RONALD GOMEZ V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 12-72799 (9th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED NOV 25 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RONALD GOMEZ, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 12-72799 Petitioner, Agency No. A028-812-719 v. MEMORANDUM * LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 20, 2015** San Francisco, California Before: MELLOY,*** IKUTA, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Ronald Gomez petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision affirming the determination by an immigration judge (“IJ”) that Gomez is ineligible for special rule cancellation of removal under section 203 of the * 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). *** The Honorable Michael J. Melloy, Senior Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation. Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (“NACARA”), Pub. L. No. 105-100, 111 Stat. 2160 (1998). We deny the petition. When he applied for cancellation of removal, Gomez had two criminal convictions, a 1996 conviction for petit larceny, and a 2005 conviction for domestic battery. Although the 1996 conviction fell within the petty offense exception of Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) § 212(a)(2)(A)(ii), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(ii), Gomez does not dispute that the 2005 conviction was for a crime involving moral turpitude. See Uppal v. Holder, 605 F.3d 712, 717-18 (9th Cir. 2010). Gomez therefore became inadmissible under INA § 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) on March 31, 2005, the date of the second conviction. And, as a consequence of the second conviction, Gomez could not establish the requisite ten-year good moral character requirement for cancellation of removal under NACARA § 203(B). PETITION DENIED. 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.