Padilla-Romero v. Holder, No. 07-72492, involved a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision holding petitioner statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal. The court of appeals denied the petition, holding that the inclusion in 8 U.S.C. section 1229b(b)(1)(A) of an express requirement that an alien’s period of continuous physical presence be “immediately preceding” the application for cancellation of removal did not undermine the court of appeals’ interpretation of section 1229b(a)(1), because that section, when read as a whole and in the context of the definition of “lawfully admitted for permanent residence,” was sufficiently clear that such additional text would be superfluous.
As the court wrote: “Rafael Padilla-Romero, Jr., petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision holding him statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal. We deny the petition for review.”
Related Resources
- Full Text of Padilla-Romero v. Holder, No. 07-72492
You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help
Civil Rights
Block on Trump’s Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
Criminal
Judges Can Release Secret Grand Jury Records
Politicians Can’t Block Voters on Facebook, Court Rules
