# Rosas-Castaneda v. Holder

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · January 4, 2011 · 655 F.3d 875

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9438849

## Case

- **Full name:** Luis Javier ROSAS-CASTANEDA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** January 4, 2011
- **Citations:** 655 F.3d 875; 2011 WL 4014321
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Judges:** Kozinski, Cowen, Tashima, Silverman, O'Scannlain
- **Cited by:** 8 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Overruled on other grounds by Young v. Holder, 697 F.3d 976 (2012).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9438849

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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)

## Opinion text

*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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9438849. Public record. Not legal advice.