Eliezar Abella v. Eric Holder, Jr.

474 F. App'x 716
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedJuly 25, 2012
Docket10-71500
StatusUnpublished

This text of 474 F. App'x 716 (Eliezar Abella 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
Eliezar Abella v. Eric Holder, Jr., 474 F. App'x 716 (9th Cir. 2012).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Eliezar Abella, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Vargas- *717 Hernandez v. Gonzales, 497 F.3d 919, 921 (9th Cir.2007). We deny in part and grant in part the petition for review, and remand for further proceedings.

The BIA correctly concluded that the amended aggravated felony definition set forth in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Pub.L. No. 104-208 (“IIRIRA”), applies retroactively to render Abella’s conviction under California Penal Code § 192(a) an aggravated felony. See Alvarez-Barajas v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 1050, 1054 (9th Cir.2005) (IIRIRA definition applies retroactively). Abella’s contention that retroactive application of IIRIRA violates his rights to due process and equal protection is unpersuasive, and his contention that it violates the prohibitions against ex post facto laws and bills of attainder is foreclosed by Artukovic v. INS, 693 F.2d 894, 897 (9th Cir.1982).

In light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Judulang v. Holder, — U.S. —, 132 S.Ct. 476, 484, 181 L.Ed.2d 449 (2011), however, we grant the petition for review in part and remand to the BIA to reassess Abella’s eligibility for relief under former § 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part; REMANDED.

**

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

Judulang v. Holder
132 S. Ct. 476 (Supreme Court, 2011)
Vargas-Hernandez v. Gonzales
497 F.3d 919 (Ninth Circuit, 2007)
Alvarez-Barajas v. Gonzales
418 F.3d 1050 (Ninth Circuit, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
474 F. App'x 716, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eliezar-abella-v-eric-holder-jr-ca9-2012.