Nuila-Chavez, et al v. Holder, No. 06-73681 (9th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 31 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUAN RAUL NUILA-CHAVEZ, Petitioner, No. 06-73681 Agency No. A091-514-613 v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted August 23, 2010 ** Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges. Juan Raul Nuila-Chavez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge s removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. * 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). We review de novo questions of law and constitutional claims, Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 776 (9th Cir. 2009), and we deny the petition for review. Nuila-Chavez does not challenge the agency s determination that he is removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) based on his 1991 conviction for lewd or lascivious acts with a child under 14 years of age in violation of California Penal Code § 288(a). The agency determined that Nulia-Chavez is ineligible for relief under former section 212(c), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (repealed 1996), because his ground of removability lacks a statutory counterpart in a ground of inadmissibility. See 8 C.F.R. § 1212.3(f)(5). Nuila-Chavez s retroactivity and equal protection challenges to this determination are unavailing. See Abebe v. Mukasey, 554 F.3d 1203, 1207 & 1208 n.7 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc); see also Aragon-Ayon v. INS, 206 F.3d 847, 853 (9th Cir. 2000) ( We are satisfied that Congress intended the 1996 amendments to make the aggravated felony definition apply retroactively to all defined offenses whenever committed. ). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 06-73681

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.