Ramos-Castellanos v. Garland, 21-9545

Ramos-Castellanos, a Mexican national, entered the U.S. without inspection in 1997 and was charged removable in 2009 for being present without admission.
He pleaded guilty to solicitation of prostitution (Denver municipal code), a crime the parties and the IJ treated as a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT) punishable by up to one year.
He applied for discretionary cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1); eligibility is barred for aliens convicted of offenses listed in 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a)(2) or 1227(a)(2).
Ramos-Castellanos argued his conviction falls within the § 1182 petty-offense exception and that § 1227(a)(2)’s language requiring the alien be “admitted” means he cannot be treated as having been convicted of an offense “under” § 1227.
The IJ denied relief and the BIA affirmed, holding § 1229b(b)(1)(C) cross-references only the offense characteristics in § 1227(a)(2) (e.g., CIMT and sentencing), not the admission requirement; the Tenth Circuit denied review.

Issue	Ramos-Castellanos	Government/BIA	Held
Whether a CIMT that falls within the § 1182 petty-offense exception nonetheless bars cancellation under § 1229b(b)(1)(C)	Petty-offense exception in § 1182 removes disqualifying effect	§ 1229b(b)(1)(C) bars cancellation if offense matches § 1227(a)(2) regardless of § 1182 petty-offense exception	The petty-offense exception does not prevent disqualification under § 1227 cross-reference; disqualification stands
Whether § 1229b(b)(1)(C)’s cross-reference to § 1227(a)(2) imports § 1227’s “admitted to the United States” requirement	Because he was not admitted, he could not be convicted of an offense “under” § 1227	The cross-reference incorporates only offense-specific characteristics, not admission or other immigration-status language	The cross-reference does not require admission; conviction of a listed offense suffices to bar cancellation

Vartelas v. Holder, 566 U.S. 257 (2012) (describing IIRIRA’s replacement of "entry" with "admission" and the merger of exclusion/deportation into removal)
Judulang v. Holder, 565 U.S. 42 (2011) (distinguishing substantive grounds for removal from procedural categories)
Lucio-Rayos v. Sessions, 875 F.3d 573 (10th Cir. 2017) (petty-offense exception under § 1182 does not prevent disqualification under § 1227 for cancellation eligibility)
Ortega-Lopez v. Barr, 978 F.3d 680 (9th Cir. 2020) (deferred to BIA: cross-referenced offenses apply regardless of admission status)
Andrade-Zamora v. Lynch, 814 F.3d 945 (8th Cir. 2016) (§ 1229b(b)(1)(C) cross-reference refers to offenses, not immigration consequences)
Hernandez v. Holder, 783 F.3d 189 (4th Cir. 2015) (same interpretation of cross-reference)
Coyomani-Cielo v. Holder, 758 F.3d 908 (7th Cir. 2014) (cross-reference limited to crime and sentencing elements)
Nino v. Holder, 690 F.3d 691 (5th Cir. 2012) (held § 1229b(b)(1)(C) unambiguously references offense types, not timing or admission)
Rodas-Orellana v. Holder, 780 F.3d 982 (10th Cir. 2015) (BIA’s reasonable interpretations entitled to deference)
Robles-Garcia v. Barr, 944 F.3d 1280 (10th Cir. 2019) (applicant bears burden to show eligibility for cancellation)