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

admissibilitypiracy
willadmissibilitypiracy

Related Cases

Acosta-Bautista; People v.
View Case »
Jovic v. L- Services, Inc.
View Case »
Agor v. Lynch
View Case »
Soskin v. Reinertson
View Case »
Ruelas-Mendez; U.S. v.
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Santos-Reyes v. AG of the United States

Facts

The United States admitted Santos-Reyes, a citizen of the Dominican Republic, on October 3, 1991 as a conditional permanent resident. Upon her return to the United States from a trip in 2007, the Department of Homeland Security charged her with inadmissibility as an alien convicted of a crime of moral turpitude (8 U.S.C.S. 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I)), arising from her June 9, 1999 conviction for receiving stolen property, criminal conspiracy, and criminal solicitation. The resident, relying upon 8 U.S.C.S. 1229b(a), sought cancellation of removal based upon seven years of continuous residence.

The United States admitted Santos-Reyes, a citizen of the Dominican Republic, on October 3, 1991 as a conditional permanent resident. Upon her return to the United States from a trip in 2007, the Department of Homeland Security charged her with inadmissibility as an alien convicted of a crime of moral turpitude ( 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) ), arising from her June 9, 1999 conviction for receiving stolen property, criminal conspiracy, and criminal solicitation. Santos-Reyes, relying upon 8 U.S.C. 1229b(a), sought cancellation of removal based upon seven years of continuous residence.

Issue

Whether the BIA erred in applying the stop-time rule to pretermit Santos-Reyes' application for cancellation of removal.

Whether the BIA erred in applying the stop-time rule to pretermit Santos-Reyes' application for cancellation of removal.

Rule

For purposes of this section, any period of continuous residence or continuous physical presence in the United States shall be deemed to end when the alien has committed an offense referred to in section 1182(a)(2) of this title that renders the alien inadmissible to the United States.

For purposes of this section, any period of continuous residence or continuous physical presence in the United States shall be deemed to end . . . (B) when the alien has committed an offense referred to in section 1182(a)(2) of this title that renders the alien inadmissible to the United States under section 1182(a)(2) of this title or removable from the United States under section 1227(a)(2) or 1227(a)(4) of this title, whichever is earliest. 8 U.S.C. 1229b(d)(1).

Analysis

The court analyzed the application of the stop-time rule, determining that the BIA correctly upheld the immigration judge's decision. The court found that the record established that Santos-Reyes' criminal conduct occurred before the end of her seven years of continuous residence, thus triggering the stop-time rule. The court rejected Santos-Reyes' argument that the ambiguity in the statutory language should lead to a different interpretation regarding the timing of her criminal conduct.

The court analyzed the application of the stop-time rule, determining that the BIA correctly upheld the immigration judge's decision. The court found that the record established that Santos-Reyes' criminal conduct occurred before the end of her seven years of continuous residence, thus triggering the stop-time rule. The court rejected Santos-Reyes' argument that the ambiguity in the statutory language should lead to a different interpretation regarding the timing of her criminal conduct.

Conclusion

The court denied the petition for review, affirming the BIA's decision to pretermit Santos-Reyes' application for cancellation of removal.

For all of these reasons, we will deny the petition for review.

Who won?

The government prevailed in the case because the court upheld the BIA's interpretation of the stop-time rule, which disqualified Santos-Reyes from relief based on her criminal conduct.

The government prevailed in the case because the court upheld the BIA's interpretation of the stop-time rule, which disqualified Santos-Reyes from relief based on her criminal conduct.

You must be