Elias Beltran Rascon v. Jefferson Sessions
698 F. App'x 911
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Elias Beltran-Rascon entered the U.S. without inspection around January 2002.
- He voluntarily departed to Mexico in March 2008 and reentered without inspection in April 2008.
- Immigration authorities found he had been unlawfully present in the U.S. for an aggregate period exceeding one year and then reentered without admission.
- An IJ and the BIA denied his renewed application to adjust status to lawful permanent resident and ordered removal if he did not voluntarily depart.
- Beltran-Rascon petitioned for review in the Ninth Circuit, arguing Tenth Circuit law should apply to his adjustment application.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed the BIA decision de novo and resolved whether § 212(a)(9)(C)(i)(I) bars adjustment of status under § 245(a).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Beltran-Rascon is inadmissible under INA § 212(a)(9)(C)(i)(I) | He challenged the application of the statute (argued different circuit law should govern) | He was inadmissible because he had >1 year unlawful presence and reentered without admission | Held: inadmissible under § 212(a)(9)(C)(i)(I) |
| Whether inadmissibility under § 212(a)(9)(C)(i)(I) bars adjustment under § 245(a) | Argued his adjustment should be evaluated under Tenth Circuit authority | Government: § 245(a) requires admissibility; inadmissibility precludes adjustment | Held: § 212(a)(9)(C)(i)(I) renders him ineligible for adjustment of status |
| Whether Ninth Circuit or Tenth Circuit law governs appellate review | Beltran-Rascon: Tenth Circuit law should apply | Government: Ninth Circuit law governs because proceedings were in Tucson, AZ | Held: Ninth Circuit law governs (appellate jurisdiction in Ninth Circuit); but result is same under Tenth Circuit law |
| Whether the BIA/IJ applied correct precedent | Beltran-Rascon: implied challenge to circuit precedent application | Government: IJ/BIA correctly applied Ninth Circuit precedent | Held: BIA correctly applied Ninth Circuit law; even under Tenth Circuit precedent the outcome is the same |
Key Cases Cited
- Garfias-Rodriguez v. Holder, 702 F.3d 504 (9th Cir. 2012) (addresses effect of unlawful presence and inadmissibility on adjustment of status)
- Carrillo de Palacios v. Holder, 708 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2013) (discusses purpose of § 212(a)(9)(C) to target recidivist immigration violators)
- Padilla-Caldera v. Holder, 637 F.3d 1140 (10th Cir. 2011) (holds § 212(a)(9)(C)(i)(I) precludes adjustment of status)