Case ID: f-appx_392/html/0286-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Victor Hugo CARDONA-LOPEZ, also known as Omar Torres-Sanchez, also known as Alejandro Marin Ruiz, also known as Victor Lopez, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-60418.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Aug. 19, 2010.
    Roberto M. Hinojosa, Esq., Houston, TX, for Petitioner.
    Claire L. Workman, John Clifford Cunningham, I, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before KING, STEWART, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
   ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

PER CURIAM:

Victor Hugo Cardona-Lopez, a citizen and native of Mexico, petitioned this court for review of the order issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s) determination that he was ineligible for cancellation of removal. The BIA held that Cardona-Lopez’s second criminal possession of a controlled substance constituted a drug-trafficking aggravated felony for immigration purposes. We summarily affirmed the order of the BIA, relying on Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, 570 F.3d 263 (5th Cir.2009), reversed, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 2577, 177 L.Ed.2d 68 (2010). Having reversed our decision in Carachuri-Rosendo and held that “the defendant must ... have been actually convicted of a crime that is itself punishable as a felony under federal law,” — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 2577, 2589, 177 L.Ed.2d 68, the Supreme Court vacated our decision in this case and remanded the case for reconsideration. In accordance with the Supreme Court’s ruling, the order of the BIA is VACATED and the case is REMANDED to the BIA for reconsideration in the light of Carachuri-Rosendo.

VACATED and REMANDED. Each side shall bear its own costs and attorney’s fees. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.