holding that an alien could satisfy the burden of proving eligibility for cancellation by refusing to provide documents that would prove ineligibility for relief
How later courts described this case
- holding that an alien could satisfy the burden of proving eligibility for cancellation by refusing to provide documents that would prove ineligibility for relief
- holding that solicitation offenses do not constitute aggravated felonies under 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (a)(43)(B)
- applying the modified categorial approach to Ariz. Rev. Stats. § 13-3405(A)(4) because the “full range of conduct encompassed by the statute does not constitute an aggravated felony” (internal citation and quotation marks omitted)
- applying the modified categorial approach to Ariz. Rev. Stats. § 13-3405(A)(4)
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled on other grounds by Young v. Holder, 697 F.3d 976 (2012)
655 F.3d 875 (9th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Young v. Holder, 697 F.3d 976
The opinion
*877 Order; Dissent to Order by Chief Judge KOZINSKI; Opinion by Judge SILVERMAN.
ORDER
The opinion filed on January 4, 2011, and published at 630 F.3d 881 (9th Cir. 2011) is amended as follows:
At slip opinion page 272 [ 630 F.3d at 889 ], lines 15-16, replace < ... and we remand to the BIA for proceedings consistent with this opinion. > with < ... and we remand to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this opinion to permit the government to put forth reliable evidence to show that the petitioner was convicted of an aggravated felony. >
With the opinion as amended, the panel has voted to deny the petition for rehearing. Judge Silverman has voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc, and Judges Cowen and Tashima have so recommended. The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc. A judge requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc, and the matter failed to receive a majority of the votes of the nonrecused active judges in favor of en banc consideration. Fed. R.App. P. 35. The petition for rehearing en banc is denied.
No future petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc will be entertained.
IT IS SO ORDERED.