Case ID: f3d_667/html/1330-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Joel LOPEZ-LOERA, aka Loera Lopez Joel, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-71613.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Dec. 9, 2011.
    Filed Feb. 9, 2012.
    Michael J. Proctor, Caldwell Leslie & Proctor, PC, Los Angeles, CA, argued the cause and filed the briefs for the petitioner. With him on the briefs were Andrew Esbenshade, Albert Giang, and Tina Wong, Caldwell, Leslie & Proctor, PC, Los Angeles, CA, as well as Mathew L. Millen, Law Offices of Mathew L. Millen, Los Angeles, CA.
    Liza S. Murcia, United States Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., argued the cause and filed the brief for the respondent. With her on the brief were Tony-West and David V. Bernal, Department of Justice Civil Division, Washington, D.C.
    Before: DIARMUID F. O’SCANNLAIN, ROBERT E. COWEN, and MARSHA S. BERZON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The Honorable Robert E. Cowen, Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit, sitting by designation.
    
   ORDER

The government has moved to remand this case in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Judulang v. Holder, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 476, 181 L.Ed.2d 449 (2011). Because the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision rested solely on Matter of Blake, 23 I. & N. Dec. 722 (BIA 2005), we agree with the government that “remand of this case to the Board for further proceedings concerning Lopez-Loera’s eligibility for relief under former 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (1994) in accordance with Judulang v. Holder ... is warranted.”

We also agree with the government that the Petitioner waived any claim that this matter should have been processed as a question of inadmissibility rather than deportability when he admitted that he was deportable.

Under the circumstances, we take no position on any decision of the BIA that rests on Abebe v. Mukasey, 554 F.3d 1203 (9th Cir.2009) (en banc).

The government’s motion to remand is therefore GRANTED and the case is REMANDED.