Aguilar–turcios v. Holder
| Citation | 652 F.3d 1236 |
| Decision Date | 29 August 2011 |
| Docket Number | No. 06–73451.,06–73451. |
| Parties | Rigoberto AGUILAR–TURCIOS, Petitioner,v.Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Rigoberto AGUILAR–TURCIOS, Petitioner,
v.
Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06–73451.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Aug. 29, 2011.
David Belaire Landry, Esquire, Law Office of David Landry, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.OIL, Holly Smith, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ–U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.Reuben Camper Cahn, Esquire, Executive Director, Steven Francis Hubachek, Esquire, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Amicus Curiae.Agency No. A045–301–132.Before: PAMELA ANN RYMER, RICHARD A. PAEZ, and JAY S. BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
The opinion filed on September 29, 2009, and reported at Aguilar–Turcios v. Holder, 582 F.3d 1093 (9th Cir.2009), is WITHDRAWN.
The parties are directed to file supplemental briefs addressing the following issue: What effect, if any, does United States v. Aguila–Montes De Oca, 655 F.3d 915 (9th Cir.2011) (en banc), have on this case?
Petitioner's supplemental brief shall be filed within 21 days from the date of filing of this order. Respondent shall then have 21 days to file a supplemental responsive brief. Petitioner shall have 14 days to file an optional reply brief. The supplemental briefs and reply brief shall not exceed 15 pages.
Submission of this case is vacated.
With the filing of this order, the Petition for Rehearing En Banc is moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Aguilar–Turcios v. Holder
...the parties on the question of what effect, if any, the Aguila–Montes decision had on the outcome of Aguilar–Turcios' case. Aguilar–Turcios, 652 F.3d at 1236. Having considered the supplemental briefing, we revisit the merits of this case.II.A. We review de novo the BIA's determinations of ......
-
Aguilar-Turcios v. Holder
...and remanded the case to the BIA.6Aguilar–Turcios v. Holder ( Aguilar–Turcios I ), 582 F.3d 1093 (9th Cir.2009), withdrawn by,652 F.3d 1236 (9th Cir.2011). Like the IJ, we concluded that an Article 92 conviction for violating DOD Directive 5500.7–R § 2–301(a) is not categorically an aggrava......