Juana Acosta De Leon v. ERIC H. HOLDER JR., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
The Honorable Myron H. Bright, Senior Circuit Judge for the United**
States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUANA ACOSTA DE LEON,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-73253
Agency No. A077-115-491
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted November 8, 2012
Pasadena, California
Before: BRIGHT, GRABER, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.**
Petitioner Juana Acosta de Leon petitions for review from the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ ("BIA") entry of a final order of removal and denial of
cancellation of removal. Reviewing de novo "[l]egal questions concerning the
FILED
JAN 31 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

The BIA has recently disapproved of our decision in Garcia-Quintero. In1
re Reza-Murillo, 25 I. & N. Dec. 296 (B.I.A. 2010). But this case presents no
opportunity to reconsider the viability of Garcia-Quintero because the BIA has not
applied its new rule here. See INS v. Orlando Ventura, 537 U.S. 12 (2002) (per
curiam).
2
meaning of the immigration laws," Aguilar Gonzalez v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 1204,
1208 (9th Cir. 2008), we deny the petition.
The BIA correctly held that Petitioner had not been "admitted in any status"
under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a) because, as Petitioner acknowledges, she never entered
the country lawfully and therefore cannot meet the statutory definition of
"admitted," 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(13)(A).
Although we have held that being accepted into certain programs providing
immigration benefits constituted being "admitted in any status," see Garcia v.
Holder, 659 F.3d 1261 (9th Cir. 2011); Garcia-Quintero v. Gonzales, 455 F.3d
1006 (9th Cir. 2006), those cases are not applicable here. Petitioner here merely1
applied for temporary status under the Special Agricultural Workers program
defined at 8 U.S.C. § 1160(a). Cf., e.g., Garcia-Quintero, 455 F.3d at 1015
(assessing whether acceptance into the Family Unity Program ("FUP") rendered
the petitioner "admitted in any status"). The fact that Petitioner received a work
permit and some limited right to travel during the period between her application
and the agency’s determination that her application was fraudulent does not change

-- 2 of 3 --

3
the conclusion. See Guevara v. Holder, 649 F.3d 1086, 1093–94 (9th Cir. 2011)
("In Garcia-Quintero, our decision to allow FUP participants to qualify as admitted
in any status was not based upon the fact that FUP participants were allowed to
work. Our decision instead focused on the aliens’ acceptance into the FUP."
(citation omitted)).
Petition DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --