Victor Cardona-Lopez v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing

Victor Cardona-Lopez v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Doc. 0

Case: 09-60418

Document: 00511209396

Page: 1

Date Filed: 08/19/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 09-60418 August 19, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk V I C T O R HUGO CARDONA-LOPEZ, also known as Omar Torres-Sanchez, a ls o known as Alejandro Marin Ruiz, also known as Victor Lopez, P e titio n e r v. E R I C H. HOLDER, JR., U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, R esp on den t

P e tit io n for Review of an Order of the B o a r d of Immigration Appeals

O N REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES B e fo r e KING, STEWART, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* V ic t o r Hugo Cardona-Lopez, a citizen and native of Mexico, petitioned this c o u r t for review of the order issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) a ffir m in g the Immigration Judge's (IJ's) determination that he was ineligible for c a n c e lla tio n of removal. The BIA held that Cardona-Lopez's second criminal

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.

*

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 09-60418

Document: 00511209396

Page: 2

Date Filed: 08/19/2010

No. 09-60418 p o s s e s s io n of a controlled substance constituted a drug-trafficking aggravated fe lo n y for immigration purposes. We summarily affirmed the order of the BIA, r e ly in g on Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, 570 F.3d 263 (5th Cir. 2009), reversed, _ _ S. Ct. __, 2010 WL 2346552 (U.S. June 14, 2010). Having reversed our d e c is io n in Carachuri-Rosendo and held that "the defendant must . . . have been a c t u a lly convicted of a crime that is itself punishable as a felony under federal la w ," 2010 WL 2346552, *11, the Supreme Court vacated our decision in this c a s e and remanded the case for reconsideration. In accordance with the

S u p r e m e Court's ruling, the order of the BIA is VACATED and the case is R E M A N D E D to the BIA for reconsideration in the light of Carachuri-Rosendo. VACATED and REMANDED. Each side shall bear its own costs and a t t o r n e y 's fees.

2