RELIEF - CANCELLATION OF REMOVAL FOR LPRS - FIVE-YEAR LPR REQUIREMENT - IMPUTATION OF PARENT'S LPR STATUS TO CHILD
Escobar v. Holder, 567 F.3d 466 (9th Cir. May 27, 2009) (a parent's status as a Lawful Permanent Resident 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 INA 240A(a)(1); the rationale and holding of Cuevas-Gaspar applies equally to the five-year permanent residence and the seven-year continuous residence requirements at issue in that case), following Cuevas-Gaspar v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 1013 (9th Cir. 2005).
JUDICIAL REVIEW - STATUTORY INTERPRETATION -- DEFERENCE - BRAND-X
Escobar v. Holder, 567 F.3d 466 (9th Cir. May 27, 2009) (rejecting arguments that the BIA was allowed to ignore or overrule Cuevas-Gaspar, as it did in Matter of Escobar, 24 I. & N. Dec. 231 (BIA 2007) and Matter of Ramirez-Vargas, 24 I. & N. Dec. 599 (BIA 2008), in light of Brand-X: "neither Brand-X nor Duran Gonzales suggests that an agency may resurrect a statutory interpretation that a circuit court has already foreclosed by rejecting it as unreasonable at Chevrons second step.")
RELIEF - ASYLUM - ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS
Robleto-Pastora v. Holder, 567 F.3d 437 (9th Cir. May 27, 2009) (a noncitizen who has adjusted status under INA 209(b) is no longer an asylee; the DHS does not have to terminate asylee status officially under INA 208(c)(2), (3), 8 C.F.R. 208.22, 208.24).
RELIEF - ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS - REFUGEE STATUS - WAIVER UNDER 209(C)
Robleto-Pastora v. Holder, 567 F.3d 437 (9th Cir. May 27, 2009) (LPR who was formerly an asylee may not seek to re-adjust under INA 209(b) with a waiver of inadmissibility under INA 209(c); LPRs must seek to re-adjust under INA 245, regardless of whether they were previously granted asylum), following similar cases in the context of former refugees, Gutnik v. Gonzales, 469 F.3d 683 (7th Cir. 2006); Saintha v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 234 (4th Cir. 2008); Matter of Smriko, 23 I. & N. Dec. 836 (BIA 2005), distinguishing Matter of KA, 23 I. & N. Dec.
RELIEF - NACARA - SPECIAL RULE CANCELLATION
Barrios v. Holder, 567 F.3d 451 (9th Cir. May 27, 2009) (a minor who seeks NACARA special rule cancellation of removal, under Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act 203, as a derivative, must personally satisfy the Act's requirement of seven years of continuous physical presence; the father's physical presence in the United States cannot be imputed to him to satisfy this requirement).
JUDICIAL REVIEW - PETITION FOR REVIEW - JURISDICTIONAL LIMITATIONS - NO PETITION FOR REVIEW JURISDICTION TO REVIEW DISCRETIONARY DETERMINATIONS
Castro de Mercado v. Mukasey, 566 F.3d 810 (9th Cir. May 19, 2009) (no petition for review jurisdiction to challenge BIA's evidentiary determinations or matters within the BIA's discretion).
AGGRAVATED FELONY - CRIME OF VIOLENCE - ASSAULT WITH A FIREARM
United States v. Heron-Salinas, 566 F.3d 898 (9th Cir. May 20, 2009) (per curiam) (California conviction of assault with a firearm, under Penal Code 245(a)(2), constituted a crime of violence as defined in 18 U.S.C. 16, for immigration purposes: "The use of a firearm in the commission of the crime is enough to demonstrate that actual force was attempted or threatened under section 16(a).
JUDICIAL REVIEW - HABEAS CORPUS - JURISDICTIONAL LIMITATION - DISCRETIONARY CLAIMS - NO JURISDICTION TO CONSIDER DISCRETIONARY CLAIM REPACKAGED AS A CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIM
Negrete v. Holder, 567 F.3d 419 (9th Cir. May 12, 2009) ("Although we have jurisdiction over colorable constitutional claims relating to discretionary denials of motions to reopen, we lack jurisdiction if the due process claim is merely an abuse of discretion claim re-packaged as a constitutional claim."); citing Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005); Torres-Aguilar v. INS, 246 F.3d 1267, 1271 (9th Cir.
CRIM DEF - EXTRADITION - FOREIGN COUNTRY AGREED TO THE OFFENSES
United States v. Iribe, 564 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir. May 6, 2009) (extradition agreement properly identified the crimes the United States intended to prosecute defendant for; doctrine of specialty was not violated).
CRIMES OF MORAL TURPITUDE - ENDANGERMENT - RECKLESS CONDUCT
Keungne v. United States Atty Gen., 561 F.3d 128 (11th Cir. Mar. 11, 2009) (Georgia conviction for "reckless conduct," in violation of Ga. Code Ann. 16-5-60(b) ["endanger bodily safety of another by consciously disregarding a substantial and unjustifiable risk that his act or omission will cause harm"] is categorically a crime of moral turpitude), relying upon Knapik v. Ashcroft, 384 F.3d 84 (3d Cir. 2004).
Note: the court did not address the issue that the offense can be committed through an omission.
