Patel v. Holder

Ninth Circuit

Patel v. Holder

475 F. App'x 245

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedAugust 13, 2012

Docket04-71459

StatusUnpublished

This text of 475 F. App'x 245 (Patel v. Holder) 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

Patel v. Holder, 475 F. App'x 245 (9th Cir. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Kokila Kaneiyalal Patel, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Camins v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 872, 876 (9th Cir.2007), and we grant the petition for review and remand for further proceedings.

In concluding that Patel was ineligible for a waiver of inadmissibility under former § 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, the agency did not have the benefit of Peng v. Holder, 673 F.3d 1248, 1256-57 (9th Cir.2012), in which we held that § 212(c) relief remains available to certain aliens who proceeded to trial prior to the passage of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Pub.L. No. 104-208, or Vartelas v. Holder, 566 U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 1479, 182 L.Ed.2d 473 (2012), in which the Supreme Court discussed the role of a reliance inquiry when the antiretroactivity principle is invoked.

In light of this intervening caselaw, we remand to the BIA to determine Patel’s eligibility for § 212(c) relief.

In light of our disposition, we need not address Patel’s remaining contentions.

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 **

Kokila Kaneiyalal Patel, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Camins v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 872, 876 (9th Cir.2007), and we grant the petition for review and remand for further proceedings.

In concluding that Patel was ineligible for a waiver of inadmissibility under former § 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, the agency did not have the benefit of Peng v. Holder, 673 F.3d 1248, 1256-57 (9th Cir.2012), in which we held that § 212(c) relief remains available to certain aliens who proceeded to trial prior to the passage of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Pub.L. No. 104-208, or Vartelas v. Holder, 566 U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 1479, 182 L.Ed.2d 473 (2012), in which the Supreme Court discussed the role of a reliance inquiry when the antiretroactivity principle is invoked.

In light of this intervening caselaw, we remand to the BIA to determine Patel’s eligibility for § 212(c) relief.

In light of our disposition, we need not address Patel’s remaining contentions.

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)

475 F. App'x 245, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/patel-v-holder-ca9-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack