MARIO ESCOBAR-GONZALEZ V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 13-71314 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AUG 11 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS MARIO ESCOBAR-GONZALEZ, No. 13-71314 Agency No. A205-117-415 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted August 7, 2014** Pasadena, California Before: WARDLAW, CALLAHAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Mario Escobar-Gonzalez ( Escobar ), a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of an Immigration Judge s order denying Escobar s motion to place Escobar in non-expedited removal proceedings and affirming an asylum officer s negative reasonable fear determination. Because Escobar is removable * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). for having been convicted of an aggravated felony, we lack jurisdiction over his petition for review. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C). Escobar s conviction under California Penal Code § 289(i) is an aggravated felony because it matches the federal definition of sexual abuse of a minor. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(A). A conviction under § 289(i) necessarily involves knowingly engaging in a sexual act, a victim within the federally-defined age range,1 and an age difference of at least four years. See 18 U.S.C. § 2243(a). It is irrelevant whether Escobar had knowledge of the victim s age. See Pelayo-Garcia v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1010, 1013 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 2243(d)). Although we have jurisdiction to review constitutional claims and questions of law, none of Escobar s remaining claims are colorable. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). The Government may place aliens who entered without inspection in expedited removal proceedings on the ground that they have been convicted of an aggravated felony. See United States v. Hernandez-Vermudez, 356 F.3d 1011, 1012 (9th Cir. 2004). Even if we assume that Escobar exhausted his challenge to the agency s clerical error, he has not demonstrated prejudice. See 1 If the victim of Escobar s offense was between 12 and 15, his conviction would correspond to 18 U.S.C. § 2243(a)(1). If the victim was under 12, his conviction would be an aggravated felony under 18 U.S.C. § 2241(c), which makes it a felony to engage in a sexual act with a person who has not attained the age of 12 years. . . . 2 Chowdhury v. INS, 249 F.3d 970, 973 n.2 (9th Cir. 2001). Escobar has no cognizable liberty interest in applying for a visa. Finally, a petition for review is not the proper avenue to challenge the denial of a bond hearing. See AguilarRamos v. Holder, 594 F.3d 701, 704 n.3 (9th Cir. 2010). DISMISSED. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
