FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARIO ERNESTO JAIMES-CARDENAS, No. 19-71849 Petitioner, Agency No. v. A089-840-090 WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. OPINION On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted July 7, 2020 Seattle, Washington Filed September 1, 2020 Before: Michael Daly Hawkins, D. Michael Fisher, * and Milan D. Smith, Jr., Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge Hawkins * The Honorable D. Michael Fisher, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, sitting by designation. 2 JAIMES-CARDENAS V. BARR SUMMARY ** Immigration Denying Mario Ernesto Jaimes-Cardenas’s petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals concluding that he was ineligible for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2), which provides a special rule for victims of domestic violence (the “Special Rule”), the panel held that the domestic violence waiver established under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(7), and made applicable to cancellation of removal by 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(5), is limited to crimes of domestic violence and stalking, and therefore does not cover Jaimes-Cardenas’s drug conviction. The Special Rule for cancellation of removal was enacted as part of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (“VAWA”). Under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2)(A)(iv), an applicant for such relief must demonstrate that he or she is not inadmissible or deportable on certain grounds, subject to § 1229b(b)(5). Section 1229b(b)(5), in turn, provides that “the authority provided under section 1227(a)(7) of this title may apply under paragraphs (1)(B), (1)(C) and (2)(A)(iv) [of § 1229b(b)] in a cancellation of removal and adjustment of status proceeding.” Section 1227(a)(7), in turn, establishes a waiver that is limited to crimes of domestic violence and stalking or violations of a domestic violence protective order. An immigration judge denied Jaimes-Cardenas’s application for Special Rule cancellation of removal, finding ** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. JAIMES-CARDENAS V. BARR 3 first that he was inadmissible for having been convicted of a controlled substance offense. The IJ then considered whether, despite his conviction, he was potentially eligible for relief with a § 1227(a)(7) waiver. However, the IJ concluded that § 1227(a)(7) could not waive Jaimes- Cardenas’s controlled substance offense. The BIA adopted and affirmed the IJ’s denial of relief. Before this court, Jaimes-Cardenas conceded that § 1227(a)(7) is limited to offenses for domestic violence and stalking and violations of a protective order, but argued that § 1229b(b)(5) is an independent and broader domestic violence waiver that covers all offenses listed in (1)(B), (1)(C), and (2)(A)(iv) of § 1229b(b), which would include his controlled substance conviction. The panel held that the plain meaning of § 1229b(b)(5) allows the waiver of § 1227(a)(7) to apply in Special Rule cancellation proceedings only to the extent of the authority granted in § 1227(a)(7). The panel explained that § 1229b(b)(5) imports § 1227(a)(7)’s textual limitations and that ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals