Arsenio Montoya Tiongco v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

17-72896Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOct 18, 2019

Full text

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ARSENIO MONTOYA TIONGCO,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 17-72896
Agency No. A037-373-734
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 15, 2019**
Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Arsenio Montoya Tiongco, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeal’s order denying his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying cancellation of removal. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law.
Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny the
* 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).
FILED
OCT 18 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-72896
petition for review.
The agency did not err in denying Montoya Tiongco’s motion to withdraw
his previous concession of removability, where he failed to demonstrate any
egregious circumstance that would warrant withdrawing his pleadings. See id. at
831-32 (describing egregious circumstances that, if present, justify relieving an
alien of his attorney’s admissions).
Accordingly, the agency did not err in sustaining the removability charge.
See Barragan-Lopez v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 899, 905 (9th Cir. 2007) (because
petitioner’s admissions at pleadings stage constitute clear, convincing, and
unequivocal evidence of removability, the government met its evidentiary burden
of demonstrating removability).
Montoya Tiongco’s contention that the IJ erroneously relied on testimony at
the relief stage to establish the removability charge is not supported by the record.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.