In re Gonzalez-Silva

8 Citing cases

  1. Mendez-Garcia v. Lynch

    840 F.3d 655 (9th Cir. 2016)   Cited 38 times
    Concluding that "the BIA could reasonably determine that § 1229b(b)(D) requires [a noncitizen] seeking cancellation to establish hardship to a qualifying relative as of the time the [immigration judge] adjudicates the . . . application"

    We granted the extension and consolidated his petitions. Shortly thereafter, the BIA issued a precedential decision holding that convictions entered prior to September 30, 1996, did not preclude eligibility for cancellation of removal, see Matter of Gonzalez–Silva , 24 I. & N. Dec. 218 (BIA 2007). Because Rivera–Baltazar had been convicted of infliction of corporal injury in March 1996, the government moved to remand the case.

  2. Hernandez v. Holder

    783 F.3d 189 (4th Cir. 2015)   Cited 17 times
    Explaining that nonprecedential BIA decision relied on precedential decision that was entitled to deference

    Fourth, Hernandez argues that the BIA's construction “leads to the bizarre result that those who may have a conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude in another country prior to being admitted to the United States may be barred from ever applying for cancellation of removal before they have even stepped foot in the United States.” But this result is not bizarre, especially because § 1182(a)(2) itself provides that any alien who has been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude, as qualified therein, is ineligible to be admitted to the United States. And even if this result were bizarre, it is not for this court to criticize Congress' policy choices.Fifth, Hernandez argues that Cortez Canales is inconsistent with the BIA's earlier rulings in Matter of Garcia–Hernandez, 23 I & N. Dec. 590, 592–93 (2003), and Matter of Gonzalez–Silva, 24 I. & N. Dec. 218, 220 (2007), in which the BIA held, respectively, that an offense is not under § 1182(a)(2) if it is covered by the petit-offense exception and that an offense is not under § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i) if it preceded that section's effective date. But this argument is no more than a disagreement with the way that the BIA distinguished those cases in Cortez Canales itself.

  3. Arredondo v. Holder

    623 F.3d 1317 (9th Cir. 2010)   Cited 17 times
    Remanding case to BIA to clarify grounds of decision

    Specifically, the BIA does not address the applicability, if any, of the exceptions outlined in the respective statutes regarding crimes involving moral turpitude (i.e., the petty offense exception and time period limitations). See In re Gonzalez-Silva, 24 I. N. Dec. 218, 219 (BIA 2007) (reaffirming its previous holding that "the `description' of the category of offenses encompassirig crimes involving moral turpitude also includes the exception" (quotation marks and citation omitted)); see also Vasquez-Hernandez v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1053, 1055 n. 3 (9th Cir. 2010) (suggesting that if § 1182(a)(2) was the basis for removability rather than § 1182(a)(6), the petty offense exception may have applied). Based upon the BIA's failure to engage in a substantive analysis of its decision, we have no ability to conduct a meaningful review of its decision.

  4. Morancovarrubias v. Holder

    334 F. App'x 70 (9th Cir. 2009)

    We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and grant the petition for review. After the agency's orders in this case, the BIA held in Matter of Gonzalez-Silva, 24 I. N. Dec. 218 (BIA 2007), that "an alien whose conviction precedes the effective date for section 237(a)(2)(E) of the [Immigration and Nationality] Act has not been `convicted under' section 237(a)(2)" for purposes of cancellation of removal. Id. at 220.

  5. Mota v. Mukasey

    543 F.3d 1165 (9th Cir. 2008)   Cited 3 times

    After the agency's decision in Mota's proceedings, the BIA held that a conviction of a crime of domestic violence before September 30, 1996, does not make a petitioner ineligible for cancellation of removal. Matter of Gonzalez-Silva, 24 I N Dec. 218, 220 (BIA 2007) ("[W]e conclude that an alien whose conviction precedes the effective date for section 237(a)(2)(E) of the Act has not been `convicted under' section 237(a)(2) of the Act. While this is a close question, we find that an offense can be one `described' in section 237(a)(2)(E) only if the conviction for that offense occurred after September 30, 1996."); see also Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, Pub.L. No. 104-208, 350(b), 110 Stat. 3009, 3009-640 (1996) ("The amendment [adding domestic violence as grounds for deportation] shall apply to convictions . . . occurring after the date of the enactment of the act.").

  6. Lopez-Velasco v. Mukasey

    277 F. App'x 673 (9th Cir. 2008)

    We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and grant the petition for review. After the agency's decisions in this case, the BIA held in Matter of Gonzalez-Silva, 24 I. N. Dec. 218 (BIA 2007), that "an alien whose conviction precedes the effective date for section 237(a)(2)(E) of the [Immigration and Nationality] Act has not been `convicted under' section 237(a)(2)" for purposes of cancellation of removal. Id. at 220.

  7. Lopez-Garrido v. Mukasey

    265 F. App'x 604 (9th Cir. 2008)

    We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and grant the petition for review. After the agency's decisions in this case, the BIA held in Matter of' Gonzalez-Silva, 24 I. N. Dec. 218 (BIA 2007), that "an alien whose conviction precedes the effective date for section 237(a)(2)(E) of the [Immigration and Nationality] Act has not been `convicted under' section 237(a)(2)" and remains eligible for cancellation of removal. Id. at 220.

  8. Cabrales v. Mukasey

    265 F. App'x 612 (9th Cir. 2008)

    We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and grant the petition for review. After the agency's decisions in this case, the BIA held in Matter of Gonzalez-Silva, 24 I. N. Dec. 218 (BIA 2007), that "an alien whose conviction precedes the effective date for section 237(a)(2)(E) of the [Immigration and Nationality] Act has not been `convicted under' section 237(a)(2)" and remains eligible for cancellation of removal. Id. at 220.