Deo v. Blanche

── Deo v. Blanche ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: April 24, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 24 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RONEEL DEO, No. 25-2526 Agency No. Petitioner, A079-261-235 v. MEMORANDUM* TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 22, 2026** Pasadena, California Before: HIGGINSON, NGUYEN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.*** Petitioner Roneel Deo is a native and citizen of Fiji and a United States lawful permanent resident. Deo was twice convicted of criminal threats under * 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). *** The Honorable Stephen A. Higginson, United States Circuit Judge for the Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit, sitting by designation. California Penal Code § 422. He seeks review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the denial by an immigration judge (“IJ”) of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) to review legal and constitutional claims, Park v. Garland, 72 F.4th 965, 973 (9th Cir. 2023), and we deny the petition. We review agency determinations that a conviction was a particularly serious crime for abuse of discretion, and we “may not ‘reweigh the evidence and reach our own determination about the crime’s seriousness.’” See Hernandez v. Garland, 52 F.4th 757, 765 (9th Cir. 2022) (quoting Avendano-Hernandez v. Lynch, 800 F.3d 1072, 1077 (9th Cir. 2015)). In determining whether a conviction constitutes a particularly serious crime, and where, as here, the crime is not a per se particularly serious crime, the agency “look[s] to such factors as the nature of the conviction, the circumstances and underlying facts of the conviction, the type of sentence imposed, and, most importantly, whether the type and circumstances of the crime indicate that the alien will be a danger to the community.” Konou v. Holder, 750 F.3d 1120, 1127 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Matter of Frentescu, 18 I. & N. Dec. 244, 247 (BIA 1982)). Adjudicators may also consider the petitioner’s mental health in determining whether the petitioner constitutes a danger to the community. Matter of B-Z-R-, 28 2 25-2526 I. & N. Dec. 563, 567 (2022). 1. The agency did not abuse its discretion in determining that Deo’s 2022 conviction for criminal threats was a particularly serious crime. First, the BIA properly affirmed the IJ’s determination that Deo’s offense of conviction “is categorically a crime of violence that involves a threat of death or bodily injury to a person . . . .” See Konou, 750 F.3d at 1127 (“Crimes against persons are more likely to be categorized as ‘particularly serious crimes.’” (quoting Frentescu, 18 I. & N. Dec. at 247)). Second, the IJ considered the fact that Deo testified that he threatened to kill his father on the phone, and that his threat conveyed to his father “a gravity and purpose and an immediate prospect of execution.” According to the criminal complaint, Deo pl