Fabiola Camorlinga-Cruz v. Merrick Garland, 20-71642

Petitioner Fabiola Camorlinga-Cruz sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT withholding; an IJ denied asylum and statutory withholding, and the BIA affirmed. She received deferral of removal under CAT (not appealed).
Conviction: 2013 unlawful delivery of methamphetamine; the IJ found it involved a substantial quantity, petitioner disposed of a backpack when police approached, and she received a 60‑month prison sentence.
The IJ concluded the conviction was a "particularly serious crime," which bars asylum and statutory withholding; the BIA affirmed that determination.
Camorlinga‑Cruz challenged both the agency’s factual assessment of the conviction and the legal standard applied; the court distinguished jurisdictional limits between factual review and legal review.
The Ninth Circuit denied the petition, holding the agency applied the correct legal standard and did not abuse its discretion in finding the conviction particularly serious.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 2013 methamphetamine delivery conviction is a "particularly serious crime" barring asylum and withholding	Conviction was not particularly serious; agency misapplied the legal standard	IJ/BIA applied proper factors (nature, facts, sentence) and law to find it particularly serious	Agency applied correct standard and did not abuse discretion; conviction is particularly serious
Whether the court may reweigh the agency’s factual findings about the offense circumstances	Court should review factual assessment and conclude mischaracterization	Factual findings are committed to the agency and are not reviewable by court	Court lacks jurisdiction to reweigh or review the agency’s factfinding
Whether the IJ abused discretion by admitting a police report into evidence	Admission of the police report was improper and prejudicial	Issue was not exhausted before the BIA; thus not before this court	Court lacked jurisdiction to consider this claim because it was not raised to the BIA

Perez-Palafox v. Holder, 744 F.3d 1138 (9th Cir. 2014) (agency factual findings are not reviewable on appeal)
Pechenkov v. Holder, 705 F.3d 444 (9th Cir. 2012) (similar rule barring reweighing of facts)
Avendano-Hernandez v. Lynch, 800 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2015) (legal questions reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Arbid v. Holder, 700 F.3d 379 (9th Cir. 2012) (explaining abuse-of-discretion standard and review limits)
Gomez-Sanchez v. Sessions, 892 F.3d 985 (9th Cir. 2018) (setting out factors for determining a particularly serious crime)
Singh v. INS, 213 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 2000) (agency abuses discretion if action is arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law)