Rafael Trujillo Parra v. Merrick Garland

facts, we do not recount them here. We deny the petition.

1. Particularly Serious Crime

Parra argues that the BIA and IJ erred in concluding that his assault

conviction was for a “particularly serious crime,” rendering him ineligible for

withholding of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(B)(ii); 8 C.F.R.

§ 1208.16(d)(2). We review that decision only for abuse of discretion as to

whether the agency applied the correct legal standard and relied on the appropriate

factors and evidence. Bare v. Barr, 975 F.3d 952, 961 (9th Cir. 2020). We do not

re-weigh the evidence leading to the agency’s “ultimate determination.” Id.

(citation omitted).

In conducting the particularly serious crime analysis, the IJ considers three

factors: “(1) the nature of the conviction, (2) the type of sentence imposed, and (3)

the circumstances and underlying facts of the conviction.” Id. (internal quotation

1 There is a pending motion and supplemental motion to stay Parra’s removal. Dkt. Nos. 1, 6. At Parra’s request during oral argument, we leave the temporary stay of removal intact until the mandate in this case issues. Once the mandate issues, we deny both motions as moot.

2 marks and citation…