Matilde Zoraya Parra v. Jefferson Sessions
704 F. App'x 713
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Matilde Zoraya Parra pleaded no-contest to possession for sale of a controlled substance under Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11351 and faced removal proceedings.
- The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) concluded Parra’s conviction was a "particularly serious crime," making her ineligible for withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(B)(ii).
- Parra argued her plea was based on ineffective advice and that she was actually innocent; she also sought protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), claiming past abuse and risk of future torture in Mexico.
- The BIA found Parra failed to rebut the strong presumption that drug‑trafficking offenses are particularly serious and that she did not meaningfully address Matter of Y‑L factors required to overcome that presumption.
- The BIA also found Parra did not show past treatment rose to the level of torture nor that government officials acquiesced, so she was not more likely than not to be tortured if returned.
- The Ninth Circuit denied the petition for review, affirming the BIA’s determinations and concluding Parra is ineligible for withholding of removal and CAT relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Parra’s drug conviction is a "particularly serious crime" barring withholding of removal | Parra: plea was the result of bad legal advice and she is actually innocent; conviction should not be treated as particularly serious | Government/BIA: drug‑trafficking offenses carry an "extraordinarily strong presumption" of being particularly serious; Parra failed to rebut Matter of Y‑L factors | Held: BIA properly found the conviction particularly serious; Parra did not rebut the presumption |
| Whether Parra met Matter of Y‑L factors to overcome presumption for withholding | Parra: circumstances (e.g., limited involvement, lack of harm) justify departure from presumption | BIA: Parra failed to meaningfully address Y‑L factors; post‑conviction claims of innocence insufficient | Held: Parra did not satisfy Y‑L factors; presumption stands |
| Whether Parra is more likely than not to be tortured if returned to Mexico (CAT) | Parra: past abuse and risk of future harm establish likelihood of torture | BIA/Government: record lacks detail showing harm rose to torture; police investigated and non‑prosecution does not equal government acquiescence | Held: BIA correctly found Parra did not show likelihood of torture or government acquiescence |
| Whether BIA abused its discretion in its credibility and discretionary assessments | Parra: BIA erred by disregarding her assertions and plea circumstances | BIA/Government: determinations supported by record; no abuse of discretion | Held: No abuse of discretion; petition for review denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Miguel-Miguel v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 941 (9th Cir.) (drug‑trafficking offenses carry an extraordinarily strong presumption of being particularly serious)
- Arbid v. Holder, 700 F.3d 379 (9th Cir.) (standards for "particularly serious crime" determinations)
- Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026 (9th Cir.) (government investigation or inability to prosecute does not alone establish acquiescence for CAT purposes)
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.