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

statuteparole
parole

Related Cases

Hernandez-Arias; U.S. v.
View Case »
Du v. Chertoff
View Case »
Harrison v. Republic of Sudan
View Case »
Kantor v. Pompeo
View Case »
Viegas v. Holder
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Gomez-Lopez v. Ashcroft

Facts

Gomez entered the United States without being admitted or paroled after inspection in March 1988. In January 1999, Gomez pled guilty in Ventura County Superior Court to one count of vehicular manslaughter while under the influence of alcohol, in violation of California Penal Code 192(c)(3). He was ordered to serve 365 days in the Ventura County Jail, beginning on March 10, 1999. The INS then filed a Notice to Appear, charging Gomez with removability as an alien present in the United States without being admitted or paroled.

Gomez entered the United States without being admitted or paroled after inspection in March 1988. In January 1999, Gomez pled guilty in Ventura County Superior Court to one count of vehicular manslaughter while under the influence of alcohol, in violation of California Penal Code 192(c)(3). He was ordered to serve 365 days in the Ventura County Jail, beginning on March 10, 1999. The INS then filed a Notice to Appear, charging Gomez with removability as an alien present in the United States without being admitted or paroled.

Issue

Whether the alien's incarceration in a county jail constituted confinement in a penal institution for purposes of the INA, specifically, 8 U.S.C. 1101(f).

The sole issue raised in his petition is whether his incarceration in a county jail constitutes confinement in a penal institution for purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act ('INA') — specifically, 8 U.S.C. 1101(f).

Rule

No person shall be regarded as, or found to be, a person of good moral character who, during the period for which good moral character is required to be established, is, or was . . . one who during such period has been confined, as a result of conviction, to a penal institution for an aggregate period of one hundred and eighty days or more.

No person shall be regarded as, or found to be, a person of good moral character who, during the period for which good moral character is required to be established, is, or was . . . one who during such period has been confined, as a result of conviction, to a penal institution for an aggregate period of one hundred and eighty days or more.

Analysis

The court found that Gomez's incarceration in county jail following a vehicular manslaughter conviction constituted confinement to a penal institution within the meaning of 1101(f)(7). The court noted that the plain meaning of the statute includes confinement in any facility, whether federal, state, or local, as a result of conviction for the requisite period of time.

It is self-evident that Gomez's incarceration in county jail following a vehicular manslaughter conviction constitutes 'confinement, as a result of conviction, to a penal institution,' within the meaning of 1101(f)(7).

Conclusion

The petition for review was dismissed as to the denial of the alien's application for voluntary departure. The remainder of the petition for review was denied.

The petition for review accordingly is DISMISSED in part and DENIED in part.

Who won?

The government prevailed in the case because the court upheld the IJ's decision that Gomez was statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal due to his conviction and incarceration.

The government prevailed in the case because the court upheld the IJ's decision that Gomez was statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal due to his conviction and incarceration.

You must be