ISMAEL SOLIS-VILLEDA V. MERRICK GARLAND, No. 18-70316 (9th Cir. 2021)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 17 2021 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ISMAEL SOLIS-VILLEDA, AKA Ismael Solis, AKA Ismael Villeda Solis, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 18-70316 Agency No. A205-711-939 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 14, 2021** Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Ismael Solis-Villeda, 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 (“IJ”) decision pretermitting his applications for cancellation of removal and adjustment of status. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. * 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). We review de novo questions of law. Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review. The IJ did not err in reopening the record of proceedings, where in petition No. 15-70696, this court granted the government’s motion to remand, in part, to further develop the record concerning Solis-Villeda’s conviction, and Solis-Villeda did not petition for rehearing of that decision. See Olivas-Motta v. Whitaker, 910 F.3d 1271, 1280 (9th Cir. 2018) (“an administrative agency may not deviate from a supervising court’s remand order”). The BIA did not err in concluding that California Health and Safety Code (“CHSC”) § 11377(a) is divisible and in applying the modified categorial approach to determine that Solis-Villeda’s conviction is a controlled substance offense that renders him ineligible for cancellation of removal and adjustment of status. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II), 1229b(b)(1)(C), 1255(i)(2)(A); Coronado v. Holder, 759 F.3d 977, 984-85 (9th Cir. 2014) (holding CHSC § 11377(a) is divisible with regard to substance and subject to the modified categorical approach). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 18-70316

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.