CRISTIAN DURAN-CASTRO V. LORETTA LYNCH, No. 15-71678 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED SEP 21 2016 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CRISTIAN ANDRES DURAN-CASTRO, AKA Christian Andres, AKA Christian Andres Duran, No. 15-71678 Agency No. A205-137-708 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted September 13, 2016** Before: HAWKINS, N.R. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Cristian Andres Duran-Castro, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision finding him statutorily ineligible for * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s determination that a petitioner knowingly engaged in drug trafficking. Chavez-Reyes v. Holder, 741 F.3d 1, 3 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review. The record of conviction regarding Duran-Castro’s Arizona conviction for solicitation to commit sale or transportation of narcotic drugs for sale provided the BIA substantial evidence that there was “reason to believe” Duran-Castro had been knowingly involved in drug trafficking. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(C)(i) (providing that an alien is inadmissible if there is “reason to believe” that he is or has been an “illicit trafficker in any controlled substance”); Chavez-Reyes, 741 F.3d at 3 (circumstantial evidence, coupled with the petitioner’s guilty plea, supported the BIA’s “reason to believe” finding). The agency therefore properly determined Duran-Castro was statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(C). His contention that there are inconsistencies in the record of conviction is not supported by the record. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 15-71678
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.
