Opinion ID: 613474
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Sandoval-Lua Applies in the Post-REAL ID Act Context.

Text: Prior to the enactment of the REAL ID Act in 2005, a removable alien applying for discretionary relief from removal had the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence (1) that she was eligible for relief, and (2) that her application merited a favorable exercise of discretion. 8 C.F.R. § 1240.8(d). For a lawful permanent resident to prove eligibility for cancellation of removal, she must show that she has (1) been a lawful permanent resident for at least five years; (2) resided in the United States continuously for seven years, regardless of immigration status; and (3) not been convicted of any aggravated felony. Toro-Romero v. Ashcroft, 382 F.3d 930, 937 (9th Cir.2004) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a)). Conviction of an aggravated felony constitutes a mandatory ground for denial of relief. Sandoval-Lua, 499 F.3d at 1127. Where an alien's conviction indicates that one or more of the grounds for mandatory denial of the application for relief may apply, the alien shall have the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that such grounds do not apply. Id. at 1129 (citing 8 C.F.R. § 1240.8(d)). In 2007, we decided Sandoval-Lua, the facts of which are similar to those in this case. In Sandoval-Lua, we upheld an IJ's decision finding a removable alien eligible for cancellation of removal because the statute under which the alien was convicted was divisible and the record of conviction was inconclusive as to whether the offense constituted an aggravated felony. Id. at 1124. Relying on the Supreme Court's decisions in Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13, 125 S.Ct. 1254, 161 L.Ed.2d 205 (2005), and Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575, 110 S.Ct. 2143, 109 L.Ed.2d 607 (1990), Sandoval-Lua held that under the modified categorical approach, the relevant inquiry was whether the judicially noticeable documents establish that [the alien's] conviction necessarily was for all of the elements constituting an aggravated felony .... If the record of conviction does not so establish, [then the conviction] cannot amount to the generic offense, and [the alien] has carried his burden. 499 F.3d at 1131. We therefore held that [b]y submitting an inconclusive record of conviction, Lua has affirmatively proven under the modified categorical analysis that he was not necessarily `convicted of any aggravated felony.' Id. at 1130 (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a)(3)). We now consider whether the REAL ID Act has changed the law regarding an alien's burden of proof in cancellation of removal actions in such a way that Sandoval-Lua has been statutorily overruled.