Cardenas-Delgado v. Holder, Jr., No. 11-72057 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CasePetitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico admitted to the United States in 1976 as a lawful permanent resident, petitioned for review of the BIA's decision affirming an IJ's decision that he was ineligible for relief from removal under former Immigration and Naturalization Act 212(c), 8 U.S.C. 1182(c), because his conviction for an aggravated felony was the result of a trial. The court concluded that Vartelas v. Holder made it clear that the essential inquiry of retroactivity analysis was to determine whether the new law attached new legal consequences to completed conduct and that evidence regarding reliance was not required to prove that a new law was impermissibly retroactive. The repeal of section 212(c) relief impermissibly attached new legal consequences to the trial convictions of aliens like petitioner by rendering these aliens ineligible for relief as a result of convictions that pre-dated the repeal of section 212(c). Accordingly, the court granted the petition for review, vacated the BIA's order, and remanded for further proceedings.
Court Description: Immigration. The panel granted Francisco Cardenas-Delgado’s petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision finding him ineligible for former INA § 212(c) relief because his conviction for an aggravated felony was the result of a trial. The panel reasoned that in Vartelas v. Holder, 132 S. Ct. 1479 (2012), the Supreme Court made it clear that the essential inquiry of retroactivity analysis is to determine whether the new law attaches new legal consequences to completed conduct, and that reliance is not required to prove impermissible retroactivity. The panel held that Vartelas is irreconcilable with this court’s previous cases holding that a petitioner must prove detrimental reliance. Applying Vartelas, the panel held that the repeal of § 212(c) relief impermissibly attaches new legal consequences to the trial convictions of aliens like Cardenas-Delgado by rendering them ineligible for relief as a result of convictions that pre- dated the repeal of § 212(c).
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.