Velasco v. Holder
736 F.3d 944
10th Cir.2013Background
- Velasco, a native and citizen of Mexico, entered the United States illegally in 1989.
- He previously received suspension of deportation relief under former INA § 244(a) and was granted LPR in 1998.
- In 2009 DHS began removal proceedings after Velasco pled guilty to two counts of possession of a controlled substance.
- Velasco applied for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a) as a permanent resident.
- The IJ denied relief for failure to meet the 7-year continuous residence requirement; the BIA dismissed on § 1229b(c)(6) grounds.
- The petition challenges whether § 1229b(c)(6) bars cancellation for those who received suspension relief after the IIRIRA’s effective date; the court affirms the BIA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does §1229b(c)(6) bar cancellation of removal here? | Velasco argues §1229b(c)(6) does not apply to relief after IIRIRA’s effective date. | The BIA correctly applied §1229b(c)(6) to bar cancellation once relief under prior provisions was obtained. | Yes; §1229b(c)(6) bars cancellation of removal. |
Key Cases Cited
- INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289 (U.S. 2001) (IIRIRA replacement of §1182(c) and related relief)
- Maldonado-Galindo v. Gonzales, 456 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2006) (plain language of §1229b(c)(6) bars prior relief from subsequent cancellation)
- Peralta-Taveras v. Att'y Gen., 488 F.3d 580 (2d Cir. 2007) (similar interpretation of §1229b(c)(6) precludes prior relief from cancellation)
- Uanreroro v. Gonzales, 443 F.3d 1197 (10th Cir. 2006) (review scope and deference to BIA where appropriate)
- Arambula-Medina v. Holder, 572 F.3d 824 (10th Cir. 2009) (jurisdiction to review legal questions and statutory interpretation)
- United States v. Handley, 678 F.3d 1185 (10th Cir. 2012) (statutory interpretation can rely on agency context and text)