Rangel-Zuazo v. Holder
633 F.3d 848
9th Cir.2011Background
- Petitioner Manuel Alejandro Rangel-Zuazo seeks review of a BIA final removal order dated May 10, 2007.
- BIA held the FJDA did not apply because the offense was charged as an adult and the conviction occurred after majority.
- BIA concluded the conviction did not constitute a juvenile adjudication and thus subject to removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii).
- BIA further held petitioner was ineligible for a 212(c) waiver under former INA § 212(c).
- They treated the underlying adjudication as a conviction for immigration purposes, aligning with state-adjudication outcomes.
- The regulation and policy issues were reviewed by the Ninth Circuit, which affirmatively denied the petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a juvenile adjudication later adjudicated as an adult constitutes a conviction under INA | Rangel-Zuazo argues yes | BIA/INS argues no | Yes; a juvenile adjudication counts as a conviction |
| Whether there is an equal protection violation in treating eighteen-year-olds differently | Rangel-Zuazo asserts equal protection | BIA defends rational basis | No equal protection violation; rational basis upheld |
| Whether the comparability requirement applies to 212(c) relief in this context | Rangel-Zuazo seeks 212(c) relief | Blake comparability standard governs relief | Comparability requirement applies; not retroactively unconstitutional |
Key Cases Cited
- Vargas-Hernandez v. Gonzales, 497 F.3d 919 (9th Cir. 2007) (juvenile conviction counts for immigration purposes when adjudicated as an adult)
- Morasch v. INS, 363 F.2d 30 (9th Cir. 1966) (definition of conviction includes formal judgment and punishment)
- Singh v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 561 F.3d 1275 (11th Cir. 2009) (adult conviction irrespective of the age at offense)
- Savchuck v. Mukasey, 518 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 2008) (per curiam on adult-conviction implications)
- Vieira Garcia v. INS, 239 F.3d 409 (1st Cir. 2001) (state-law adjudication relevance for immigration purposes)
- Sareang Ye v. INS, 214 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir. 2000) (importance of uniform treatment in immigration classifications)
- Kahn v. INS, 36 F.3d 1412 (9th Cir. 1994) (uniform application of immigration classifications)
- Avila-Murrieta v. INS, 762 F.2d 733 (9th Cir. 1985) (juvenile adjudication considerations in immigration law)