Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
07-71309•Juan Dedios Contreras v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General
07-71309Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit28.02.2011
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUAN DEDIOS CONTRERAS,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-71309
Agency No. A095-667-198
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 15, 2011**
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Juan Dedios Contreras, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal.
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law.
FILED
FEB 28 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS
-- 1 of 2 --
07-71309 2
Castillo-Cruz v. Holder, 581 F.3d 1154, 1158-59 (9th Cir. 2009). We grant in part
and deny in part the petition for review.
Subsequent to the agency’s decision in this case, we held that indecent
exposure as defined by California Penal Code § 314(1) is not categorically a crime
involving moral turpitude. Nunez v. Holder, 594 F.3d 1124, 1138 (9th Cir. 2010).
The agency therefore erred in determining on the record before it that Contreras
was statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229b(b)(1)(C). We grant the petition in part and remand for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion.
We deny the petition for review with respect to the agency’s denial of
Contreras’s request for voluntary departure because we lack jurisdiction to review
this discretionary determination. 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(f); Galeana-Mendoza v.
Gonzales, 465 F.3d 1054, 1056 n.5 (9th Cir. 2006).
Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED in part; DENIED in part;
REMANDED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.