Vivar-Flores v. Holder

Ninth Circuit

Vivar-Flores v. Holder

321 F. App'x 669

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 8, 2009

DocketNo. 04-74386

StatusPublished

This text of 321 F. App'x 669 (Vivar-Flores 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

Vivar-Flores v. Holder, 321 F. App'x 669 (9th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Erwin Stuardo Vivar-Flores, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se 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 grant the petition for review and remand for further proceedings.

The BIA’s order does not sufficiently explain why the California court’s suspension of the imposition of a sentence for Vivar-Flores’ offense permits the inference that Vivar-Flores was sentenced to the “term of imprisonment [of] at least one year” required by 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(G). See id. § 1101(a)(48)(B) (“Any reference to a term of imprisonment or a sentence with respect to an offense is deemed to include the period of incarceration or confinement ordered by a court of law regardless of any suspension of the imposition or execution of that imprisonment or sentence in whole or in part.”); Matter of S-S-, 21 I. & N. Dec. 900, 902 (BIA 1997) (“[T]he only relevant inquiry is the term to which the respondent was [670]*670sentenced by the court.”); nee also Patel v. INS, 542 F.2d 796, 799 (9th Cir.1976) (reserving the question of “how the duration of punishment should be determined where the imposition of the sentence has been suspended”). We therefore remand for reconsideration of Vivar-Flores’ appeal.

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

**

Erwin Stuardo Vivar-Flores, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se 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 grant the petition for review and remand for further proceedings.

The BIA’s order does not sufficiently explain why the California court’s suspension of the imposition of a sentence for Vivar-Flores’ offense permits the inference that Vivar-Flores was sentenced to the “term of imprisonment [of] at least one year” required by 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(G). See id. § 1101(a)(48)(B) (“Any reference to a term of imprisonment or a sentence with respect to an offense is deemed to include the period of incarceration or confinement ordered by a court of law regardless of any suspension of the imposition or execution of that imprisonment or sentence in whole or in part.”); Matter of S-S-, 21 I. & N. Dec. 900, 902 (BIA 1997) (“[T]he only relevant inquiry is the term to which the respondent was [670]*670sentenced by the court.”); nee also Patel v. INS, 542 F.2d 796, 799 (9th Cir.1976) (reserving the question of “how the duration of punishment should be determined where the imposition of the sentence has been suspended”). We therefore remand for reconsideration of Vivar-Flores’ appeal.

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)

321 F. App'x 669, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vivar-flores-v-holder-ca9-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack