Noel Saldana Castillo v. Jefferson Sessions
693 F. App'x 647
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Noel Saldana, a Panamanian national, petitioned for review of the BIA’s dismissal of his appeal from an IJ denying cancellation of removal and adjustment of status.
- Saldana claimed he accrued 10 years of continuous physical presence before service of a notice to appear (NTA), which would make him eligible for cancellation of removal.
- The NTA in his case lacked a date and time for the hearing; Saldana argued this omission meant the “stop‑time” rule was not triggered.
- The BIA found Saldana ineligible for adjustment of status because he falsely represented himself as a U.S. citizen on an I‑9 form for employment at SeaTac Packaging.
- Evidence included an I‑9 with the "citizen" box checked in the employee section, Bolt’s testimony about employer verification, Saldana’s inconsistent statements about which box he checked, and Saldana’s admission that his work permit had expired.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an NTA lacking hearing date/time stops accrual of continuous physical presence for cancellation eligibility | Saldana: NTA without date/time did not trigger stop‑time, so he accrued 10 years | Government/BIA: Service of NTA triggers stop‑time regardless of date/time | Court: Denied — precedent defers to BIA’s construction; stop‑time triggered by service (Moscoso‑Castellanos controlling) |
| Whether Saldana made a false claim to U.S. citizenship on an I‑9, rendering him inadmissible for adjustment | Saldana: He checked the authorization box and SeaTac copied his (expired) work permit; inconsistencies are explainable | Government/BIA: I‑9 shows the "citizen" box checked; Bolt’s testimony corroborates employer verification; Saldana’s admissions and inconsistent oath support finding of false claim | Court: Denied — substantial evidence supports inference that Saldana claimed U.S. citizenship and failed to rebut that inference |
Key Cases Cited
- Blanco v. Mukasey, 518 F.3d 714 (9th Cir. 2008) (standard of review: legal questions de novo; factual findings for substantial evidence)
- Garcia‑Ramirez v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2005) (NTA lacking hearing info held not to stop accrual in earlier precedent)
- Moscoso‑Castellanos v. Lynch, 803 F.3d 1079 (9th Cir. 2015) (deferred to BIA’s construction that service of an NTA triggers stop‑time)
- Valadez‑Munoz v. Holder, 623 F.3d 1304 (9th Cir. 2010) (applicant must clearly show he is not inadmissible; employment documents can constitute inference of claim to citizenship)
PETITION DENIED.