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

precedentappealpleafelonyadmissibility
precedentappealpleafelonyadmissibility

Related Cases

Olatunji v. Ashcroft
View Case »
Villegas; U.S. v.
View Case »
Opati v. Republic of Sudan
View Case »
Villegas-Sarabia v. Sessions
View Case »
Sargetis ; U.S. v.
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Moreno-Escobosa, Matter of

Facts

Michael Frederick, a native of Germany, immigrated to the United States at the age of four and became a lawful permanent resident. In 1990, he pleaded guilty to two counts of aggravated sexual abuse of a minor, resulting in concurrent four-year prison sentences. Years later, the Department of Homeland Security issued a Notice to Appear, charging him with removability due to his aggravated felony convictions. An immigration judge found him ineligible for a statutory waiver of removal under 212(c) of the INA, leading to an appeal to the BIA.

Michael Frederick, a native of Germany, immigrated to the United States at the age of four and became a lawful permanent resident. In 1990, he pleaded guilty to two counts of aggravated sexual abuse of a minor, resulting in concurrent four-year prison sentences. Years later, the Department of Homeland Security issued a Notice to Appear, charging him with removability due to his aggravated felony convictions. An immigration judge found him ineligible for a statutory waiver of removal under 212(c) of the INA, leading to an appeal to the BIA.

Issue

Whether an aggravated felony involving sexual abuse of a minor has a statutory counterpart in a ground of inadmissibility under 212(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, making the alien eligible for a waiver of removal under 212(c).

Whether an aggravated felony involving sexual abuse of a minor has a statutory counterpart in a ground of inadmissibility under 212(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, making the alien eligible for a waiver of removal under 212(c).

Rule

The statutory counterpart rule for 212(c) eligibility requires that the ground for removability must have a comparable ground of inadmissibility under 212(a) of the INA. If no such counterpart exists, the alien is not eligible for 212(c) relief.

The statutory counterpart rule for 212(c) eligibility requires that the ground for removability must have a comparable ground of inadmissibility under 212(a) of the INA. If no such counterpart exists, the alien is not eligible for 212(c) relief.

Analysis

The court applied the statutory counterpart rule, referencing established circuit precedent that an aggravated felony involving sexual abuse of a minor does not have a statutory counterpart in the grounds of inadmissibility under 212(a). The BIA's conclusion that Frederick was ineligible for 212(c) relief was consistent with prior rulings, and the court found no merit in Frederick's arguments regarding eligibility based on his convictions.

The court applied the statutory counterpart rule, referencing established circuit precedent that an aggravated felony involving sexual abuse of a minor does not have a statutory counterpart in the grounds of inadmissibility under 212(a). The BIA's conclusion that Frederick was ineligible for 212(c) relief was consistent with prior rulings, and the court found no merit in Frederick's arguments regarding eligibility based on his convictions.

Conclusion

The court denied Frederick's petition for review, affirming the BIA's determination that he was ineligible for a waiver of removal under 212(c) due to the lack of a statutory counterpart for his aggravated felony.

The court denied Frederick's petition for review, affirming the BIA's determination that he was ineligible for a waiver of removal under 212(c) due to the lack of a statutory counterpart for his aggravated felony.

Who won?

The government prevailed in the case, as the court upheld the BIA's decision that Frederick was ineligible for relief based on the absence of a statutory counterpart for his aggravated felony.

The government prevailed in the case, as the court upheld the BIA's decision that Frederick was ineligible for relief based on the absence of a statutory counterpart.

You must be