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

jurisdictionattorneyvisadeportationadmissibility
jurisdictionattorneyleasevisaadmissibility

Related Cases

Blanco v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Musa v. Lynch
View Case »
Shaughnessy v. Accardi
View Case »
Bachkova v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Moghaddam v. Pompeo
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Urizar-Carrascoza v. Holder

Facts

Anoldo Urizar-Carrascoza entered the U.S. illegally in 1995 and was ordered deported in absentia in 1995. He later obtained a visa in 2000 without disclosing his prior immigration issues. After overstaying his visa, he applied for adjustment of status in 2003, during which he learned of his deportation order. He conceded to being removable based on fraud and unlawful presence during removal proceedings.

Urizar-Carrascoza is a native and citizen of Guatamela [**2] who first entered the U.S. without inspection in 1995 through Tucson, Arizona. Urizar-Carrascoza was apprehended by immigration officials at that time and detained in El Paso, Texas, where he was held in custody for thirteen days. He then posted a $1,500 bond and was released from custody; as he was released from custody, he was personally served with a notice to appear (NTA). [*29] However, Urizar-Carrascoza did not appear at any proceedings related to this NTA; he alleged that he 'never received any notices,' though he gave his address to the authorities upon his release from custody and continued living at that address for a year and a half.

Issue

Whether the court has jurisdiction to review the denial of Urizar-Carrascoza's applications for waivers of inadmissibility and permission to reapply for admission.

Urizar-Carrascoza makes two arguments in his petition for review: (1) the BIA erred in finding that he was removable due to having gained admission to the U.S. by fraud; and (2) the BIA erred in concluding that the IJ properly analyzed the facts in denying his applications for waivers of inadmissibility and permission to reapply for admission.

Rule

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, no court shall have jurisdiction to review a decision or action by the Attorney General regarding a waiver relating to fraud or unlawful presence.

The INA provides that '[n]o court shall have jurisdiction to review a decision or action by [**13] the Attorney General regarding a waiver' relating to fraud or unlawful presence. 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B)(v) , 1182(i)(2).

Analysis

The court found that Urizar-Carrascoza had conceded his removability based on fraud and unlawful presence, which precluded the court from reviewing the denial of his waiver applications. The court emphasized that the IJ's findings were supported by substantial evidence, including Urizar-Carrascoza's admissions during the removal proceedings.

Substantial [**12] evidence supported the agency's determination that Urizar-Carrascoza was removable as an alien who procured a visa by fraud. Urizar-Carrascoza twice conceded, by counsel, that he was removable on the basis of fraud.

Conclusion

The court denied Urizar-Carrascoza's petition for review, affirming the BIA's decision that it lacked jurisdiction over the waiver applications.

Urizar-Carrascoza's petition for review is denied.

Who won?

The government prevailed in the case because the court upheld the BIA's decision that it lacked jurisdiction to review the denial of Urizar-Carrascoza's applications.

The government prevailed in the case because the court upheld the BIA's decision that it lacked jurisdiction to review the denial of Urizar-Carrascoza's applications.

You must be