Juan Rodriguez Ozuna v. Merrick Garland

facts necessary to decide the petition. 2 Rodriguez Ozuna’s motion to remand required a showing of prima facie

eligibility for cancellation of removal. See INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104–05

(1988); see also Tzompantzi-Salazar v. Garland, 25 F.4th 752, 759 (9th Cir. 2022).

The criminal history Rodriguez Ozuna submitted to the IJ documented his arrests

in 2015 for lewd acts with a child under the age of 14, in violation of section

288(a) of the California Penal Code, and oral copulation with a child under the age

of 10, in violation of section 288.7(b) of the California Penal Code. But Rodriguez

Ozuna did not provide evidence of the dispositions of those arrests. Rodriguez

Ozuna bore the burden of proving all aspects of his eligibility, including proving

that these two arrests did not result in convictions. See Pereida v. Wilkinson, 141

S. Ct. 754, 758 (2021). Because Rodriguez Ozuna did not establish the absence of

a disqualifying conviction, the BIA did not abuse its discretion by declining to

remand Rodriguez Ozuna’s proceedings.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

3