Maricruz Zavala v. Monty Wilkinson, No. 20-2173 (8th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Benton, Melloy, and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Petition for Review - Immigration. A conviction under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 408(a)(7)(B) is a conviction for a crime of moral turpitude - see Guardado-Garci v. Holder, 615 F.3d 900, 902 (8th Cir. 2010) - and the the agency did not err in denying petitioner's request for cancellation of removal.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 20-2173 ___________________________ Maricruz Zavala lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner v. Monty Wilkinson, Acting Attorney General of the United States1 lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent ____________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ____________ Submitted: February 23, 2021 Filed: March 8, 2021 [Unpublished] ____________ Before BENTON, MELLOY, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. 1 Monty Wilkinson has been appointed to serve as the Acting Attorney General of the United States, and is substituted as respondent pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c). Maricruz Zavala, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision finding her removable for having committed a crime involving moral turpitude and denying cancellation of removal. Zavala argues that her conviction under 42 U.S.C. § 408(a)(7)(B) is not a crime involving moral turpitude. As the agency noted, in Guardado-Garcia v. Holder, 615 F.3d 900, 902 (8th Cir. 2010), this court held that a conviction under section 408(a)(7)(B) is a crime involving moral turpitude. Although Zavala argues that decision was wrongly decided, we are bound by it. See United States v. Pryor, 927 F.3d 1042, 1044-45 (8th Cir. 2019) (reaffirming that one panel is bound by decisions of earlier panels absent en banc review, despite party’s argument that earlier decision was wrongly decided); Mader v. United States, 654 F.3d 794, 800 (8th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (“It is a cardinal rule in our circuit that one panel is bound by the decision of a prior panel.”). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. ______________________________ -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.
