Roberto Chavez v. Merrick Garland ( 2021 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
JUN 11 2021
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROBERTO MARQUEZ CHAVEZ, No. 20-70759
Petitioner, Agency No. A203-252-954
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 8, 2021**
Pasadena, California
Before: GRABER, CALLAHAN, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Roberto Marquez Chavez, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
seeks review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ ("BIA") order summarily
dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s ("IJ") order of removal and
denial of Petitioner’s applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
*
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).
under the Convention Against Torture. We deny the petition.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion, Singh v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d 1006,
1009 (9th Cir. 2005), in summarily dismissing Petitioner’s appeal. Counsel’s
contention, in the Notice of Appeal, that the IJ erred by finding that Petitioner’s
conviction was an aggravated felony drug offense contradicts counsel’s earlier
statement that Petitioner admitted the factual allegations in the Notice to Appear
and conceded the charge of removability. The Notice of Appeal fails to offer
support for why Petitioner is able to retract his concession of removability, other
than a "generalized and conclusory" statement about how the IJ erred. Toquero v.
INS, 956 F.2d 193, 195 (9th Cir. 1992). And the standard for summarily
dismissing an appeal under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(2)(i)(A) or (E) was otherwise
met. Rojas-Garcia v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 814, 819–20 (9th Cir. 2003); cf. Casas-
Chavez v. INS, 300 F.3d 1088, 1090–91 (9th Cir. 2002).
PETITION DENIED.
2