Wenceslao Soriano v. Alberto Gonzales, No. 05-2590 (8th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Petition for Review - Immigration. Board of Immigration Appeals acted within its discretion in denying motion to reconsider or reopen; BIA did not err in determining petitioner was ineligible for a waiver of removability under the Immigration and Naturalization Act.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 05-2590 ___________ Wenceslao Cornejo Soriano, Petitioner, v. Alberto Gonzales, United States Attorney General, Respondent. * * * * Petition for Review * of an Order of the * Board of Immigration Appeals. * * [PUBLISHED] * * ___________ Submitted: October 6, 2006 Filed: October 19, 2006 ___________ Before SMITH, MAGILL, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Wenceslao Cornejo Soriano, a citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his motion to reconsider or to reopen. We conclude that the BIA acted within its discretion in denying Soriano s motion. See Patel v. Ashcroft, 375 F.3d 693, 695-96 (8th Cir. 2004) (standard of review). We agree with the BIA that Soriano was ineligible for a waiver of removability under Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) § 212(c), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (1994) (repealed effective Apr. 1, 1997), because the ground for which he was found removable--the aggravated felony of sexual abuse of minor--does not have a statutory counterpart in the grounds of inadmissibility listed in INA § 212(a), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a). See 8 C.F.R. § 1212.3(f)(5) (2005) (§ 212(c) relief shall be denied if alien is removable on ground which does not have statutory counterpart in grounds of inadmissibility under § 212(a)); Campos v. INS, 961 F.2d 309, 312-15 (1st Cir. 1992) (§ 212(c) waiver may be granted to alien facing deportation only when there is ground of exclusion comparable to charge triggering deportation); In re Blake, 23 I. & N. Dec. 722, 723-29 (BIA 2005) (sexual-abuse-of-minor removability ground has no statutory counterpart in § 212(a) inadmissibility grounds). Accordingly, we deny the petition. ______________________________ -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.
