Recently in Immigration Law Category

In a petition for review of the BIA's order denying petitioner's request to terminate proceedings and his request for cancellation of removal, the petition is dismissed where petitioner's conviction was one related to a controlled substance under 8 U.S.C. section 1227(a)(2)(B)(i), and thus the circuit court lacked jurisdiction over the petition.

Read Bermudez v. Holder, No. 08-72133

Appellate Information

Submitted October 15, 2009*

Filed November 10, 2009

Judges

Per Curiam

Counsel

For Petitioner:

James A. Stanton, Honolulu, HI

For Respondent:

Lindsay E. Williams, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC

In defendant's appeal from a denial of his motion to dismiss his indictment for illegal reentry into the U.S. by a deported alien, the district court's order is affirmed where: 1) an Immigration Judge (IJ) is not required to act creatively to advise an immigrant of ways in which his legal prospects at forestalling deportation might improve with fundamental changes in his status; 2) the IJ's failure to inform defendant of his section 212(c) options did not prejudice him because he was not entitled to a section 212(c) waiver due to his commission of an aggravated felony; and 3) the IJ was not obligated to grant indefinite continuances if defendant did not produce counsel but refused to waive his right to counsel.

Read US v. Moriel-Luna, No. 08-50124

Appellate Information

Argued and Submitted August 31, 2009

Filed October 29, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Gould

Counsel

For Appellant:

Douglas F. McCormick, Michael J. Raphael, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Santa Ana, CA

For Appellee:

Jonathan D. Libby, Federal Public Defender's Office, Los Angeles, CA

In a petition for review of the BIA's denial of petitioner's motion to reconsider its rejection of petitioner's appeal as being untimely filed, the petition is denied where 8 C.F.R. section 1003.38(b) is ambiguous regarding the BIA's jurisdiction to consider late filings, and the BIA's interpretation barring petitioner's filing was not plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the language of the regulation.

Read Irigoyen-Briones v. Holder, No. 07-71806

Appellate Information

Argued and Submitted March 10, 2009

Filed September 29, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Smith

Dissent by Judge Kleinfeld

Counsel

For Petitioner:

Charles E. Nichol, Law Offices of Charles E. Nichol, San Francisco, CA

For Respondent:

Charles Canter and Ronald E. LeFevre, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC

In a petition for review of the BIA's order dismissing petitioner's appeal from an Immigration Judge's order finding him removable as an alien convicted of an aggravated felony, the petition is granted where petitioner was not convicted of an aggravated felony as his conviction for violating Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice did not categorically involve a depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct.

Read Aguilar-Turcios v. Holder, No. 06-73451

Appellate Information

Argued and Submitted December 7, 2007

Filed September 29, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Nelson

Dissent by Judge Bybee

Counsel

For Petitioner:

David B. Landry, San Diego, CA

For Respondent:

Siu P. Wong and Greg D. Mack, Department of Justice, Washington, DC

In a petition for review of the BIA's denial of petitioner's motion to reconsider its rejection of his appeal of an Immigration Judge's decision as being untimely filed, the petition is dismissed where the BIA's denial of petitioner's motion was an exercise of routine discretion.

Read Turcios v. Holder, No. 05-72258

Appellate Information

Argued and Submitted April 15, 2009

Filed September 29, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Siler

Dissent by Judge Kleinfeld

Counsel

For Petitioner:

Martin Avila Robles, San Francisco, CA

For Respondent:

Allen W. Hausman, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC

In a petition for review of the BIA's denial of petitioner's application for cancellation of removal, the petition is granted in part where: 1) the BIA erred in characterizing receipt of stolen property as a crime of moral turpitude; and 2) the BIA needed to decide whether petitioner's petty theft conviction fell within the petty offenses exception of the Immigration and Nationality Act.  However, the petition is denied in part where the BIA correctly determined that petitioner's conviction for petty theft constituted a crime of moral turpitude.

Read Castillo-Cruz v. Holder, No. 06-70896

Appellate Information

Argued and Submitted May 12, 2009

Filed September 17, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Reinhardt

Counsel

For Appellant:

Charles E. Nichol, San Francisco, CA

For Appellee:

Colette J. Winston, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC

In a petition for review of an order removing petitioner from the U.S., the petition is denied where petitioner's felony conviction for receipt of stolen property under California Penal Code section 496(a) categorically constituted an aggravated felony under the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Read Verdugo-Gonzalez v. Holder, No. 06-73733

Appellate Information

Argued and Submitted July 17, 2009

Filed September 14, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Clifton

Counsel

For Petitioner:

Kristine L. Wilkes, Latham & Watkins LLP, San Francisco, CA

Lola A. Kingo, Latham & Watkins LLP, San Francisco, CA

For Respondent:

Shelley R. Goad, Senior Litigation Counsel, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC

Zoe J. Heller, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC

In a petition for review of the BIA's final order removing petitioner from the U.S., the order is affirmed where the BIA did not err in determining that petitioner's conviction for attempted kidnapping under California Penal Code section 207(a) was an aggravated felony because it was categorically a crime of violence.

Read Delgado-Hernandez v. Holder, No. 08-70789

Appellate Information

Submitted September 1, 2009

Filed September 9, 2009

Judges

Per Curiam

Counsel

For Petitioner:

Jaime Lasso, Westlake Village, California for the petitioner.

For Respondent:

T. Bo Stanton, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC

Susan K. Houser, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC

In a petition for review of the BIA's decision denying petitioner's application for asylum and withholding of removal, the petition is denied where the Immigration Judge properly applied the terrorism bar in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) because the definition of "terrorist activity" under the INA does not provide an exception for armed resistance against military targets that is permitted under the international law of armed conflict.

Read Khan v. Holder, No. 07-72586

Appellate Information

Argued and Submitted February 11, 2009

Filed September 9, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge W. Fletcher

Concurrence by Judge Nelson

Counsel

For Petitioner:

Robert Bradford Jobe, Law Offices of Robert B. Jobe, San Francisco, CA

For Respondent:

Jeffrey Lawrence Menkin, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC

In a petition for review of the BIA's order denying petitioner's request for cancellation of removal, the petition is granted where Cuevas-Gaspar v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 1013 (9th Cir. 2005), compelled the conclusion that a parent's status as an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence may be imputed to an unemancipated minor child residing with that parent, for purposes of satisfying the five-year permanent residence requirement for cancellation of removal under section 240A(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Read Mercado-Zazueta v. Holder, No. 07-71428

Appellate Information

Argued and Submitted December 8, 2008

Filed September 8, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Wardlaw

Concurrence by Judge Graber

Counsel

For Petitioner:

Randy J. Tunac, Allen & Tunac, PLLC, Phoenix, AZ

For Respondent:

Charles E. Canter, Office of Immigration Litigation, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Washington, DC