Castillo v. Sessions, 080318 FED9, 13-74221
|Party Name:||NOEL ARCENIO SALDANA CASTILLO, Petitioner, v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.|
|Judge Panel:||Before: TASHIMA and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges, and WALTER, District Judge.|
|Case Date:||August 03, 2018|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
On Remand from the United States Supreme Court Agency No. A096-695-448
Before: TASHIMA and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges, and WALTER, [**] District Judge.
Noel Saldana, a native and citizen of Panama, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his application for cancellation of removal and adjustment of status. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We initially denied the petition, and the Supreme Court vacated our judgment and remanded for reconsideration in light of Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S.Ct. 2105 (2018). Reviewing legal questions de novo and the agency's factual findings for substantial evidence, see Blanco v. Mukasey, 518 F.3d 714, 718 (9th Cir. 2008), we now grant the petition in part, deny it in part, and remand to the Board for further proceedings.
1. Saldana contends that he accrued 10 years of continuous physical presence in the United States prior to service of a notice to appear-and thus is eligible for cancellation of removal, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A), (d)(1)- because his notice did not contain the date and time of his hearing and he did not learn this information until after the 10-year period had passed. The Board disagreed, relying on its decision in In re Camarillo, 25 I. & N. Dec. 644, 651 (B.I.A. 2011) ("[S]ervice of a notice to appear triggers the 'stop-time' rule, regardless of whether the date and time of the hearing have been included in the document."). In Pereira, the Supreme Court overruled Camarillo, holding that "to trigger the stop-time rule, the Government must serve a notice to appear that, at the very least, 'specif[ies]' the 'time and place' of the removal proceedings." 138 S.Ct. at 2114 (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1), (a)(1)(G)(i)). Therefore, we grant Saldana's petition with respect to his claim for cancellation of removal and remand to the Board for reconsideration in light of...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP