HANY NIJMEH, AKA Hani Saleane Nijmeh, AKA Hank Nijmeh v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HANY NIJMEH, AKA Hani Saleane
Nijmeh, AKA Hank Nijmeh,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-75156
Agency No. A017-282-540
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 13, 2013**
San Francisco, California
Before: TASHIMA and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and WOOD, Senior District
Judge.***
FILED
JUN 27 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 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 Kimba M. Wood, Senior District Judge for the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 3 --

Hany Nijmeh (“Petitioner”) petitions for review of a Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“BIA”) order finding him ineligible for withholding of removal and
denying his application for relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
In determining that Petitioner was ineligible for withholding of removal by
virtue of “having been convicted . . . of a particularly serious crime,” 8 U.S.C. §
1231(b)(3)(B)(ii), the BIA retroactively applied the Attorney General’s 2002
decision in Matter of Y-L-, 23 I. & N. Dec. 270 (BIA 2002). Relying on Miguel-
Miguel v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 941 (9th Cir. 2007), Petitioner contends that the
retroactive application of Matter of Y-L- was improper. This is a “pure question[]
of law,” which this Court reviews de novo. See De Martinez v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d
759, 761 (9th Cir. 2004). Given that Petitioner’s crime qualified as a particularly
serious crime under the law in effect at the time of his guilty plea, we find no error
in the BIA’s retroactive application of Matter of Y-L-. See Miguel-Miguel, 500
F.3d at 951 (applying factors articulated in Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc. v. FTC,
691 F.2d 1322, 1333 (9th Cir. 1982)).
We also conclude that the BIA did not err in denying Petitioner’s application
for CAT relief. The factual findings of the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) and the BIA
underlying a determination that an applicant is ineligible for CAT relief are
2

-- 2 of 3 --

reviewed for whether they are supported by substantial evidence. See Arteaga v.
Mukasey, 511 F.3d 940, 944 (9th Cir. 2007). Having reviewed Petitioner’s
arguments and the evidence in the record, we conclude that the BIA’s
determination is supported by substantial evidence. See Cole v. Holder, 659 F.3d
762, 769-70 (9th Cir. 2011). The BIA did not err in relying on Matter of J-F-F-, 23
I. & N. Dec. 912 (A.G. 2006).
Finally, we conclude that the gaps in the transcript of the IJ’s hearing did not
violate Petitioner’s due process rights, because the inaccuracies did not prejudice
Petitioner. See Cinapian v. Holder, 567 F.3d 1067, 1075 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION DENIED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --