From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Truong v. Gonzales

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
May 22, 2007
232 F. App'x 721 (9th Cir. 2007)

Opinion

No. 05-73688.

Argued and Submitted April 18, 2007.

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).

Filed May 22, 2007.

Alison Dixon, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Joanne E. Johnson, Esq., San Francisco, CA, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency No. A27-731-771.

Before: THOMPSON, KLEINFELD, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.



MEMORANDUM

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

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

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

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).

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

We have already held that even if a petitioner is eligible for a § 212(c) waiver of an aggravated felony, 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). 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. Accordingly, we hold that Truong cannot seek simultaneous relief under both 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) and 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a).

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).

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Truong v. Gonzales

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
May 22, 2007
232 F. App'x 721 (9th Cir. 2007)
Case details for

Truong v. Gonzales

Case Details

Full title:Thao Minh TRUONG, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: May 22, 2007

Citations

232 F. App'x 721 (9th Cir. 2007)