Musa Abdul Ikharo v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
File Name: 12a0186n.06
Nos. 08-4139, 09-3587
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
MUSA ABDUL IKHARO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE
BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS
OPINION
Before: GILMAN and WHITE, Circuit Judges; and THAPAR, District Judge.*
RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge. This court’s judgment entered on August 2,
2010 was vacated by the Supreme Court on January 10, 2012 and the case remanded for further
consideration in light of Judulang v. Holder, 132 S. Ct. 476 (2011). The Court in Judulang
determined that the policy of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) in its application of § 212(c)
of the Immigration and Nationality Act to deportation cases was “arbitrary and capricious” under the
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).
In the case before us, the BIA denied Musa Abdul Ikharo any consideration of relief under
§ 212(c) from the immigration judge’s order of deportation. That was due at least in part to the
BIA’s now-discredited policy of applying the “comparable-grounds approach” as fully discussed in
Judulang. The Supreme Court has called on the BIA “to devise another, equally economical policy
The Honorable Amul R. Thapar, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Kentucky, sitting by
*
designation.

-- 1 of 2 --

respecting eligibility for § 212(c) relief, so long as it comports with everything held in both this
decision and St. Cyr.” Judulang, 132 S. Ct. at 490. We therefore remand Ikharo’s case to the BIA
for reconsideration in light of Judulang.
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --