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

jurisdiction
jurisdictionappeal

Related Cases

Espinoza-Gutierrez v. Smith
View Case »
Sharif ex rel. Sharif v. Ashcroft
View Case »
J.E.F.M. v. Holder
View Case »
Topazov v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Mignott; U.S. v.
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Robles-Garcia v. Barr

Facts

Karen Robles-Garcia, a Mexican citizen, was ordered removed from the United States after being served with a Notice to Appear (NTA) by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for overstaying her visitor status. She conceded her removability but sought cancellation of removal, claiming it would cause exceptional hardship to her U.S. citizen children. The IJ found that Robles-Garcia's 2007 theft conviction was a crime involving moral turpitude, which disqualified her from eligibility for cancellation of removal.

Petitioner Karen Robles-Garcia, a Mexican citizen unlawfully in the United States, was ordered removed. She challenges that removal order in two ways. First, relying on Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105, 201 L. Ed. 2d 433 (2018), Robles-Garcia argues for the first time that the immigration judge ('IJ') who initially presided over her removal proceedings never acquired jurisdiction over those proceedings because the Department of Homeland Security ('DHS') initiated those proceedings by serving Robles-Garcia with a defective Notice to Appear. Because Robles-Garcia has not yet made that argument to the IJ or the Board of Immigration Appeals ('BIA'), it is unexhausted and we, therefore, cannot address it in the first instance here. Second, Robles-Garcia contends that the BIA erred in concluding that she was ineligible to apply for discretionary cancellation of removal.

Issue

Whether the IJ had jurisdiction over Robles-Garcia's removal proceedings and whether her theft conviction constituted a disqualifying crime involving moral turpitude.

Whether the IJ had jurisdiction over Robles-Garcia's removal proceedings and whether her theft conviction constituted a disqualifying crime involving moral turpitude.

Rule

An alien must exhaust all administrative remedies before the court can review a final order of removal, as per 8 U.S.C. 1252(d)(1). Additionally, to be eligible for cancellation of removal, the applicant must prove that they do not have a conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude, as outlined in 8 U.S.C. 1229a(c)(4)(A)(i).

An alien must exhaust all administrative remedies before the court can review a final order of removal, as per 8 U.S.C. 1252(d)(1). Additionally, to be eligible for cancellation of removal, the applicant must prove that they do not have a conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude, as outlined in 8 U.S.C. 1229a(c)(4)(A)(i).

Analysis

The court determined that Robles-Garcia's argument regarding the IJ's jurisdiction was unexhausted because she had not raised it before the IJ or the BIA. Therefore, the court lacked jurisdiction to consider it. Regarding her theft conviction, the court applied a categorical approach to assess whether it qualified as a crime involving moral turpitude, concluding that the BIA did not err in its determination since the conviction met the criteria for moral turpitude.

The court determined that Robles-Garcia's argument regarding the IJ's jurisdiction was unexhausted because she had not raised it before the IJ or the BIA. Therefore, the court lacked jurisdiction to consider it. Regarding her theft conviction, the court applied a categorical approach to assess whether it qualified as a crime involving moral turpitude, concluding that the BIA did not err in its determination since the conviction met the criteria for moral turpitude.

Conclusion

The court denied Robles-Garcia's petition for review in part and dismissed her petition for lack of jurisdiction in part.

The court denied Robles-Garcia's petition for review in part and dismissed her petition for lack of jurisdiction in part.

Who won?

The government prevailed in the case because the court upheld the BIA's determination that Robles-Garcia was ineligible for cancellation of removal due to her theft conviction being a disqualifying crime.

The government prevailed in the case because the court upheld the BIA's determination that Robles-Garcia was ineligible for cancellation of removal due to her theft conviction being a disqualifying crime.

You must be