JUAN LOPEZ-AGUIAR V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 10-71715 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED OCT 03 2014 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUAN CARLOS LOPEZ-AGUIAR, Petitioner, No. 10-71715 Agency No. A098-443-036 v. MEMORANDUM* ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted September 23, 2014** Before: W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. Juan Carlos Lopez-Aguiar, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge s order denying adjustment of status. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. * 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). Garfias-Rodriguez v. Holder, 702 F.3d 504, 512 n.6 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). We deny the petition for review. Lopez-Aguiar contends that the agency erred in concluding that he was inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(C)(i)(I) and ineligible to adjust status under Matter of Briones, 24 I. & N. Dec. 355 (BIA 2007). The reasoning in Garfias-Rodriguez controls the analysis of whether Lopez-Aguiar can avoid the retroactive application of Briones. See Garfias-Rodriguez, 702 F.3d at 520 (holding that analysis under Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc. v. FTC, 691 F.2d 1322 (9th Cir. 1982) is necessary to determine retroactive effect of Briones). Like the petitioner in Garfias-Rodriguez, Lopez-Aguiar initially applied for adjustment of status before Acosta v. Gonzalez, 439 F.3d 550 (9th Cir. 2006) was decided, and during Lopez-Aguiar s proceedings the tension between 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i) and § 1182(a)(9)(C)(i)(I) was obvious and the ambiguity in law should have given him no assurances of his eligibility for adjustment of status. See id. at 522-23. Although the burden of removal weighs heavily in favor of Lopez-Aguiar, the same was true in Garfias-Rodriguez, where the court found that the interest in maintaining uniformity in the application of immigration law leaned in favor of retroactive application. See id. at 523. As there is no significant factual basis to distinguish Lopez-Aguiar s situation from the one presented in Garfias-Rodriguez 2 10-71715 for purposes of applying Montgomery Ward, we conclude that this court s holding in Garfias-Rodriguez applies to Lopez-Aguiar, rendering him ineligible for adjustment under § 1255(i). Finally, Lopez-Aguiar s contention that the Attorney General exceeded his authority in promulgating 8 C.F.R. § 1240.26(i) is foreclosed by GarfiasRodriguez, 702 F.3d at 525-27 (holding that the promulgation of 8 C.F.R. § 1240.26(i) was a proper exercise of the Attorney General s authority). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 10-71715
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.
