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

jurisdictionparole
jurisdictionparole

Related Cases

Zayed v. United States
View Case »
SEC v. Path America, LLC
View Case »
Samtmann v. Department of Justice
View Case »
Kahn v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Bedoya v. Barr
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Said v. U.S. Attorney Gen.

Facts

Said Acosta Nepomuceno is a native and citizen of Mexico who was paroled into the United States but not admitted in any status prior to his adjustment to lawful permanent resident on August 17, 2005. He was found removable under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) due to convictions for offenses involving controlled substances. Nepomuceno did not dispute his removability but challenged the BIA and IJ's conclusion regarding his residency requirements for cancellation of removal.

Nepomuceno is a native and citizen of Mexico who was paroled into the United States but not admitted in any status prior to his adjustment to lawful permanent resident on August 17, 2005.

Issue

The main legal issue was whether Nepomuceno could meet the seven years of continuous residency requirement for cancellation of removal given his status of being paroled into the United States.

The main legal issue was whether Nepomuceno could meet the seven years of continuous residency requirement for cancellation of removal given his status of being paroled into the United States.

Rule

The court applied the legal principle that only constitutional claims or questions of law can be considered when an individual is removable as a criminal alien under 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(C).

And, because Nepomuceno is removable as a criminal alien, we have jurisdiction to consider only constitutional claims or questions of law.

Analysis

The court determined that Nepomuceno's claim regarding his residency was fact-based and therefore outside the jurisdiction of the court. The IJ had concluded that Nepomuceno was paroled into the country, not admitted, which was a critical factor in assessing his eligibility for cancellation of removal. Since the court lacked jurisdiction to consider fact-based claims, it found the question of his status immaterial.

The court determined that Nepomuceno's claim regarding his residency was fact-based and therefore outside the jurisdiction of the court.

Conclusion

The court denied Nepomuceno's petition in part and dismissed it in part, affirming the BIA's decision.

DENIED in part and DISMISSED in part.

Who won?

The government prevailed in the case because the court upheld the BIA's decision that Nepomuceno did not meet the residency requirement due to his parole status.

The government prevailed in the case because the court upheld the BIA's decision that Nepomuceno did not meet the residency requirement due to his parole status.

You must be