JOSE MERCADO RAMIREZ V. MATTHEW WHITAKER, No. 14-72415 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 19 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSE JESUS MERCADO RAMIREZ, Petitioner, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 14-72415 Agency No. A201-034-249 v. MEMORANDUM* MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted September 10, 2018** San Francisco, California Before: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. Jose Jesus Mercado Ramirez petitions for review of his removal proceedings in the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition. Mercado argues that the Board erred by retroactively applying In re Leal, 26 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). I. & N. Dec. 20, 27 (B.I.A. 2012) (Leal I) to conclude that his Arizona conviction for felony endangerment was a crime involving moral turpitude, that we should not apply our decision in Leal v. Holder, 771 F.3d 1140, 1146 (9th Cir. 2014) (Leal II) to conclude that Arizona endangerment is a crime involving moral turpitude for similar reasons, and that the definition of “crime involving moral turpitude” is unconstitutionally vague as applied to non-fraudulent crimes. Mercado’s first and third arguments our foreclosed by our decision in Olivas-Mottas v. Whitaker, __ F.3d __, No. 14-70543 (9th Cir. __, 2018). As to Mercado’s second argument, we did not decide in Olivas-Mottas whether Leal II changed the law and thus had a retroactive effect. But we do not need to decide that issue in this case because Leal I did not change the law, and Mercado has not argued to us that the Board erred by applying Leal I for any reason other than retroactivity and vagueness. PETITION DENIED. 2 FILED Mercado Ramirez v. Whitaker, No. 14-72415 DEC 19 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK WATFORD, Circuit Judge, dissenting: U.S. COURT OF APPEALS For the reasons stated in my dissent in Olivas-Motta v. Whitaker, __ F.3d __, No. 14-70543 (9th Cir. 2018), I would grant Jose Jesus Mercado Ramirez’s petition for review and remand so that the Board of Immigration Appeals can analyze the status of his conviction for reckless endangerment under the law as it stood in 2001, when he pleaded guilty.
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.
