Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Ignacio SANCHEZ-SALAZAR, a/k/a Jorge Rivera Pascual, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, US Attorney General, Respondent.
Ignacio Sanchez-Salazar, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s finding that his South Carolina conviction for criminal domestic violence was categorically a “crime of domestic violence” under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E) (2012) that renderd him ineligible for cancellation of removal.
We review legal issues de novo, “affording appropriate deference to the [Board]’s interpretation of the [Immigration and Nationality Act] and any attendant regulations.” Li Fang Lin v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 685, 691-92 (4th Cir. 2008). “[W]here ․ the [Board] construes statutes over which it has no particular expertise, [however,] its interpretations are not entitled to deference.” Karimi v. Holder, 715 F.3d 561, 566 (4th Cir. 2013). Administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012). We defer to the agency’s factual findings under the substantial evidence rule. Anim v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d 243, 252 (4th Cir. 2008).
Upon review, we conclude that Sanchez-Salazar’s South Carolina criminal domestic violence conviction constituted a crime of violence under 8 U.S.C. § 16(a) (2012) that rendered him ineligible for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i); 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(C) (2012). We accordingly deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re Sanchez-Salazar B.I.A. Feb. 27, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
PER CURIAM:
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 17-1360
Decided: April 04, 2018
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)