Mehdi Tavassoli v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MEHDI TAVASSOLI,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-70044
Agency No. A024-327-922
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 12, 2014 **
San Francisco, California
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, N.R. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Mehdi Tavassoli petitions for review of a decision of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing an appeal of denial by an Immigration
FILED
DEC 16 2014
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).

-- 1 of 3 --

Judge (IJ) of an application for adjustment of status. We have jurisdiction under 8
U.S.C. § 1252, and deny the petition for review.
1. Tavassoli’s 1981 convictions for conspiracy to distribute heroin and
possession of heroin with intent to distribute provided the BIA ample “reason to
believe” that Tavassoli had been knowingly involved in drug trafficking and was
therefore ineligible for adjustment of status. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(C)(i)
(providing that an alien is inadmissible if there is “reason to believe” that he is or
has been an “illicit trafficker in any controlled substance”); 8 U.S.C. §
1227(a)(1)(A) (“Any alien who at the time of . . . adjustment of status was within
one or more of the classes of aliens inadmissible by the law existing at such time is
deportable.”).
2. Tavassoli’s claim that the IJ failed to make an explicit credibility finding
regarding his testimony was not raised in the opening brief and is waived. United
States v. Ullah, 976 F.2d 509, 514 (9th Cir. 1992).
3. We reject Tavassoli’s contention that § 1182(a)(2)(C)(i) contains an
ambiguous temporal limitation that must be construed in his favor. The statute has
no such limitation, and we have applied it to conduct occurring years before an
immigration proceeding. See, e.g., Lopez-Molina v. Ashcroft, 368 F.3d 1206, 1207
(9th Cir. 2004); Hamid v. INS, 538 F.2d 1389, 1390 (9th Cir. 1976) (per curiam).
2

-- 2 of 3 --

DENIED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --