Emilio Garcia-Lara v. Loretta E. Lynch

Ninth Circuit

Emilio Garcia-Lara v. Loretta E. Lynch

633 F. App'x 446

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 21, 2016

Docket13-70638

StatusUnpublished

This text of 633 F. App'x 446 (Emilio Garcia-Lara v. Loretta E. Lynch) 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

Emilio Garcia-Lara v. Loretta E. Lynch, 633 F. App'x 446 (9th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Emilio Garcia-Lara, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying adjustment of status. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions. of law. Garfias-Rodriguez v. Holder, 702 F.3d 504, 512 n. 6 (9th Cir.2012) (en banc). We grant the petition for review and remand.

The agency erred in concluding that the holding in Matter of Briones, 24 I. & N. Dec. 355 (BIA 2007), applied retroactively to render Garcia-Lara ineligible to adjust status. See Acosta-Olivarria v. Lynch, 799 F.3d 1271, 1275-77 (9th Cir.2015); Garfias-Rodriguez, 702 F.3d at 520 (holding that analysis under Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc. v. FTC, 691 F.2d 1322 (9th Cir.1982), is necessary to determine retroactive effect of Briones). Like the petitioner in Acosta-Olivarria v. Lynch, Gareia-Lara applied for adjustment of status in the 21-month window between Acosta v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 550 (9th Cir.2006) (permitting adjustment of status for an alien inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(C)(i)(I)), and Briones, when it was reasonable for Garcia-Lara to rely on our decision in Acosta. See Acostctr-Olivarria, 799 F.3d at 1275-77. As there is no significant factual basis to distinguish Garcia-Lara’s situation from the one presented in Acostctr-Olivarria for purposes of applying Montgomery Ward, we conclude that the BIA’s holding in Briones does not apply retroactively to bar Garcia-Lara’s *447 application for adjustment under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i). Accordingly, we remand to the agency to adjudicate Garcia-Lara’s application for adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i).

In light of this disposition, we do not reach Gareia-Lara’s remaining contentions, and we deny the government’s motion to remand as moot.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; 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

MEMORANDUM **

Emilio Garcia-Lara, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying adjustment of status. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions. of law. Garfias-Rodriguez v. Holder, 702 F.3d 504, 512 n. 6 (9th Cir.2012) (en banc). We grant the petition for review and remand.

The agency erred in concluding that the holding in Matter of Briones, 24 I. & N. Dec. 355 (BIA 2007), applied retroactively to render Garcia-Lara ineligible to adjust status. See Acosta-Olivarria v. Lynch, 799 F.3d 1271, 1275-77 (9th Cir.2015); Garfias-Rodriguez, 702 F.3d at 520 (holding that analysis under Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc. v. FTC, 691 F.2d 1322 (9th Cir.1982), is necessary to determine retroactive effect of Briones). Like the petitioner in Acosta-Olivarria v. Lynch, Gareia-Lara applied for adjustment of status in the 21-month window between Acosta v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 550 (9th Cir.2006) (permitting adjustment of status for an alien inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(C)(i)(I)), and Briones, when it was reasonable for Garcia-Lara to rely on our decision in Acosta. See Acostctr-Olivarria, 799 F.3d at 1275-77. As there is no significant factual basis to distinguish Garcia-Lara’s situation from the one presented in Acostctr-Olivarria for purposes of applying Montgomery Ward, we conclude that the BIA’s holding in Briones does not apply retroactively to bar Garcia-Lara’s *447 application for adjustment under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i). Accordingly, we remand to the agency to adjudicate Garcia-Lara’s application for adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i).

In light of this disposition, we do not reach Gareia-Lara’s remaining contentions, and we deny the government’s motion to remand as moot.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

**

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

633 F. App'x 446, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/emilio-garcia-lara-v-loretta-e-lynch-ca9-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack