Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

statutevisa
statutevisa

Related Cases

Urgen v. Holder
View Case »
Hodel v. Aguirre
View Case »
Bell v. Reno
View Case »
BASTIAS v. ATTORNEY GENERAL
View Case »
Liu v. Lynch
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Barma v. Holder

Facts

Petitioner Rajendra Barma was admitted to the U.S. as a visitor from Canada but overstayed his visa. He was convicted of several crimes, including possession of drug paraphernalia, which led to the Department of Homeland Security charging him with removal. Barma conceded he was removable for overstaying but contested the other grounds of removal based on his convictions.

Petitioner Rajendra Barma was admitted to the U.S. as a visitor from Canada but overstayed his visa. He was convicted of several crimes, including possession of drug paraphernalia, which led to the Department of Homeland Security charging him with removal. Barma conceded he was removable for overstaying but contested the other grounds of removal based on his convictions.

Issue

Did the Immigration Judge and the BIA err in determining that Barma was not eligible for cancellation of removal due to his convictions?

Did the Immigration Judge and the BIA err in determining that Barma was not eligible for cancellation of removal due to his convictions?

Rule

Under 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)(1)(C), an alien is ineligible for cancellation of removal if they have been convicted of an offense under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2).

Under 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)(1)(C), an alien is ineligible for cancellation of removal if they have been convicted of an offense under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2).

Analysis

The court applied the plain language of 1229b(b)(1)(C) to Barma's case, determining that his conviction for possession of drug paraphernalia fell under the category of offenses described in 1182(a)(2). The court rejected Barma's argument that he should be allowed to seek a waiver for his conviction, emphasizing that the cancellation of removal statute does not incorporate the waiver provisions of 1182(h).

The court applied the plain language of 1229b(b)(1)(C) to Barma's case, determining that his conviction for possession of drug paraphernalia fell under the category of offenses described in 1182(a)(2). The court rejected Barma's argument that he should be allowed to seek a waiver for his conviction, emphasizing that the cancellation of removal statute does not incorporate the waiver provisions of 1182(h).

Conclusion

The court denied Barma's petition for review, affirming that he was ineligible for cancellation of removal due to his conviction.

The court denied Barma's petition for review, affirming that he was ineligible for cancellation of removal due to his conviction.

Who won?

The government prevailed in the case because the court upheld the BIA's determination that Barma's conviction rendered him ineligible for cancellation of removal.

The government prevailed in the case because the court upheld the BIA's determination that Barma's conviction rendered him ineligible for cancellation of removal.

You must be