Flores-Jimenez v. Blanche

── Flores-Jimenez v. Blanche ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: May 05, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 5 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT J. NATIVIDAD E. FLORES-JIMENEZ, No. 25-1306 Agency No. Petitioner, A047-331-440 v. MEMORANDUM* TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted April 13, 2026 Pasadena, California Before: PAEZ, CALLAHAN, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges. J. Natividad E. Flores-Jimenez petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision dismissing his appeal of an immigration judge’s (IJ) order denying his applications for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.  1. The agency did not abuse its discretion or otherwise commit legal error in concluding that Flores-Jimenez’s second-degree robbery conviction constituted a particularly serious crime, rendering him ineligible for withholding of removal. “We review both the IJ and the BIA decisions when the BIA adopts and affirms the IJ’s decision and provides its own analysis.” Chmukh v. Garland, 124 F.4th 670, 674 (9th Cir. 2024) (simplified). Because the IJ found that Flores-Jimenez’s conviction was an aggravated felony, the criminal-alien jurisdictional bar of 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) applies. Id. But “[w]e retain jurisdiction . . . to review . . . arguments that the agency committed legal error by applying the wrong legal standard ... in determining that he was convicted of a particularly serious crime under the limited review provision.” Id. at 674–75 (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D)). In reviewing the agency’s particularly-serious- crime analysis, “we consider whether the agency relied on the appropriate factors and proper evidence.” Chmukh, 124 F.4th at 675 (simplified). “We disturb the agency’s judgment only if it acted arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to law by failing to apply or misapplying the proper standard.” Id. (simplified). First, the agency applied the correct legal standard in determining that Flores- Jimenez was convicted of a particularly serious crime and that his conviction bars him from withholding of removal. The agency determines if crimes punishable by a prison term of less than five 2 25-1306 years are particularly serious on a case-by-case basis. Mairena v. Barr, 917 F.3d 1119, 1124 (9th Cir. 2019) (per curiam). “The applicable legal standard to determine if a crime is particularly serious, described in the BIA’s decision in Matter of Frentescu, . . . requires the agency to ask whether the nature of the conviction, the underlying facts and circumstances[,] and the sentence imposed justify the presumption that the convicted immigrant is a danger to the community.” Avendano-Hernandez v. Lynch, 800 F.3d 1072, 1077 (9th Cir. 2015) (simplified). The petitioner’s mental condition at the time of the crime is part of the underlying facts and circumstances. Gomez-Sanchez v. Sessions, 892 F.3d 985, 996 (9th Cir. 2018). Here, the IJ expressly considered the Frentescu factors, including Flores- Jimenez’s behavior and