Salmeron-Shanchez v. Holder
Petitioners do not challenge the IJ’s denial of their applications for cancellation of removal. Their request that their case be remanded so that husband Barrera Guzman can apply for adjustment of status is denied.
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2009/09/17/04-71689.pdf
Kwong v. Holder
**212(c)/Equal Protection**
Under Abebe v. Mukasey, 554 F.3d 1203, 1207 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc) both the class of aliens with “substantially identical” removable offenses to an excludable offense listed in § 212(a) and the class of aliens whose removable offenses have no § 212(a) counterpart are ineligible for relief under § 212(c). Therefore, Kwong’s equal protection challenges are moot.
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2009/09/17/05-73522.pdf
Castillo-Cruz v. Holder
** Receipt of stolen property not categorically a CIMT; GMC **
The BIA erred in relying on Patel v. INS, 542 F.2d 796 (9th Cir. 1976), and finding Castillo-Cruz’s violation for CPC section 496(a) a CIMT. CPC section 496(a) punishes conduct that is categorically broader than a crime of moral turpitude because a person can be convicted under that section even if he did not have the intent to permanently deprive the rightful owner of property. In addition, the IJ erred as a matter of law in finding that Castillo-Cruz failed to establish good moral character during the ten-year period as required by 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(1)(B). The relevant ten year period for the moral character determination is calculated backwards from the date on which the cancellation
of removal application is resolved by the IJ or the BIA. Since Castillo-Cruz was convicted for petty theft in 1989 and for receipt of stolen property in 1990, more than ten years passed between the date of conviction for either offense and the IJ’s decision of February 1, 2005.
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/09/17/06-70896.pdf
newimmigrationcases
leave a comment