Gustavo Hidalgo v. Eric Holder, Jr.

578 F. App'x 672

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: June 11, 2014
• Docket: 11-73122
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Gustavo Hidalgo petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order denying him suspension of deportation under § 244(a)(2) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1254(a)(2) (repealed 1997). We deny Hi-dalgo’s petition because we agree with the Board that the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act’s (“IIR-IRA”) repeal of § 244(a)(2) is not imper-missibly retroactive in his case.

The “essential inquiry” is “whether the new provision attaches new legal consequences to events completed before its enactment.” Vart elas v. Holder, — U.S. -, -, 132 S.Ct. 1479, 1491, 182 L.Ed.2d 473 (2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). While it is true that Hi-dalgo was powerless to alter his 1989 guilty plea, he still cannot show that IIRI-RA’s repeal of § 244(a)(2) “ranks as a ‘new disability.’ ” Id. at 1487. IIRIRA did not “alter the character of [Hidalgo’s] conviction or deny him any existing eligibility for discretionary relief.” Valencia-Alvarez v. Gonzales, 469 F.3d 1319, 1330 (9th Cir.2006). Hidalgo was not statutorily eligible for relief under § 244(a)(2) at the time IIRIRA’s took effect, because he had not accrued the requisite ten years of continuous presence in the United States following his guilty plea. Thus, IIRIRA did not “attach[] new legal consequences” to his conviction. Vartelas, 132 S.Ct. at 1491.

Petition Denied.

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