Jose Arreola-Villa v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 594 F. App'x 274 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •      Case: 14-60123      Document: 00512951286         Page: 1    Date Filed: 02/27/2015
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    United States Court of Appeals
    No. 14-60123
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    Summary Calendar                       February 27, 2015
    Lyle W. Cayce
    JOSE ARREOLA-VILLA,                                                             Clerk
    Petitioner
    v.
    ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
    Respondent
    Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    BIA No. A205 069 559
    Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM: *
    Jose Arreola-Villa, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
    a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal of
    an immigration judge’s order that he was subject to removal and was not
    eligible for cancellation of removal because he had been convicted of a crime
    involving moral turpitude for which a sentence of one year or longer could be
    imposed. He contends that his prior conviction does not bar his eligibility for
    * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
    CIR. R. 47.5.4.
    Case: 14-60123    Document: 00512951286     Page: 2   Date Filed: 02/27/2015
    No. 14-60123
    cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(C), which provides that a
    nonpermanent resident may be eligible for cancellation of removal if he has not
    been convicted of an offense under three statutes, including 8 U.S.C.
    § 1227(a)(2). He argues that § 1229b(b)(1)(C) should be interpreted to include
    all of the immigration-related elements in the three statutes and that the BIA
    improperly concluded that only language regarding the criminal offense
    determines whether an offense is “under” one of the three statutes.
    We previously have rejected arguments virtually identical to those made
    by Arreola-Villa. In Nino v. Holder, 
    690 F.3d 691
    , 697-98 (5th Cir. 2012), we
    held that the plain language of § 1229b(b)(1)(C) unambiguously refers to the
    elements of the offenses set forth in the three statutes and does not refer to
    any aspects of immigration law. In light of our holding in Nino, Arreola-Villa’s
    argument that § 1229b(b)(1)(C) should be read to include aspects of
    immigration law and his contention that the BIA wrongly interpreted the
    statute by reaching a contrary determination are effectively foreclosed.
    Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-60123

Citation Numbers: 594 F. App'x 274

Filed Date: 2/27/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023