Mervyn Als-Mclister v. Loretta E. Lynch

Ninth Circuit

Mervyn Als-Mclister v. Loretta E. Lynch

633 F. App'x 660

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 2, 2016

Docket14-70656

StatusUnpublished

This text of 633 F. App'x 660 (Mervyn Als-Mclister v. Loretta E. Lynch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mervyn Als-Mclister v. Loretta E. Lynch, 633 F. App'x 660 (9th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Mervyn Francis Als-McLister, a native and citizen of Trinidad and Tobago, petitions' pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for special rule cancellation of removal under the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (“VAWA”). See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law and for substantial evidence factual determinations. Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 345 F.3d 824, 832 (9th Cir.2003). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Als-McLister failed to establish he had been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty by his U.S.citizen spouse. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2)(A)(i); Hernandez, 345 F.3d at 840 (“extreme cruelty” is not “mere unkindness” and must rise to a level of an “extreme concept of domestic violence” in which a spouse engaged in “manipulative tactics aimed at ensuring the batterer’s dominance and control”).

We do not consider Als-McLister’s challenge to his bond determination, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19(d) (IJ’s consideration of an alien’s application or request regarding custody or bond “shall be separate and apart from ... any deportation or removal hearing or proceeding”), any request for prosecutorial discretion, see Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir.2012) (order), or evidence regarding the 1-130 visa petition Als-McLister’s sister filed on his behalf, see Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir.1996) (en banc) (the court’s review is limited to the administrative record).

In light of our disposition, we need not reach Als-McLister’s remaining contention regarding hardship.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

Mervyn Francis Als-McLister, a native and citizen of Trinidad and Tobago, petitions' pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for special rule cancellation of removal under the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (“VAWA”). See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law and for substantial evidence factual determinations. Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 345 F.3d 824, 832 (9th Cir.2003). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Als-McLister failed to establish he had been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty by his U.S.citizen spouse. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2)(A)(i); Hernandez, 345 F.3d at 840 (“extreme cruelty” is not “mere unkindness” and must rise to a level of an “extreme concept of domestic violence” in which a spouse engaged in “manipulative tactics aimed at ensuring the batterer’s dominance and control”).

We do not consider Als-McLister’s challenge to his bond determination, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19(d) (IJ’s consideration of an alien’s application or request regarding custody or bond “shall be separate and apart from ... any deportation or removal hearing or proceeding”), any request for prosecutorial discretion, see Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir.2012) (order), or evidence regarding the 1-130 visa petition Als-McLister’s sister filed on his behalf, see Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir.1996) (en banc) (the court’s review is limited to the administrative record).

In light of our disposition, we need not reach Als-McLister’s remaining contention regarding hardship.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

633 F. App'x 660, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mervyn-als-mclister-v-loretta-e-lynch-ca9-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack