Fuentes v. Lynch, No. 13-74056 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CasePetitioner seeks review of the BIA's decision dismissing his appeal of the IJ's denial of his application for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. 1229b(a). The court applied Medina-Nunez v. Lynch and In re Reza-Murillo, holding that the BIA properly concluded that petitioner was not “admitted in any status” for purposes of cancellation of removal when he was listed as a derivative beneficiary on his mother’s asylum and Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA), Title II of Pub.L. 105-100, applications and received work authorization in the United States under 8 C.F.R. 274a.12(c). Accordingly, the court dismissed the petition in part because it lacked jurisdiction over petitioner's contention that he was "admitted in any status" and denied it in part.
Court Description: Immigration. The panel dismissed in part and denied in part Juan Carlos Fuentes’ petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision denying his cancellation of removal application for failure to establish that he resided continuously in the United States for seven years after having been “admitted in any status” pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a)(2). The panel held that an applicant has not been “admitted in any status” for purposes of establishing the requisite residency by virtue of being listed as a derivative beneficiary on a parent’s applications for asylum and relief under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act. The panel further held that an applicant’s receipt of authorization to work in the United States under 8 C.F.R. § 274a.12(c) would also not establish admission. The panel dismissed the petition in part, holding that it lacked jurisdiction over Fuentes’ contention that he was “admitted in any status” based on the years of presence he established in connection with his own NACARA application, for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. FUENTES 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.