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

precedentappealcase law
appealcase law

Related Cases

Dixon v. U.S. Attorney Gen.
View Case »
Fitzgerald v. Landon
View Case »
Osei v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Lawrence v. Lynch
View Case »
Kho v. Keisler
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Ruiz v. U.S. Attorney Gen.

Facts

Lucia Lopez de Ruiz (Ruiz) sought review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) rejecting her claim for relief under former 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The BIA concluded that Ruiz's prior conviction for fraud did not have a statutory counterpart in 212(a), relying on 8 C.F.R. 1212.3(f)(5) and In re Blake, 23 I. & N. Dec. 722 (BIA 2005). Ruiz argued that the BIA's interpretation was incompatible with INS v. St. Cyr and violated constitutional doctrines, among other challenges.

Lucia Lopez de Ruiz (Ruiz) seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) rejecting her claim for relief under former 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The BIA concluded that Ruiz's prior conviction for fraud did not have a statutory counterpart in 212(a), relying on 8 C.F.R. 1212.3(f)(5) and In re Blake, 23 I. & N. Dec. 722 (BIA 2005).

Issue

Whether the BIA's conclusion that Ruiz's prior conviction for fraud did not have a statutory counterpart in 212(a) was correct.

Whether the BIA's conclusion that Ruiz's prior conviction for fraud did not have a statutory counterpart in 212(a) was correct.

Rule

The court applied the legal principles from 8 C.F.R. 1212.3(f)(5) and relevant case law, including In re Blake and INS v. St. Cyr.

The court applied the legal principles from 8 C.F.R. 1212.3(f)(5) and relevant case law, including In re Blake and INS v. St. Cyr.

Analysis

The court analyzed Ruiz's claims in light of its previous decisions in Vo v. Gonzales and Avilez-Granados v. Gonzales, ultimately rejecting her arguments. The court found that the BIA's interpretation of the law was consistent with established precedents and that Ruiz's claims did not warrant a different outcome.

In light of our decisions in Vo v. Gonzales, 482 F.3d 363 (5th Cir. 2007), and Avilez-Granados v. Gonzales, 481 F.3d 869, 871-72 (5th Cir. 2007), we reject Ruiz's claims.

Conclusion

The court denied Ruiz's petition for review, affirming the BIA's decision.

The petition for review is DENIED.

Who won?

The Board of Immigration Appeals prevailed in the case as the court upheld its decision to deny Ruiz's claim for relief.

The Board of Immigration Appeals prevailed in the case as the court upheld its decision to deny Ruiz's claim for relief.

You must be