Noe Salazar-Rodriguez v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [09-60912 Vacated and Remanded] Judge: TMR , Judge: JLD , Judge: EBC Mandate pull date is 12/13/2010 [09-60912]

Noe Salazar-Rodriguez seEric Holder, Jr. Document: 00511271230 Ca v. : 09-60912

Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/22/2010

Doc. 0

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 09-60912 S u m m a r y Calendar October 22, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

N O E SALAZAR-RODRIGUEZ, P e titio n e r v. E R I C H. HOLDER, JR., U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, R espon dent

P e tit io n for Review of an Order of the B o a r d of Immigration Appeals B I A No. A034 656 055

B e fo r e REAVLEY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* M e x ic a n citizen Noe Salazar-Rodriguez petitions for review of the decision o f the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) determining that he is ineligible for c a n c e lla t io n of removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a) because his 1996 Texas d e fe r r e d adjudication conviction of possession of marijuana constituted an a g g r a v a t e d felony due to two prior convictions of possession of controlled su b sta n ces.

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 09-60912 Document: 00511271230 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/22/2010 No. 09-60912 S a la z a r -R o d r ig u e z 's 1996 deferred adjudication was not treated as a r e c id iv is t offense in state court. It therefore does not constitute an aggravated fe lo n y for purposes of federal immigration law. The 1996 conviction does not r e n d e r him ineligible to be considered for cancellation of removal. See

C a r a c h u r i-R o s e n d o v. Holder, 130 S. Ct. 2577, 2580, 2589 (2010). SalazarR o d r ig u e z 's petition for review is GRANTED. The order of the BIA is VACATED a n d the case is REMANDED to allow Salazar-Rodriguez to pursue cancellation o f removal in light of the Supreme Court's ruling in Carachuri-Rosendo.

2