CA9 on Crime of Violence, CIMT, Reopening: Gutierrez v. Garland

0
24

Gutierrez v. Garland

“Sergio Manrique Gutierrez petitions for overview of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) resolution dismissing his attraction of an order of elimination by an Immigration Choose (“IJ”) primarily based on Gutierrez’s conviction of an aggravated felony crime of violence and for having been convicted of two crimes of ethical turpitude. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s holding that Gutierrez’s California carjacking conviction is a categorical crime of violence. The BIA didn’t attain the second floor for elimination, concluding that Gutierrez waived his problem to the ethical turpitude elimination cost. Gutierrez individually petitions for overview of the BIA’s denial of his movement to reopen his attraction. The petitions have been consolidated, and we’ve got jurisdiction underneath 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We conclude that California carjacking underneath Cal. Pen. Code § 215(a) is just not a categorical crime of violence. We additionally conclude that the BIA erroneously decided that Gutierrez waived his problem to the ethical turpitude elimination cost. We grant the consolidated petition to that extent and remand the case to the BIA to resolve, within the first occasion, whether or not Gutierrez is detachable for having been convicted of two crimes of ethical turpitude. Gutierrez additionally petitions for overview of the IJ’s order reopening his case to contemplate a change within the regulation. We lack jurisdiction over that problem and due to this fact dismiss his petition as to this declare. Gutierrez additional petitions for overview of the company’s denial of his software for adjustment of standing and waiver of inadmissibility underneath 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h), denial of safety from elimination underneath the Conference Towards Torture (“CAT”), and the company’s discovering that Gutierrez was not credible. He additionally petitions for overview of the BIA’s denial of his movement to reopen his case to contemplate new proof that he was incompetent and to contemplate his ineffective help of counsel declare. We deny the consolidated petition as to those claims.”

[Hats off to Harper Otawka, Olavo Michel, Vincent J. Brunkow and Kara Hartzler!]

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here