Isidro Silerio-Nunez v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., et al, No. 08-2701 (8th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Petition for Review - Immigration. Immigration Judge did not err in ordering petitioner removed as he was not admissible at the time he gained entrance to the U.S.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 08-2701 ___________ Isidro Silerio-Nunez, * * Petitioner, * * v. * Petition for Review * Board of Immigration Appeals Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General * of the United States; Janet Napolitano, * [UNPUBLISHED] Secretary of the Department of * Homeland Security, * * Respondents. * ___________ Submitted: May 20, 2010 Filed: May 25, 2010 ___________ Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Isidro Silerio-Nunez, a native of Mexico, petitions for review of a July 2008 order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which affirmed an Immigration Judge s (IJ s) decision finding petitioner removable for being inadmissible at the time of his reentry into the United States. We deny the petition. In November 2000, an IJ found that petitioner, a lawful permanent resident (LPR), was removable based on his commission of an aggravated felony. Pursuant to the IJ s final order, which rescinded petitioner s LPR status, petitioner was removed to Mexico. Less than two weeks later, petitioner returned to the United States presenting his LPR identification card to immigration authorities to gain admission. We conclude that substantial evidence supports the BIA s decision. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i) (inadmissibility based on fraud or willful misrepresentation of material fact to gain admission), § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) (inadmissibility for failure to have valid immigration document), § 1256(a) (IJ s order of removal rescinds alien s status); Escudero-Corona v. INS, 244 F.3d 608, 612 (8th Cir. 2001) (standard of review). Petitioner s challenge to his 2000 removal order is foreclosed by Silerio-Nunez v. Holder, 356 Fed. Appx. 151 (10th Cir. 2009) (unpublished order). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. ___________________________________ -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.
