Ismael Cazarez v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 09-2068 (4th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-2068 ISMAEL CAZAREZ; Hernandez, ELVIA CASTILLO, a/k/a Elvia Castillo Petitioners, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: July 12, 2010 Decided: July 21, 2010 Before KING, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael W. Lin, BRAVERMAN & LIN, P.C., Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioners. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Daniel E. Goldman, Senior Litigation Counsel, Ada E. Bosque, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ismael Cazarez and his wife, Elvia Castillo, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( Board ) dismissing their appeal from the immigration judge s denial of Cazarez s application for adjustment of status. We have reviewed the record and the Board s order and affirm the denial of relief for the reasons stated by the Board. In re: Cazarez (B.I.A. Aug. 21, 2009); see Ramirez v. Holder, __ F.3d __, 2010 WL 2499988, *3 (4th Cir. June 22, 2010) (holding that an alien who is inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(C)(i)(I) (2006) is ineligible for adjustment of status pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i) (2006) and rejecting alien s nunc pro tunc argument); Matter of TorresGarcia, 23 I. & N. Dec. 866, 876 (B.I.A. 2006) (holding that an alien may not obtain a waiver of the section [1182](a)(9)(C)(i) ground of inadmissibility, retroactively or prospectively, without regard to the 10-year limitation set forth at section [1182](a)(9)(C)(ii) ). review. legal before Accordingly, we deny the petition for We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. PETITION DENIED 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.