Medina-Nunez, No. 14-70657 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, sought review of the BIA's denial of his application for cancellation of removal, holding that petitioner did not meet the statutory seven-year residency requirement because, under In re Reza-Murillo, his acceptance into the Family Unity Program (FUP) did not constitute an admission into the United States for purposes of 8 U.S.C. 1229b(a)(2). The court concluded, however, that the BIA's decision conflicts with its decision in Garcia-Quintero v. Gonzales. But, applying the rule announced in National
Cable & Telecommunications Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Services, the court must afford Chevron deference to the BIA’s decision in In re Reza-Murillo. Accordingly, the court denied the petition.
Court Description: Immigration. The panel denied Jose Juan Medina-Nunez’s petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of his application for cancellation of removal for failure to meet the statutory residency requirement. The panel deferred to the BIA’s published opinion in Matter of Reza-Murillo, 25 I. & N. Dec. 296 (BIA 2010), to hold that Medina-Nunez’s acceptance into the Family Unity Program (“FUP”) did not constitute an admission into the United States for purposes of cancellation. The panel held that deference was proper despite this court’s prior opinion to the contrary in Garcia-Quintero v. Gonzales, 455 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that acceptance into the FUP did constitute an admission), because the holding in Garcia- Quintero did not follow from the unambiguous terms of the statute and thus left no room for the agency’s discretion.
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.