Moscoso-Castellanos v. Lynch, No. 12-72693 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CasePetitioner, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitioned for review of the BIA's decision finding him statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal for failure to accrue the requisite period of continuous physical presence by the time he was served with the Notice to Appear (NTA) in his removal proceeding. The court applied Chevron deference and affirmed the BIA's conclusion that service of the NTA triggers the stop-time rule even if the NTA does not include the date and location of the hearing. In this case, petitioner had accumulated only eight years’ physical presence in the United States, rather than the 10 years required. Accordingly, the BIA correctly determined that petitioner was statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal. The court denied the petition and dismissed in part. The court addressed petitioner's other arguments in an unpublished memorandum opinion.
Court Description: Immigration. The panel denied in part and dismissed in part Jorge Moscoso-Castellanos’ petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision finding him statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal for failure to accrue the requisite period of continuous physical presence by the time he was served with the Notice to Appear (“NTA”) in his removal proceeding. Applying Chevron deference, the panel found reasonable the BIA’s construction of 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1) in Matter of Camarillo, 25 I. & N. Dec. 644 (BIA 2011), that the failure of an NTA to specify the date and location of a removal hearing has no effect on the stop-time rule. The panel denied Moscoso-Castellanos’ petition because he accrued only eight of the required ten years of presence at the time he was served, and addressed Moscoso-Castellanos’ other arguments in an unpublished memorandum disposition filed concurrently with the opinion. MOSCOSO-CASTELLANOS 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.