N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff-Appe lle e , v. DANIEL R ODR IGUEZ-PEREZ, De fe nda

nt-Appe lla

nt. No. 12-30322

D.C . No. 1:11-c r-00291-EJL-1 M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ida

ho Edwa rd J. Lodge , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d August 29, 2013 ** Se a ttle , W a s hington B e fore : M c KEOW

N a nd C L IFTON, C irc uit Judge s, a nd R AKOFF, Se n ior Distric t Judge . *** 

# FIL ED SEP 03 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2). *** The Honora

ble Je d S. R akoff, Se n ior Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of Ne w York, sitting by de signa tion.Danie l R odrigue z -Pe re z a ppe a ls from

his c onvic tion for ille ga l re e n try in viola tion of 8 U.S.C . § 1326, a rguing tha

t the distric t

c o urt e rre d in de ny ing his m otion to dism

iss the indic tm e nt, whic h ha d c o lla t e ra lly atta c ke d his unde rly ing re m ova l orde r. Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1326(d). W e re vie w a de nia l of suc h a

m otion de novo. Se e Unite d State s v. Le o n–Pa z , 340 F.3d 1003, 1004 (9th C ir.2003). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd a ffirm . R odrigue z -Pe re z wa s found in the Unite d State s in 2011 a fte r having be e n re m ove d in 2007 pursua

nt to a re insta te m e nt of a

de p o rtation orde r issue d in 1995. R odrigue z argue s tha

t t he im m igrat ion judgein his 1995 he aring e rre d by a dvising him tha t he wa s ine ligiblefor re lie f from de porta tion unde r form e r Se c tion 212(c ) of the Im m igration a

nd Na tiona lity Ac t. An im

m igra nt se e king re lie f unde r Se c tion 212(c ) wa s sta

tutorily re quire d to ha ve a “ la wful unre l inquishe d dom ic ile of se v e n c onse c ut ive y e ars,” 8 U.S.C . § 1182(c ) (1995), a nd in C a stillo-Fe lix v. INS, 601 F.2d 459 (9th C i r. 1979), this C ourt uphe ld a B IA inte rpre tat ion whe re by

“ to be e ligiblefor [Se c t ion 212(c )] re lie f, a lie ns m ust a c c um ulate se ve n y e a

rs of la wful unre linquishe d dom ic ile a fte r the ir a dm ission for pe rm a ne nt re side nc e .” Id. a t 467; se e a lso 8 C .F.R . § 212.3(f)(2) (1995) (c odify i ng the inte rpre tation uphe ld in C a stillo-Fe lix). At thetim e of his deporta tion proc e e ding, R odrigue z -Pe re z ha d be e n a la wful pe rm a

n e nt re side nt for only

four y e a rs. 2Ne ve rthe le s s, R o d rigue z -Pe re z argue s tha

t c e rta in “ d e ve lopm e nts” in the la w indic a te d tha

t the se ve n y e ars re quire d for Se c tion 212(c ) re lie f c ould a lso inc lude the p e riod a fte r he a c q

u ire d te m pora ry sta tus in 1988 pursua

nt to theSpe c i a l Agric u ltura l W orke r (“ SAW ” ) program unde r the Im

m igration R e form

an d C ontrol Ac t of 1986 (“ IR C A ” ). Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1160. Howe ve r, while “ an [im m i gration judge ] m u st providea c c urate inform a tion re ga rding a n a lie n's e ligibility

for re lie f unde r the a

pplic a ble la w at the tim e of his deporta tion he aring,” im

m i gration judge s are not re quire d to “ antic ipate future c ha n ge s in la w whe n de te rm ining a

n a lie n’ s a ppa re nt e l igibility

for re lie f from

re m ova l.” Unite d State s v. Vida l M e n doz a , 705 F.3d 1012, 1017 (9th C ir. 2013) (inte rna l quota tion m a rks a n d c ita tions omitte d). He re , unde r the la w of this C irc uit a

t the tim e of his deporta

tion proc e e ding, R odrigue z -Pe re z wa s ine ligiblefor Se c tion 212(c ) re l ie f be c a use he ha d not be e n a la

wful pe rm ane nt re side nt for se ve n y e ars. Se e C a stillo-Fe lix, 601 F.2d at 467; 8 C .F.R . § 212.3(f)(2) (1995). Inde e d, in Orte ga de R oble s v. INS, 58 F.3d 1355 (9th C ir. 1995), on whic h R odrigue z -Pe re z princ i pa lly re lie s, while we he ld tha t the rule of C a stillo-Fe lix wa s ina pplic a ble to im m igra nts who obtaine d te m pora ry sta tus unde r IR C A’ s ge ne ra l a m ne sty , we a lso re c ogniz e d a B IA de c ision tha

t found “ a c ruc ia l distinc tion . . . be twe e n te m pora ry re side nts unde r [SAW ] on the one ha

nd, a nd a lie ns e ligiblefor a djustm e nt unde r [the ge ne ra l

3am

ne sty ] . . . on theothe r.” 58 F.3d a t 1360 n.6. The im m igration judge ha d no duty to a d vise R odrigue z -Pe re z “ of re lie f for whic h he wa s not the n e ligibleand for whic h he would be c o m e e ligible only with a c ha nge in la w.” Unite d State s v. Lope z -Ve la sque z , 629 F.3d 894, 901 (9th C ir. 2010) (e n ba

nc ). R odrigue z -Pe re z ’ s unde rly i ng de porta tion proc e e d ing a c c ordingly

wa s not funda

m e nta lly unfa ir, a n d the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of his m otion to dism

iss the indic tm e nt wa s prope r. AFFIRM E D.

4