United States Ninth Circuit

Petition for review of a decision finding petitioner ineligible to apply for discretionary relief from removal under former section 212(c) of the INA is denied in part over claims that the BIA's interpretation of former section 212(c) must be rejected because: 1) it is invalid as a matter of statutory construction; 2) it violates principles of equal protection; and 3) it is impermissibly retroactive as applied to him.

Appellate Information

• Argued 03/25/2008
• Decided 07/09/2007
• Published 07/09/2007

Judges

• Before ALEX KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, HARRY PREGERSON, ANDREW J. KLEINFELD, SIDNEY R. THOMAS, BARRY G. SILVERMAN, RONALD M. GOULD, RICHARD C. TALLMAN, RICHARD R. CLIFTON, CONSUELO M. CALLAHAN, CARLOS T. BEA and N. RANDY SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Robert B. Jobe (argued) and Fatma Marouf, Law Office of Robert B. Jobe, San Francisco, CA, for the petitioner., Zachary Miller Nightingale, Avantika Shastri, and Marc Van Der Hout, Van Der Hout, Brigagliano and Nightingale, LLP, San Francisco, CA, for amicus curiae, the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild., Marc Christopher Fleming and James Quarles, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr, LLP, Boston, MA, for amicus curia, Joel Judulang.


• For Appellees:
  
• Thomas H. Dupree, Jr., Deputy Assistant Attorney General;  Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General;  M. JocelynLopez Wright, Assistant Director, Office of Immigration Litigation;  Song E. Park, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for the respondent.