LEONARDO PERALES-MERCADO V. WILLIAM BARR, No. 18-70847 (9th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED SEP 23 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LEONARDO PERALES-MERCADO, Petitioner, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 18-70847 Agency No. A097-381-676 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted September 18, 2019** Before: FARRIS, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. Leonardo Perales-Mercado, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). * 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 deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. Our jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary determination that Perales-Mercado lacked good moral character under the “catch-all” provision at 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f) is limited to questions of law or constitutional claims. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B), (D). Perales-Mercado has not established any error of law in the BIA’s discussion of the IJ’s 2017 particularly serious crime determination as part of its moral character analysis. See, e.g., Avendano-Hernandez v. Lynch, 800 F.3d 1072, 1078 (9th Cir. 2015) (“[T]he BIA may determine that [a DUI] offense constitutes a particularly serious crime on a case-by-case basis[.]”). We do not reach Perales-Mercado’s contentions regarding the IJ’s per se good moral character determination under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f)(1) because our review is limited to the BIA’s order. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010) (review is limited to the actual grounds relied upon by the BIA). Perales-Mercado’s contentions that the agency violated its own procedures, and the BIA failed to review the IJ’s denial of voluntary departure, are not supported by the record. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 18-70847
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.
