Thao Minh Truong v. Gonzales

232 F. App'x 721

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: May 22, 2007
• Docket: No. 05-73688
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Substantial evidence supports the Immigration Judge’s finding that Truong is entitled neither to withholding of removal nor to CAT relief.¹ We lack jurisdiction to review the Immigration Judge’s finding Truong is removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii)-² Under our decision in Molina-Amezcua v. INS³ and Truong’s stipulation, the government was not barred by the earlier grant of relief from reconsidering.

We have already held that even if a petitioner is eligible for a § 212(c) waiver of an aggravated felony,⁴ the underlying conviction “would nonetheless remain an aggravated felony for purposes of precluding his application for cancellation of removal” under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a).⁵ Moreover, the statute providing for cancellation of removal states that an alien “who has been granted relief under section [212(c) ], as such [section was] in effect before September 30, 1996,” is not eligible for cancellation of removal.⁶ Accordingly, we hold that Truong cannot seek simultaneous relief under both 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) and 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a).

AFFIRMED.

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

1 . Bellout v. Ashcroft, 363 F.3d 975, 977-79 (9th Cir.2004).

2 . 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C); Cedano-Viera v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir.2003); Molina-Amezcua v. INS, 6 F.3d 646, 647 (9th Cir.1993).

3 . Molina-Amezcua v. INS, 6 F.3d 646, 647 (9th Cir.1993).

4 . 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c).

5 . Becker v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 1000, 1004 (9th Cir.2007). See also Rodriguez-Munoz v. Gonzales, 419 F.3d 245, 247-48 (3d Cir.2005).

6 . 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(c)(6).