Esparza v. Garland

4 Citing cases

  1. United States v. Ortiz-Flores

    CRIMINAL 3:22-cr-00140-L (N.D. Tex. Jul. 19, 2023)   Cited 1 times

    He argues that the holdings in Diaz Esparza v. Garland, 23 F.4th 563 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 143 S.Ct. 87 (2022), and Marques v. Lynch, 834 F.3d 549, 553-54 (5th Cir. 2016), direct that “application for admission,” in this context applies only when making a formal application for admission or petition for entry. Doc.

  2. Rodriguez v. Garland

    No. 21-60722 (5th Cir. Apr. 21, 2023)

    The opinion was handed down after the BIA's denial of reconsideration and after the petitioner's opening brief had been filed. See Diaz Esparza v. Garland, 23 F.4th 563 (5th Cir. 2022). Cruz Rodriguez discussed it in his reply brief.

  3. United States v. Powell

    78 F.4th 203 (5th Cir. 2023)   Cited 2 times

    See generally United States v. Sosebee, 59 F.4th 151 (5th Cir. 2023); United States v. Wheeler, No. 19-11022, 2022 WL 17729412 (5th Cir. Dec. 16, 2022) (unpublished) (per curiam); and United States v. Senegal, No. 19-40930, 2022 WL 4594608 (5th Cir. Sept. 30, 2022) (unpublished) (per curiam). Diaz Esparza v. Garland, 23 F.4th 563, 571 n.51 (5th Cir.) (quoting United States v. Huntsberry, 956 F.3d 270, 282 n.4 (5th Cir. 2020)), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 143 S. Ct. 87, 214 L.Ed.2d 14 (2022); see also United States v. Arellano-Banuelos, 912 F.3d 862, 865 n.2 (5th Cir. 2019) ("The proper time to closely examine the record and develop legal defenses is before the completion of briefing." (quoting Martinez v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 532, 545 (5th Cir. 2008))). See United States v. Brune, 991 F.3d 652, 664 (5th Cir. 2021) (refusing to apply the precedent stated in published cases issued after a Supreme Court case that failed to "grapple[ ] with" the relevant question at issue), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 142 S. Ct. 755, 211 L.Ed.2d 473 (2022); In re Bonvillian Marine Serv., Inc., 19 F.4th 787, 794 (5th Cir. 2021) (holding similarly).

  4. The People v. Carrillo

    319 Cal. Rptr. 3d 334 (Cal. Ct. App. 2024)

    The notice to appear might have used the word "admitted" to describe an adjustment of his immigration status. (See Aremu v. Department of Homeland Security (4th Cir. 2006) 450 F.3d 578, 583 [date of admission for purpose of removal based on a crime involving moral turpitude was not when the noncitizen’s status was adjusted]; Abdelqadar v. Gonzales (7th Cir. 2005) 413 F.3d 668, 672–673 [noncitizen was not deportable for commission of a crime involving moral turpitude over six years after he entered the United States on a visa, even though the crime was committed within five years of date of adjustment of his status to lawful permanent resident]; cf. Diaz Esparza v. Garland (5th Cir. 2022) 23 F.4th 563, 574-575 [date of admission was when noncitizen adjusted his status to lawful permanent resident where earlier entry into the United States was unlawful].) If Camilo lawfully entered the United States before June 30, 1996, his crime would have been committed more than five years after his date of admission.