Prior Conviction Under California Penal Code Section 273.5(a) Is Crime of Domestic Violence, and Criminal and Immigration Matters - U.S. Ninth Circuit
U.S. Ninth Circuit - The FindLaw 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries Blog

Prior Conviction Under California Penal Code Section 273.5(a) Is Crime of Domestic Violence, and Criminal and Immigration Matters

Banuelos-Ayon v. Holder, No. 07-71667, concerned a petition for review of the denial of petitioner's application for cancellation of removal, on the ground that petitioner's prior conviction under California Penal Code section 273.5(a) was categorically a crime of domestic violence.  The court of appeals denied the petition on the ground that the BIA's conclusion regarding petitioner's prior conviction was correct.

Hernandez-Velasquez v. Holder, No. 06-75728, involved a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals'("BIA") denial of petitioner's motion to reopen and reinstate proceedings, which the BIA construed as a motion to reissue its decision denying her administrative appeal.  The Ninth Circuit granted the petition on the ground that the BIA abused its discretion in failing to discuss petitioner's declaration and the attached photocopied Change of Address form in its decision, thereby failing to consider the "weight and consequences" of that evidence in its denial of her motion to reopen.

Jiang v. Holder, No. 08-73186, concerned a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") denial of petitioner's application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT").  The Ninth Circuit granted the petition in part on the ground that petitioner suffered persecution for demonstrating resistance to China's coercive population control policy.

In US v. Broussard, No. 09-10331, the court of appeals affirmed defendant's sentence for violating the terms of his supervised release, on the grounds that 1) in determining the class of felony for purposes of 18 U.S.C. section 3559(a), the court looked to the statutory maximum, not the guidelines maximum; and 2) the maximum sentence authorized by the statute of conviction was the upper limit on a district judge's discretion.

Related Resources