Sanchez-Ruano v. Garland, No. 18-71760 (9th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Sanchez-Ruano, a citizen of Mexico, was admitted into the U.S. in 1995 as a visitor. He overstayed and has amassed criminal convictions including for possessing marijuana, receiving stolen property, DUI, and being the driver in two hit-and-runs. In 2013, he was charged with removability under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(1)(B) for remaining in the country longer than permitted. He requested a continuance pending the status of his U Nonimmigrant Status application. After numerous continuances, his U-visa application was denied. The IJ found Sanchez-Ruano statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal due to his conviction for marijuana possession, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2). Sanchez-Ruano argued that, given his previous admittance, section 1182(a)(2) did not apply to him for the purposes of cancellation of removal and that the personal use exception for violations involving 30 grams or less of marijuana under section 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) rendered him eligible for cancellation of removal. The BIA dismissed his appeal without analyzing his argument.
The Ninth Circuit denied a petition for review. Aliens who have been admitted and commit certain crimes are deportable under section 1227(a); section 1229b(b)(1)(C) bars cancellation of removal if an alien has been convicted of “an offense under” sections 1182(a)(2), 1227(a)(2), or 1227(a)(3). Given Sanchez-Ruano’s conviction of an offense described under 1182(a)(2), the BIA correctly determined that he was statutorily ineligible for cancellation.
Court Description: Immigration Denying Juan Guillermo Sanchez-Ruano’s petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, the panel concluded that Sanchez-Ruano was ineligible for cancellation of removal due to his conviction of an offense described under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2), which describes a ground of inadmissibility, even though he had been admitted into the United States. The panel explained that, with respect to determining removability, aliens who have not been admitted and commit certain crimes are inadmissible under § 1182(a), while aliens who have been admitted and commit certain crimes are deportable under § 1227(a). With respect to relief, the panel explained that § 1229b(b)(1)(C) bars cancellation of removal if an alien has been convicted of “an offense under” §§ 1182(a)(2), 1227(a)(2), or 1227(a)(3). Sanchez-Ruano argued that: (1) because he had been admitted, § 1227(a)(2)—not § 1182(a)(2)—applied to him for the purposes of cancellation, and, accordingly, (2) the personal- use exception for marijuana possession that is available under § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i), but not § 1182(a)(2), rendered him eligible for cancellation. The panel concluded that his argument failed at the first step under Gonzalez-Gonzalez v. Ashcroft, 390 F.3d 649 (9th Cir. 2004), where the court held that § 1229b should be read SANCHEZ-RUANO V. GARLAND 3 to cross reference a list of offenses in the three statutes, rather than the statutes as a whole. The panel observed that Gonzalez-Gonzalez concerned a petitioner who illegally entered and argued that § 1227 did not apply to him, while Sanchez-Ruano presented the inverse situation because he legally entered and argued that § 1182 did not apply to him. The panel concluded that this was a distinction without a difference, explaining that the point of the holding in Gonzalez-Gonzalez is that if a petitioner committed an offense described under any of the three statutes cross- referenced in § 1229b(b)(1)(C), the petitioner is statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal. Given Sanchez-Ruano’s conviction of an offense described under § 1182(a)(2), the panel concluded that the agency correctly determined that he was statutorily ineligible for cancellation.
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.