Correo-Ruiz v. Lynch, No. 12-72126 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CasePetitioners David and Miguel Correo-Ruiz, citizens of Mexico and brothers, challenged the BIA's holding that individuals like petitioners, who entered the United States unlawfully and then applied for adjustment of status under a provision of the immigration laws permitting non-citizens to become lawful permanent residents, are categorically ineligible for relief under 8 U.S.C. 1255(i). In Garfias-Rodriguez v. Holder, the court upheld the BIA’s interpretation of the law and adopted a five-factor test for determining whether In re Briones may be applied retroactively in a given case. Petitioners assert that they incurred legal expenses pursuing section 1255(i) relief during the 21-month period between Acosta v. Gonzales and Briones. In Garfias-Rodriguez, the court suggested that incurring such expenses could potentially tilt the second and third factors in the petitioner’s favor. Because the record does not reflect the amount of the expenses petitioners incurred during the relevant 21-month window, the court remanded to the BIA with instructions to grant the brothers an opportunity to supplement the record. The BIA can then assess in the first instance, under the five-factor test, whether Briones may be applied retroactively in this case. The court granted the petition for review and remanded.
Court Description: Immigration. The panel granted David and Miguel Correo-Ruiz’s petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision finding the brothers ineligible for adjustment of status because they were inadmissible pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(C) under a retroactive application of Matter of Briones, 24 I. & N. Dec. 355 (BIA 2007). The panel applied the balancing test adopted in Garfias-Rodriguez v. Holder, 702 F.3d 504 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc), to determine whether Briones could be retroactively imposed upon the brothers’ applications for adjustment, filed when Acosta v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 550 (9th Cir. 2006), which Garfias-Rodriguez overruled, would have applied. The panel held that the brothers could establish a legitimate reliance interest on pre-Briones law by showing they incurred legal expenses pursuing adjustment during the 21-month period between Acosta and Briones. Because the record did not reflect expenses the brothers incurred during the period, the panel remanded to the BIA with instructions to allow them to supplement the record and to assess in the first instance under Garfias-Rodriguez whether Briones may be applied retroactively. CORREO-RUIZ V. LYNCH 3
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.