Ruben Vera-Perez v. Merrick Garland
20-73247
| 9th Cir. | Mar 24, 2022Background
- Petitioner Ruben Vera-Perez, a Mexican national, sought review of the BIA’s dismissal of his appeal from an IJ’s denial of adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i).
- § 1255(i) allows adjustment for certain aliens with timely-filed I-130 petitions; the Attorney General retains discretion to grant or deny relief.
- Vera-Perez has two DUI convictions and two relevant arrests: Dec. 21, 2000 (corporal injury of a spouse; charges dropped) and May 17, 2019 (DUI and related charges; some fines, some pending).
- The IJ considered the arrest reports (although not convictions), found an alcohol-related pattern, noted offered treatment but no demonstrated rehabilitation, and concluded unfavorable factors outweighed positives; the BIA adopted and affirmed.
- Vera-Perez argued the IJ/BIA violated BIA precedent by improperly weighing arrest reports; he did not deny the factual accuracy of the arrest records.
- The Ninth Circuit concluded the agency lawfully considered arrest reports under BIA standards but held it lacked jurisdiction to reweigh the agency’s discretionary denial of § 1255 relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the IJ/BIA legally erred by relying on arrest reports (non-convictions) in discretionary adjustment analysis | Vera-Perez: Agency violated BIA precedent and gave improper weight to arrest reports | Agency: Arrest records may be considered in discretion; evidence weighed by strength and circumstances | Held: No legal error; agency properly weighed arrest reports under controlling BIA standard |
| Whether the Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction to review the agency's discretionary denial of adjustment under § 1255(i) | Vera-Perez: Court can review whether BIA violated its own precedent (a legal question) | Government: Grant/denial of § 1255 relief is discretionary and unreviewable under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B) except for legal/constitutional claims | Held: Court lacks jurisdiction to reweigh or review the discretionary decision; dismissal for lack of jurisdiction (no legal error shown) |
Key Cases Cited
- Avila-Ramirez v. Holder, 764 F.3d 717 (7th Cir. 2014) (example where petitioner credibly denied allegations and IJ credited testimony)
- Billeke-Tolosa v. Ashcroft, 385 F.3d 708 (6th Cir. 2004) (social-worker evaluation supported petitioner’s denial of alleged misconduct)
- Torres-Valdivias v. Lynch, 786 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2015) (courts lack jurisdiction to review discretionary immigration relief determinations)