GUSTAVO HIDALGO V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 11-73122 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED JUN 11 2014 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GUSTAVO ADOLFO HIDALGO, AKA Felipe Morres, No. 11-73122 Agency No. A077-344-047 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted June 5, 2014 Pasadena, California Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, and TROTT and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Gustavo Hidalgo petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals order denying him suspension of deportation under § 244(a)(2) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1254(a)(2) (repealed 1997). We deny Hidalgo s petition because we agree with the Board that the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. Responsibility Act s ( IIRIRA ) repeal of § 244(a)(2) is not impermissibly retroactive in his case. The essential inquiry is whether the new provision attaches new legal consequences to events completed before its enactment. Vartelas v. Holder, 132 S. Ct. 1479, 1491 (2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). While it is true that Hidalgo was powerless to alter his 1989 guilty plea, he still cannot show that IIRIRA s repeal of § 244(a)(2) ranks as a new disability. Id. at 1487. IIRIRA did not alter the character of [Hidalgo s] conviction or deny him any existing eligibility for discretionary relief. Valencia-Alvarez v. Gonzales, 469 F.3d 1319, 1330 (9th Cir. 2006). Hidalgo was not statutorily eligible for relief under § 244(a)(2) at the time IIRIRA s took effect, because he had not accrued the requisite ten years of continuous presence in the United States following his guilty plea. Thus, IIRIRA did not attach[] new legal consequences to his conviction. Vartelas, 132 S. Ct. at 1491. Petition Denied. 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.
