Clerk of Court
No. 11-9512
(Petition for Review)
Petitioner Juan Jose Martinez-Diaz, proceeding pro se, petitions for review
of the decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upholding the
decision by the immigration judge (IJ) denying his request for cancellation of
removal. Exercising our jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(1), we deny the
petition.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is
not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,
and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value
consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
I. Background
Petitioner is a native and citizen of Mexico. He was admitted to the United
States as an immigrant in January 1995. In December 1997 Petitioner pleaded
guilty to violating Colo. Rev. Stat. 18-2-201 by conspiring to commit
aggravated motor theft in the first degree, as defined in Colo. Rev. Stat.
18-4-409(2). As part of his sentence, he was ordered to pay restitution in the
amount of $14,809.31. In March 2007 he pleaded guilty to violating both
Colo. Rev. Stat. 18-3-204, assault in the third degree, and Colo. Rev. Stat.
18-6-401(1)(a), child abuse.
The Department of Homeland Security commenced removal proceedings
against Petitioner in April 2007, charging him as removable under 8 U.S.C.
1227(a)(2)(E)(i), as an alien who has been convicted of a crime of domestic
violence, a crime of stalking, or a crime of child abuse, child neglect, or child
abandonment. Petitioner appeared before an IJ and denied that he was convicted
of a crime of child abuse and the corresponding charge of removability. Counsel
explained that Petitioner had not understood what he was pleading guilty to and
he was going to file for postconviction relief. At a hearing in September 2007 the
IJ sustained the charge of removability because there had been no ruling on the
request for postconviction relief and the child-abuse conviction had the requisite
degree of finality.
-2-
-3-
II. Discussion
Petitioner seeks review of the denial of discretionary relief, a determination
we ordinarily lack jurisdiction to review. See 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B)(i),(ii).
The denial of relief in this case, however, turned on the legal questions of
whether Petitioner had the burden of proving that he had not been convicted of an
aggravated felony and whether an inconclusive record of conviction can satisfy
that burden. We have jurisdiction to review these questions of law. See 8 U.S.C.
1252(a)(2)(D); Garcia v. Holder, 584 F.3d 1288, 1289 n.2 (10th Cir. 2009). We
review the questions de novo. See Herrera-Castillo v. Holder, 573 F.3d 1004,
1007 (10th Cir. 2009).
First, Petitioner appears to suggest that the government had the burden of
proving that he had been convicted of an aggravated felony. If the government
were charging Petitioner with being removable as an aggravated felon under
8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), then the Petitioner would be correct, because the
government bears the burden of proving removability in those circumstances. See
8 C.F.R. 1240.8(a). But the aggravated-felony issue was not relevant to
Petitioners removability. The government charged Petitioner with removability
under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(E)(i), as an alien who had been convicted of a crime
of child abuse. The IJ sustained the charge of removability on this basis and
Petitioner did not challenge this determination on appeal to the BIA.
-4-
Harris L Hartz
Circuit Judge
-7-