Alberto Aguirre-Diaz v. Eric Holder, Jr.

552 F. App'x 758
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 23, 2014
Docket12-72529
StatusUnpublished

This text of 552 F. App'x 758 (Alberto Aguirre-Diaz v. Eric Holder, Jr.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Alberto Aguirre-Diaz v. Eric Holder, Jr., 552 F. App'x 758 (9th Cir. 2014).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Alberto Aguirre-Diaz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo legal determinations regarding eligibility for cancellation of removal. Sinotes-Cruz v. Gonzales, 468 F.3d 1190, 1194 (9th Cir.2006). We deny the petition for review.

Aguirre-Diaz conceded that he was confined to more than 180 days of pretrial detention credited against his six-month sentence, and that he is unable to establish good moral character under Arreguin-Moreno v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 1229 (9th Cir.2008). Thus the agency correctly determined that Aguirre-Diaz failed to establish the requisite good moral character to qualify for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f)(7) (a petitioner cannot meet the good moral character requirement if confined 180 days or more in a penal institution); Arreguin-Moreno, 511 F.3d at 1233 (holding “that when pre-trial detention is credited against the sentence imposed upon conviction, the period of pretrial detention must be considered as confinement as a result of a conviction within the meaning of § 1101(f)(7)”).

Aguirre-Diaz’s attempts to distinguish his case from Arreguin-Moreno are unavailing because he was sentenced to more than 180 days following his conviction, regardless of whether he should have been given bail before his conviction. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f)(7).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Arreguin-Moreno v. Mukasey
511 F.3d 1229 (Ninth Circuit, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
552 F. App'x 758, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alberto-aguirre-diaz-v-eric-holder-jr-ca9-2014.