Min, et al v. Holder, No. 06-70205 (9th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 27 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT THAN MIN, No. 06-70205 Petitioner, Agency No. A027-290-868 v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted September 13, 2010 ** Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Than Min, a native and citizen of Cambodia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge s order denying his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Cano- * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002), and de novo questions of law, Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review. The agency properly denied Min s motion to reopen to apply for relief under former section 212(c), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (repealed 1996), because he agreed to plead guilty pursuant to a plea agreement made after April 1, 1997, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.44(b)(2), and because his crime of violence aggravated felony ground of removability lacks a statutory counterpart in a ground of inadmissibility, see Aguilar-Ramos v. Holder, 594 F.3d 701, 706 (9th Cir. 2010). Min s due process retroactivity contentions are unavailing. See SaraviaPaguada v. Gonzales, 488 F.3d 1122, 1132-33 (9th Cir. 2007) (the past relevant conduct for the retroactivity analysis is the alien s decision whether to enter a guilty plea or proceed to trial, not the commission of the underlying crime). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 06-70205

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.