generic offense required a

nexus to a pending or ongoing proceeding, something that is not an element of the

California statute of conviction. See Sinsaeng v. Garland, No. 18-72975, 2022 WL

3700858 (9th Cir. Aug. 26, 2022); Flores v. Garland, No. 19-73089, 2022 WL

3700857 (9th Cir. Aug. 26, 2022); Rosas-Arroyo v. Garland, No. 20-70100, 2022

WL 3700841 (9th Cir. Aug. 26, 2022). However, we granted the government’s

petition for panel rehearing after the Supreme Court decided in Pugin v. Garland

that a nexus to a pending or ongoing proceeding is not an element of an offense

relating to obstruction of justice. 599 U.S. 600, 602 (2023). See Sinsaeng v.

Garland, No. 18-72975, 2023 WL 5011742 (9th Cir. July 31, 2023); Flores v.

Garland, No. 19-73089, 2023 WL 5011744 (9th Cir. July 31, 2023); Rosas-Arroyo

v. Garland, No. 20-70100, 2023 WL 5007893 (9th Cir. July 31, 2023).

The only issue for decision in each case is whether California Penal Code

§ 136.1(b)(1) is a categorical match for obstruction of justice under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1101(a)(43)(S). In Cordero-Garcia v. Garland, -- F.4th --, No. 19-72779, 2024

WL 3192169 (June 27, 2024), we held that the California statute is an offense

relating to obstruction of justice under § 1101(a)(43)(S). We therefore deny the

three petitions for review.

PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.

3 4