RANGEL-ZUAZO v. Holder
678 F.3d 967
9th Cir.2011Background
- Petitioner Manuel Alejandro Rangel-Zuazo petitions for review of a BIA final removal order (May 10, 2007).
- BIA held FJDA does not apply because petitioner was charged as an adult and convicted after reaching majority.
- BIA concluded petitioner's conviction was not a juvenile adjudication for immigration purposes and thus subject to removal under INA § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii).
- BIA also held petitioner was ineligible for 212(c) relief under former INA § 212(c).
- The Ninth Circuit agrees with BIA and denies the petition for review.
- The court discusses the definition of conviction, equal protection, and the applicability of the Blake comparability standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a juvenile adjudication counts as a conviction for immigration purposes when the offender is convicted as an adult | Rangel-Zuazo argues FJDA should treat the juvenile adjudication as a conviction. | Holder argues INA defines conviction by the adjudicating forum's judgment, regardless of age at offense. | Yes; conviction includes juvenile adjudications if adjudicated (or treated) as an adult for the offense. |
| Whether the ruling denying 212(c) relief violates equal protection | Petitioner asserts unequal treatment of juveniles versus adults at conviction. | Government asserts rational basis supports ongoing juvenile protection and adjudication differences. | No equal protection violation; rational basis supports distinct juvenile adjudication regime. |
| Whether applying the comparability requirement from Blake to 212(c) relief is constitutional | Petitioner contends Blake should not constrain relief in this case. | Blake standard correctly limits 212(c) relief to grounds with comparable inadmissibility grounds. | Application of Blake's comparability requirement is not unconstitutional retroactive. |
Key Cases Cited
- Vargas-Hernandez v. Gonzales, 497 F.3d 919 (9th Cir.2007) (holds juvenile-adult conviction equivalence for immigration purposes)
- Singh v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 561 F.3d 1275 (11th Cir.2009) (adult conviction treatment governs immigration consequences)
- Vieira Garcia v. INS, 239 F.3d 409 (1st Cir.2001) (supports rational basis in using conviction nature for immigration)
- Blake v. Carbone, 489 F.3d 88 (2d Cir.2007) (confirms comparability requirement for §212(c) relief)
- Abebe v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir.2007) (Blake did not create retroactive change in law)
- Sareang Ye v. INS, 214 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir.2000) (recognizes importance of uniformity in immigration decisions)