From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Barron-Flores v. I.N.S.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jul 31, 2001
14 F. App'x 976 (9th Cir. 2001)

Opinion


14 Fed.Appx. 976 (9th Cir. 2001) Julio BARRON-FLORES, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent. No. 99-70315. INS No. A70 169 574. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. July 31, 2001

Argued and Submitted February 15, 2001.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)

Alien petitioned for review of decision of Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that he was ineligible to seek discretionary relief from deportation or a discretionary waiver of inadmissibility. The Court of Appeals held that: (1) provisions of Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 did not apply to alien whose immigration proceedings commenced prior to Act's effective date; (2) alien charged with deportability for entry without inspection was ineligible for a waiver of deportation; and (3) alien was ineligible for waiver of deportation under statute limiting discretionary waiver of deportation for assisting illegal entry of family members to immediate family members.

Affirmed.

Page 977.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Before BEEZER, T.G. NELSON, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM

This disposition is inappropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

Julio Barron-Flores appeals the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA's") determination that he was ineligible to seek discretionary relief from deportation pursuant to INA § 212(c) (initially codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) but subsequently repealed) or a discretionary waiver of inadmissability pursuant to INA § 241(a)(1)(E)(iii) (initially codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(1)(E)(iii) (1987) and now codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(E)(iii)). We affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of this case, we will not recount them here.

1. We review the BIA's interpretation of the INA de novo. Ladha v. INS, 215 F.3d 889, 896 (9th Cir.2000). Because Mr. Barron-Flores' immigration proceedings commenced prior to April 1, 1997, the provisions of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 are not applicable here. Rivera Morena v. INS, 213 F.3d 481, 485 n. 3 (9th Cir.2000).

2. Mr. Barron-Flores, a citizen of Mexico, is charged with deportability for entry without inspection in violation of INA § 241(a)(1)(B). Because there is no comparable ground for exclusion under INA § 212(a), he is ineligible for a waiver of deportation under INA § 212(c). Komarenko v. I.N.S., 35 F.3d 432 (9th Cir.1994); Cabasug v. I.N.S., 847 F.2d 1321 (9th Cir.1988).

3. Mr. Barron-Flores is further charged with deportability for helping Martha Cecilia Castillo, also a citizen of Mexico, to enter into the United States illegally. Mr. Barron-Flores was not married to Ms. Castillo at the time of her illegal entry. Therefore, he is also ineligible for a waiver under INA § 241(a)(1)(E)(iii).

For the forgoing reasons, we AFFIRM the decision of the BIA.


Summaries of

Barron-Flores v. I.N.S.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jul 31, 2001
14 F. App'x 976 (9th Cir. 2001)
Case details for

Barron-Flores v. I.N.S.

Case Details

Full title:Julio BARRON-FLORES, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Jul 31, 2001

Citations

14 F. App'x 976 (9th Cir. 2001)