Saladin Abdel Jawad v. Eric H. Hold, No. 11-3142 (7th Cir. 2012)

 Annotate this Case

This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on July 10, 2012.

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois  60604 August 30, 2012 Before DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge JOHN DANIEL TINDER, Circuit Judge No. 11 3142   SALADIN ABDEL JAWAD, Petitioner, v. Petition for Review of a Final Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals No.  A076 785 120. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General of the United States, Respondent. O R D E R On consideration of the Petition for  Rehearing filed by the Petitioner on August 24, 2012, all members of the original panel have voted to deny the petition. In his petition for rehearing, Jawad asserts that the proper period for evaluating the question of good moral character is the 10 years preceding the adjudication of an application for cancellation of removal, not the 10 years immediately preceding the service of the charging documents, as page 7, line 3 of the opinion in this case says. Jawad is correct. The error in the opinion is, however, harmless. Jawadʹs marriage fraud continued through his testimony before the Immigration Judge and the adjudication of the request for cancellation of removal, and so in his case it does not matter which period is used. In addition, Jawad did not raise this point No. 11-3142 Page 2 in his petition for review, and so that was not an issue before the panel.  We therefore order that the carryover sentence from the bottom of page 6 to the top of page 7 be stricken, and that it be replaced with the following one:  Similarly, Jawadʹs request for cancellation of removal under § 249A(b) required the IJ to determine whether Jawad Êºhas been a person of good moral characterʺ during the 10 years immediately preceding the adjudication of his application for cancellation of removal.   With that change, the petition for rehearing is DENIED. 

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.