Rosa Galindo De Rodriguez v. Eric H. Holder Jr.
724 F.3d 1147
9th Cir.2013Background
- Galindo, a Mexican national, entered the U.S. in May 1990 and was lawfully admitted as a lawful permanent resident in 2000.
- She received advance parole in 1996 to visit Mexico, traveling 13 days and returning to continue her adjustment of status.
- Her seven-year continuous-residence period began with admission in 1990; the 1996–1997 trip is the focal point for continuity.
- In 2005 she was detained at the border for attempting to transport a minor across with a false birth certificate, triggering removal proceedings.
- She challenged the BIA’s 2008 dismissal of her cancellation appeal and sought reopening; the court granted in part and denied in part, remanding the cancellation issue.
- The central issue is whether a thirteen-day trip on advance parole ends continuous residence and whether her admissions of removability can be re-opened against now-asserted law changes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Galindo satisfied seven years of continuous residence. | Galindo contends she resided continuously after 1990. | Government argues the 1996 trip broke continuity. | Galindo resided continuously; trip did not end residence. |
| Whether an advance-parole trip ends residence for continuous-residence purposes. | Residence definition governs; trip does not alter it. | Trip to Mexico via parole ends continuity. | Trip did not end continuous residence. |
| Whether the motion to reopen could retract removability concessions. | Argues change in law warrants reopening to suppress interrogation. | Concessions binding; no basis to reopen. | Motion to reopen properly denied; concessions binding. |
Key Cases Cited
- Guevara v. Holder, 649 F.3d 1086 (9th Cir. 2011) (admission in any status permits continuity despite unlawful presence)
- Alcarez-Garcia v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir. 2002) (residence can endure despite regular travel outside U.S.)
- Rodriguez-Barajas v. INS, 992 F.2d 94 (7th Cir. 1993) (continuous residence not equal to continuous physical presence)
- Huerta-Guevara v. Ashcroft, 321 F.3d 883 (9th Cir. 2003) (concessions of removability in light of potential legal change)
- In re Blancas-Lara, 23 I. & N. Dec. 458 (BIA 2002) (BIA on admissions and continuous residence framework)