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

jurisdictionmotionfelony
jurisdictionmotionfelony

Related Cases

Mejia v. Barr
View Case »
Elfeky v. Johnson
View Case »
Tutu v. Blackman
View Case »
Adame-Salgado; U.S. v.
View Case »
Rodriguez-Gutierrez v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Moral-Salazar v. Holder

Facts

Moral is a citizen and native of Ecuador who was admitted to the United States in 1988 as an immigrant. He was convicted of several crimes here, including criminal sexual abuse of a minor (2002), which is an aggravated felony, and unlawful use of a weapon (1997). In 2011, the Department of Homeland Security charged Moral as removable due to his criminal activities. In his removal proceedings before an immigration judge, Moral received a total of five continuances, four of which sought more time to allow him to pursue post-conviction relief in Illinois state court on his 2002 sex-abuse conviction. After Moral's initial petition for post-conviction relief was denied, the IJ, who had already granted five continuances, refused to grant any more and entered an order of removal.

Moral is a citizen and native of Ecuador who was admitted to the United States in 1988 as an immigrant. He was convicted of several crimes here, including criminal sexual abuse of a minor (2002), which is an aggravated felony, and unlawful use of a weapon (1997). In 2011, the Department of Homeland Security charged Moral as removable due to his criminal activities. In his removal proceedings before an immigration judge, Moral received a total of five continuances, four of which sought more time to allow him to pursue post-conviction relief in Illinois state court on his 2002 sex-abuse conviction. After Moral's initial petition for post-conviction relief was denied, the IJ, who had already granted five continuances, refused to grant any more and entered an order of removal.

Issue

Whether the appellate court has jurisdiction to review the denial of a motion for continuance during removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(C).

Whether the appellate court has jurisdiction to review the denial of a motion for continuance during removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(C).

Rule

The jurisdictional bar in 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(C) strips the court of jurisdiction to review any final order of removal against an alien who is removable by reason of having committed certain criminal offenses.

The jurisdictional bar in 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(C) strips the court of jurisdiction to review any final order of removal against an alien who is removable by reason of having committed certain criminal offenses.

Analysis

The court analyzed whether its previous decisions in Calma and Kucana, which allowed for review of certain discretionary decisions, could be extended to the jurisdictional bar in subsection (C). The court concluded that the explicit language of subsection (C) prevents such an extension, as it unequivocally states that no court shall have jurisdiction to review any final order of removal against an alien who has committed certain crimes, including Moral's aggravated felony.

The court analyzed whether its previous decisions in Calma and Kucana, which allowed for review of certain discretionary decisions, could be extended to the jurisdictional bar in subsection (C). The court concluded that the explicit language of subsection (C) prevents such an extension, as it unequivocally states that no court shall have jurisdiction to review any final order of removal against an alien who has committed certain crimes, including Moral's aggravated felony.

Conclusion

The court dismissed the petition for review, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the merits of the case due to the jurisdictional bar in 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(C).

The court dismissed the petition for review, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the merits of the case due to the jurisdictional bar in 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(C).

Who won?

The government prevailed in the case because the court found that it lacked jurisdiction to review the denial of the motion for continuance, as outlined in the jurisdictional bar of 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(C).

The government prevailed in the case because the court found that it lacked jurisdiction to review the denial of the motion for continuance, as outlined in the jurisdictional bar of 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(C).

You must be