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

statutedomestic violencedeportation
statutedomestic violence

Related Cases

Bilali v. Gonzales
View Case »
Enriquez-Gutierrez v. Holder
View Case »
Garcia-Meza v. Mukasey
View Case »
Meza-Vazquez v. Barr
View Case »
Ortiz v. Garland
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Gonzalez v. Ashcroft

Facts

Gonzalez-Gonzalez is a Mexican native who illegally entered the United States in 1983. He was convicted of domestic violence in 2000 and subsequently charged with removability. Although he conceded removability, he requested cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)(1). The immigration judge found him ineligible for cancellation due to his conviction, which was a ground for deportation under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2). The BIA affirmed this decision.

Gonzalez-Gonzalez is a Mexican native who illegally entered the United States in 1983. He was convicted of domestic violence in 2000 and subsequently charged with removability.

Issue

Whether an inadmissible alien who was convicted of a crime of domestic violence is also ineligible for cancellation of removal.

Whether an inadmissible alien who was convicted of a crime of domestic violence is also ineligible for cancellation of removal.

Rule

Under 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)(1)(C), cancellation of removal is available only if the alien has not been convicted of an offense under sections 1182(a)(2), 1227(a)(2), or 1227(a)(3).

Under 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)(1)(C), cancellation of removal is available only if the alien 'has not been convicted of an offense under section 1182(a)(2), 1227(a)(2), or 1227(a)(3) of this title.'

Analysis

The court analyzed the statutory language and determined that the BIA's interpretation was correct. The phrase 'convicted of an offense under' was interpreted to mean 'convicted of an offense described under' each of the referenced sections. The court concluded that Gonzalez-Gonzalez's conviction for domestic violence fell under the deportable offenses listed in 1227, making him ineligible for cancellation of removal.

The court analyzed the statutory language and determined that the BIA's interpretation was correct. The phrase 'convicted of an offense under' was interpreted to mean 'convicted of an offense described under' each of the referenced sections.

Conclusion

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

The court denied Gonzalez-Gonzalez'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 interpretation of the statute, confirming that Gonzalez-Gonzalez's conviction for domestic violence rendered him ineligible for cancellation of removal.

The government prevailed in the case because the court upheld the BIA's interpretation of the statute, confirming that Gonzalez-Gonzalez's conviction for domestic violence rendered him ineligible for cancellation of removal.

You must be