Isaac Williamson v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without**
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
IH/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ISAAC WILLIAMSON,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
Nos. 08-71722
08-71073
Agency No. A038-581-257
MEMORANDUM *
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 17, 2009**
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated petitions for review, Isaac Williamson, a native and
citizen of Jamaica, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ orders dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order
FILED
DEC 08 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

IH/Research 08-71722 2
and denying his motion to reconsider. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
We review de novo questions of law, Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172, 1177
(9th Cir. 2008), review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen,
Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002), and review for substantial
evidence the agency’s factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182,
1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petitions for review.
The written plea agreement in the record establishes that Williamson was
convicted of “Attempted Transportation of Marijuana for Sale” in violation of
Arizona Revised Statutes §§ 13-3401, 3405, 3418, 1001, 701, 702.01, and 801.
See Parrilla v. Gonzales, 414 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir. 2005) (a written plea
agreement is a judicially noticeable document under the modified categorical
approach described in Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005)). Williamson
does not challenge the agency’s conclusion that his conviction was analogous to
the federal felony of “Attempted Possession of Marijuana for Sale” and therefore
an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B) and (U). See Lopez v.
Gonzales, 549 U.S. 47, 55 (2006). Accordingly, the agency did not err in finding
Williamson removable.

-- 2 of 3 --

IH/Research 08-71722 3
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Williamson’s motion to
reconsider. See United States v. Taylor, 259 F.3d 1232, 1238 (9th Cir. 2008)
(“Arizona’s definition of attempt is coextensive with the federal definition.”).
Williamson contends the agency violated due process by refusing to rule on
his motion to terminate and disregarding the evidence he presented with his appeal.
He also alleges the immigration judge did not explain the charges and provide him
with a definition of the crime before he admitted to the factual allegations.
Contrary to Williamson’s contentions, the proceedings were not “so fundamentally
unfair that [he] was prevented from reasonably presenting his case.” Colmenar v.
INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted). Moreover, Williamson
failed to demonstrate that the alleged violations may have affected the outcome of
the proceedings. See id. (requiring prejudice to prevail on a due process
challenge).
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of relief under the
Convention Against Torture because Williamson did not establish a likelihood of
torture by, at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of the Jamaican
government. See Arteaga v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 940, 946 (9th Cir. 2007).
Williamson’s pending motion is denied as moot.
PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --