Paulo v. Holder, 669 F.3d 911

Paulo is a Philippines native who entered as a lawful immigrant in 1985 at age 14; he has a U.S. citizen father and a lawful permanent resident mother and a U.S. citizen daughter born in 1997.
He has multiple California convictions: 1991 assault with a firearm (P.C. §245(a)(2)); vacated in 1994 and re-convicted for assault with a deadly weapon other than a firearm (P.C. §245(a)(1)); and 1998 receiving known stolen property (P.C. §496(a)).
2000 IJ ordered removal; 2001 BIA affirmed; this court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction in 2001.
St. Cyr decision (2001) held retroactivity of §212(c) repeal; Paulo became potentially eligible for §212(c) relief.
2002 California Superior Court vacated the 1998 conviction and Paulo pled guilty to false personation (P.C. §529(3)); this removed him from removability under §237(a)(2)(A)(ii).
Paulo petitioned for habeas corpus in 2003; the district court ordered remand to allow §212(c) relief and later, in 2004, granted relief eligibility and directed proceedings before the immigration courts; the BIA remanded in 2004 and began §212(c) proceedings in 2005; Blake and Brieva decisions addressed the statutory counterpart rule.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether res judicata binds the IJ and BIA to the district court’s relief finding	Paulo (Paulo) asserts res judicata binds agencies to district court’s §212(c) eligibility finding	Government contends Blake/Brieva create new law and override prior district court ruling	Yes; res judicata binds the IJ and BIA to Paulo’s §212(c) eligibility, subject to merits review on remand
Whether the statutory counterpart rule bars Paulo’s §212(c) relief	Paulo relies on district court’s St. Cyr-based eligibility; argues counterpart rule supports relief	Government argues no statutory counterpart for removability grounds; Blake/Brieva control	Res judicata requires considering Paulo eligible if a statutory counterpart exists via §212(c) framework on remand
Whether Blake and Brieva constitute a change in law preventing res judicata from applying	Paulo argues no retroactive change that would negate district court ruling	Government argues Blake/Brieva are new law foreclosing eligibility	Blake/Brieva do not constitute a change in law; res judicata remains applicable
What governs the remaining proceedings on remand	District court’s order mandates §212(c) eligibility and merits-based balancing	BIA/IJ must apply statutory counterpart rule and balance factors per Marin	Proceedings to determine whether §212(c) relief should be granted on remand under res judicata framework

INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289 (Supreme Court 2001) (retroactivity of repealed §212(c) relief in IIRIRA context)
Blake v. Carbone, 489 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2007) (focus on language-based statutory counterpart rule for eligibility)
Brieva-Perez (In re Brieva-Perez), 23 I. & N. Dec. 766 (BIA 2005) (post-Blake interpretation of statutory counterpart rule)
Abebe v. Mukasey, 554 F.3d 1203 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc; clarifies limits of Blake/Brieva posture on §212(c) relief)
Komarenko v. INS, 35 F.3d 432 (9th Cir. 1994) (statutory counterpart requirement longstanding in circuit)
In re Jimenez-Santillano, 21 I. & N. Dec. 567 (BIA 1996) (illustrates focus on comparable exclusion ground over mere overlap)
Matter of Wadud, 19 I. & N. Dec. 182 (BIA 1984) (early articulation of counterpart principle)
Matter of Montenegro, 20 I. & N. Dec. 603 (BIA 1992) (statutory counterpart framework precedent)
Francis v. INS, 532 F.2d 268 (2d Cir. 1976) (constitutional avoidance basis for extending §212(c))