STEFAN JOHN DENSER, AKA Robert John Denser, AKA Sean v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
STEFAN JOHN DENSER, AKA Robert
John Denser, AKA Sean,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 14-73282
Agency No. A017-206-586
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 13, 2017**
San Francisco, California
Before: KOZINSKI and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and ARTERTON,***
District Judge.
Stefan Denser petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
decision affirming the denial of his application for withholding of removal. We
* 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).
*** The Honorable Janet Bond Arterton, Senior United States District
Judge for the District of Connecticut, sitting by designation.
FILED
SEP 18 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
have no jurisdiction to consider Denser’s factual argument that his conviction was
not for a “particularly serious” crime. See Pechenkov v. Holder, 705 F.3d 444,
448-49 (9th Cir. 2012). We do have jurisdiction to consider his legal argument—
that the BIA applied an incorrect legal test—and we consider that argument de
novo. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D); Brezilien v. Holder, 569 F.3d 403, 410-11
(9th Cir. 2009). But because we have already determined that the challenged test
is valid, Denser cannot succeed. See Miguel-Miguel v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 941,
944-49 (9th Cir. 2007) (reviewing and upholding the test described in In re Y-L-,
A-G- & R-S-R-, 23 I&N Dec. 270 (2002), overruled on other grounds by Zheng v.
Ashcroft, 332 F.3d 1186, 1196 (9th Cir. 2003)); see also Rendon v. Mukasey, 520
F.3d 967, 973-76 (9th Cir. 2008) (upholding a removal order under application of
the test in In re Y-L-).
DISMISSED in part and DENIED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --