Marco Mendez v. Merrick Garland
14-72747
| 9th Cir. | Sep 17, 2021Background
- Marco Antonio Ruiz Mendez, a Mexican national, petitioned pro se for review of the BIA’s dismissal of his appeal from an IJ’s decision finding him removable and denying cancellation of removal.
- The contested conviction was under California Health & Safety Code § 11377(a); the agency relied on the record (minute order and complaint) to conclude it was possession of methamphetamine.
- The agency applied the modified categorical approach, treated the conviction as a controlled-substance offense rendering Ruiz Mendez removable and ineligible for cancellation of removal.
- Ruiz Mendez argued the conviction record was inconclusive and that his cancellation application was pretermitted because he sought post-conviction relief; the agency treated the conviction as final for immigration purposes.
- The BIA did not deny relief based on continuous physical presence or extreme hardship, so the court did not reach those merits issues.
- Ruiz Mendez also raised procedural-record development and derivative-citizenship claims; the court found lack of jurisdiction to review some procedural complaints and insufficient evidence for derivative citizenship.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CHSC § 11377(a) conviction is a controlled-substance offense making respondent removable and ineligible for cancellation | Ruiz Mendez argued the record was inconclusive or did not establish a controlled-substance violation | Agency relied on minute order/complaint and Coronado to conclude the conviction was for meth possession | Agency did not err; conviction established as a controlled-substance offense; inconclusive records fail applicant per Pereida |
| Whether cancellation was pretermitted because post-conviction relief was pending | Ruiz Mendez argued relief was premature because he sought post-conviction relief | Agency treated the conviction as final for immigration purposes once judgment and punishment were imposed | Conviction was final for immigration purposes; pretermitting was proper (Planes) |
| Whether IJ procedurally erred by failing to develop record (A-file/alienage) | Ruiz Mendez contended the IJ failed to develop the record | Issues were not raised below to the BIA/IJ | Court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented below (Barron) |
| Whether Ruiz Mendez established derivative U.S. citizenship | Ruiz Mendez claimed derivative citizenship | No evidence showed he met statutory requirements (lawful admission for permanent residence) | Claim fails for lack of proof of required statutory elements |
Key Cases Cited
- Coronado v. Holder, 759 F.3d 977 (9th Cir. 2014) (CHSC § 11377(a) is divisible; modified categorical approach applied)
- Pereida v. Wilkinson, 141 S. Ct. 754 (2021) (an inconclusive conviction record is insufficient to meet the alien’s burden to show eligibility for relief)
- Planes v. Holder, 652 F.3d 991 (9th Cir. 2011) (conviction is final for immigration purposes once judgment of guilt and punishment imposed)
- Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820 (9th Cir. 2011) (review is limited to the grounds relied upon by the BIA)
- Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented below)