NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 24 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YASIR MEHMOOD, Nos. 19-72258
19-70579
Petitioner,
Agency No. A060-196-932
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney MEMORANDUM*
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of Orders of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 19, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Yasir Mehmood, a native and citizen of Pakistan, petitions pro se for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
reconsider (petition No. 19-72258) and the BIA orders dismissing his appeals from
an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decisions finding him removable and denying his
*
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).
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
Against Torture (“CAT”) (petition No. 19-70579). Our jurisdiction is governed by
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Bhattarai v. Lynch, 835
F.3d 1037, 1042 (9th Cir. 2016), including claims of due process violations in
immigration proceedings, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004).
We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the
standards governing adverse credibility determinations under the REAL ID Act.
Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and
dismiss in part petition No. 19-70579, and we dismiss petition No. 19-72258.
As to petition No. 19-70579, the agency correctly concluded that
Mehmood’s conviction for bank fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344 rendered
him removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i), as an alien convicted of a crime
involving moral turpitude (“CIMT”) committed within five years after admission
for which a sentence of one year of longer may be imposed. See Planes v. Holder,
652 F.3d 991, 997 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[F]raud crimes are categorically crimes
involving moral turpitude, simply by virtue of their fraudulent nature.”).
Mehmood’s contentions regarding his date of admission and the finality of his
conviction fail. See Route v. Garland¸ 996 F.3d 968, 981 (9th Cir. 2021)
(deferring to the BIA’s interpretation that the relevant admission for purposes of 8
U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) is the admission that led to petitioner’s presence in the
2 19-72258
United States when he committed the crime); Planes, 652 F.3d at 995-96 (under
the Immigration and Nationality Act, a conviction exists once the district court
enters judgment, notwithstanding the availability of an appeal). We do not address
Mehmood’s contentions regarding his removability under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1227(a)(1)(D)(i) because the BIA did not reach that ground. See Santiago-
Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (“In reviewing the decision
of the BIA, we consider only the grounds relied upon by that agency.” (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted)).
Because Mehmood was found removable due to his conviction for a CIMT,
our jurisdiction to review the agency’s particularly serious crime determination is
limited to constitutional claims and questions of law. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(a)(2)(C)-(D); Pechenkov v. Holder, 705 F.3d 444, 448-49 (9th Cir. 2012).
The agency considered the appropriate factors in a case-specific inquiry, and
Mehmood has not otherwise raised a colorable constitutional or legal challenge to
the particularly serious crime determination. See Flores-Vega v. Barr, 932 F.3d
878, 884 (9th Cir. 2019) (“[W]e lack jurisdiction over the BIA’s ultimate
determination that [petitioner] committed a particularly serious crime . . . . But we
retain jurisdiction to determine whether the BIA applied the correct legal
standard.” (internal citation and quotation marks omitted)); Anaya-Ortiz v. Holder,
594 F.3d 673, 679-80 (9th Cir. 2010) (concluding that the BIA engaged in the
3 19-72258
appropriate particularly serious crime analysis); see also Pechenkov, 705 F.3d at
448-49 (court lacks jurisdiction to re-weigh factors involved in discretionary
particularly serious crime determination). Thus, Mehmood’s asylum and
withholding of removal claims fail.
As to deferral of removal under CAT, substantial evidence supports the
agency’s adverse credibility determination based on Mehmood’s inconsistent
statements regarding his fear of the Taliban and his bank fraud conviction. See
Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048 (adverse credibility determination reasonable under
“the totality of circumstances”); Unuakhaulu v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d 931, 938-39
(9th Cir. 2005) (criminal conviction involving fraud undermined credibility). We
reject as unsupported by the record Mehmood’s contentions that IJ refused to
admit witness testimony and failed to properly consider corroborating evidence.
Thus, in the absence of credible testimony or other record evidence that compels
the conclusion that it is more likely than not Mehmood would be tortured by or
with the consent of acquiescence of the government if returned to Pakistan, his
CAT claim fails. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048-49.
Mehmood’s contentions that the agency otherwise violated his right to due
process or erred in its analysis of his case fail as either unsupported by the record
or because he has not shown any error. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th
Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim).
4 19-72258
As to petition No. 19-72258, the court lacks jurisdiction to consider it
because Mehmood did not meet the inmate filing rule requirements that could have
excused his untimely filing. See 8 U.S.C § 1252(b)(1) (“The petition for review
must be filed not later than 30 days after the date of the final order of removal.”);
Fed. R. App. P. 25(a)(2)(A)(iii) (inmate filing rule requires evidence that postage
was prepaid).
All requests raised in Mehmood’s opening brief, and all pending motions,
are denied, including the motion to extend the time to file the petition for review in
petition No. 19-72258. See Yepremyan v. Holder, 614 F.3d 1042, 1043 (9th Cir.
2010) (30-day time limit to file a petition for review is “mandatory and
jurisdictional and not subject to equitable tolling.” (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted)).
To the extent Mehmood, in his opening brief, references materials that are
not part of the administrative record, we do not consider them. See Fisher v. INS,
79 F.3d 955, 963-64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
PETITION No. 19-70579: DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
PETITION No. 19-72258: DISMISSED.
5 19-72258