The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
16-70758•GABRIELA VASQUEZ-PEREZ, AKA Gabriela Perez, AKA Gabriela Vasquez v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General
16-70758Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAug 16, 2019
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GABRIELA VASQUEZ-PEREZ, AKA
Gabriela Perez, AKA Gabriela Vasquez,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 16-70758
Agency No. A208-084-056
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted December 18, 2018
Submission Withdrawn June 7, 2019
Resubmitted August 16, 2019
San Francisco, California
Before: CALLAHAN, N.R. SMITH, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Gabriela Vasquez-Perez, a native and citizen of Mexico, entered the United
States without admission and was charged with being removable. She appeared
before an Immigration Judge (IJ) along with four other aliens. She stated that she
FILED
AUG 16 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
-- 1 of 2 --
would represent herself. She listened to the IJ’s statements, and admitted that she
had been convicted for “crystal meth.” The IJ found Vasquez-Perez removable,
and on appeal, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed her removal.
Vasquez-Perez filed a petition for review with the Ninth Circuit, which appointed
pro bono counsel.
Following oral argument, we issued an en banc opinion in Marinelarena v.
Barr, No. 14-72003 (July 18, 2019), in which we held that “whether the record of
conviction necessarily establishes the elements of the disqualifying federal offense
‘is a legal question with a yes or no answer.’” Id. at *8 (internal citation omitted).
Because the IJ and the BIA did not have the benefit of our opinion in
Marinelarena,, we VACATE the order of removal and REMAND to the agency
for further proceedings in light of our opinion in Marinelarena.1
Each party to bear its own costs.
1 Because we vacate the order of removal and remand, we need not and
do not address the other issues briefed by petitioner.
2
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.