Arredondo v. Holder
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 22789
9th Cir.2010Background
- Lozano Arredondo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the BIA's dismissal of his cancellation of removal appeal.
- IJ denied cancellation on the basis of an admission that could amount to statutory rape, independent of any conviction.
- BIA denied review relying solely on Lozano Arredondo's Idaho petty theft conviction (18-2408(3)) as a crime involving moral turpitude.
- Conviction was entered in 1997; stop-time timing and applicability of exceptions in 1182(a)(2) were not analyzed by the BIA.
- Court remands to the BIA to determine which statutory grounds apply and to issue an appropriate decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the BIA properly analyzed the Idaho conviction and statutory grounds. | Lozano Arredondo argues the Idaho conviction and its timing may not fit the grounds. | The government contends the petty theft conviction independently supports ineligibility. | Remand required for BIA to apply correct statutory analysis. |
| Whether the IJ's statutory rape admission affects eligibility for relief. | Admission of potential statutory rape should not bar relief if not a conviction. | Admission to facts could support consequences under §1182(a)(2). | Remand needed to address statutory consequences and admissible grounds. |
| Whether the BIA failed to address 8 U.S.C. §§ 1227(a)(2)(A)(i) and 1182(a)(2)(A)(ii) nuances. | BIA did not discuss if exceptions (petty offense/time limits) apply. | BIA could apply de novo review but did not specify grounds. | Remand to clarify which statutory grounds the BIA relied on. |
Key Cases Cited
- Abovian v. INS, 219 F.3d 972 (9th Cir. 2000) (BIA may conduct de novo review and make its own findings)
- Elnager v. INS, 930 F.2d 784 (9th Cir. 1991) (BIA can apply correct standard regardless of IJ’s reasoning)
- Navas v. INS, 217 F.3d 646 (9th Cir. 2000) (Court cannot affirm BIA on ground it did not rely upon)
- Castillo v. INS, 951 F.2d 1117 (9th Cir. 1991) (Limits of review to BIA decision; cannot rely on IJ's analysis)
- Agyeman v. INS, 296 F.3d 871 (9th Cir. 2002) (Review scope when BIA conducts de novo review)