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

mediationdomestic violenceprobation
mediationdomestic violenceprobation

Related Cases

Gandara v. Bennett
View Case »
Nasrabadi v. Kameli
View Case »
B/H Drywall & Stucco Co., Inc.; Administrator, Wage and Hour Division v.
View Case »
Gutierrez-Campos v. United States
View Case »
Wittje; U.S. v.
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Mota v. Mukasey

Facts

Constantina Ramirez Mota, a native and citizen of Mexico, entered the United States illegally in 1985 and has lived there continuously since. In 1990, she was convicted of inflicting injury upon a child under California Penal Code 273d and was sentenced to thirty days in jail and probation. In 2001, she was issued a Notice to Appear in removal proceedings, where she conceded to being subject to removal and later applied for cancellation of removal. The immigration judge ruled her ineligible for cancellation due to her conviction, which the BIA affirmed.

Constantina Ramirez Mota, a native and citizen of Mexico, entered the United States illegally in 1985 and has lived there continuously since. In 1990, she was convicted of inflicting injury upon a child under California Penal Code 273d and was sentenced to thirty days in jail and probation. In 2001, she was issued a Notice to Appear in removal proceedings, where she conceded to being subject to removal and later applied for cancellation of removal. The immigration judge ruled her ineligible for cancellation due to her conviction, which the BIA affirmed.

Issue

Whether Mota's conviction for inflicting injury upon a child constitutes a crime involving domestic violence that renders her ineligible for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C.S. 1229b(b)(1)(C).

Whether Mota's conviction for inflicting injury upon a child constitutes a crime involving domestic violence that renders her ineligible for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C.S. 1229b(b)(1)(C).

Rule

Under 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)(1)(C), an alien is ineligible for cancellation of removal if they have been convicted of certain offenses, including crimes involving domestic violence as defined under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(E)(i).

Under 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)(1)(C), an alien is ineligible for cancellation of removal if they have been convicted of certain offenses, including crimes involving domestic violence as defined under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(E)(i).

Analysis

The court analyzed the BIA's interpretation of the law regarding domestic violence convictions and noted that the BIA had previously held in Matter of Gonzales-Silva that a conviction for a crime of domestic violence occurring before September 30, 1996, does not disqualify an alien from cancellation of removal. Since Mota's conviction occurred in 1990, the court concluded that the BIA erred in ruling her ineligible for cancellation of removal based on that conviction.

The court analyzed the BIA's interpretation of the law regarding domestic violence convictions and noted that the BIA had previously held in Matter of Gonzales-Silva that a conviction for a crime of domestic violence occurring before September 30, 1996, does not disqualify an alien from cancellation of removal. Since Mota's conviction occurred in 1990, the court concluded that the BIA erred in ruling her ineligible for cancellation of removal based on that conviction.

Conclusion

The court granted Mota's petition for review, determining that her prior conviction did not render her ineligible for cancellation of removal. The case was assigned to mediation to resolve other aspects of her cancellation claim.

The court granted Mota's petition for review, determining that her prior conviction did not render her ineligible for cancellation of removal. The case was assigned to mediation to resolve other aspects of her cancellation claim.

Who won?

Mota prevailed in the case because the court found that her conviction did not disqualify her from seeking cancellation of removal, aligning with the BIA's interpretation in Matter of Gonzales-Silva.

Mota prevailed in the case because the court found that her conviction did not disqualify her from seeking cancellation of removal, aligning with the BIA's interpretation in Matter of Gonzales-Silva.

You must be