Vu Minh Nguyen v. Sessions, No. 17-70251 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseThe Ninth Circuit granted a petition for review of the BIA's decision finding petitioner ineligible for cancellation of removal. Under the plain text of the stop-time rule, the panel held that petitioner was not rendered inadmissible by his possession of cocaine because, as a lawful permanent resident, he was not subject to the grounds of inadmissibility. Therefore, petitioner was eligible to apply for cancellation of removal. The panel acknowledged that its conclusion parted ways with the Fifth Circuit in Calix v. Lynch, 784 F.3d 1000 (5th Cir. 2015). The panel remanded for the BIA to consider petitioner's application of cancellation of removal on the merits.
Court Description: Immigration The panel granted Vu Minh Nguyen’s petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals that found Nguyen ineligible for cancellation of removal, holding that Nguyen’s admitted use of cocaine did not render him inadmissible, and therefore did not trigger the stop-time rule for cancellation of removal, because Nguyen is a lawful permanent resident not seeking admission, and remanded. To be eligible for cancellation of removal for certain permanent residents, one of the statutory prerequisites Nguyen had to establish was seven years of continuous residence in the United States. Under the stop-time rule, as relevant here, a period of continuous residence is deemed to end “when the alien has committed an offense referred to in section 1182(a)(2) of this title that renders the alien inadmissible to the United States under section 1182(a)(2) of this title or removable from the United States under section 1227(a)(2) or 1227(a)(4) of this title.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1). During his merits hearing, Nguyen admitted on cross- examination that he used cocaine in 2005. The immigration judge pretermitted Nguyen’s application for cancellation of removal on the ground that Nguyen’s commission of a drug offense rendered him inadmissible, therefore stopping his
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.