Gilberto Acosta-Olivarria v. Loretta E. Lynch
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1Dissent
RICE, District Judge,,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent. On balance, the Montgomery Ward factors do not weigh in favor of departing from the general principles of retroactivity. Applying In re Briones, 24 I. & N. Dec. 355 (BIA 2007), the BIA properly found Acosta-Olivarria *1278inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(C)(i)(I) and thus ineligible for adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(0.
As an initial matter, it is important to recognize “[t]he general rule ... that an appellate court must apply the law in effect at the time it renders its decision.” Thorpe v. Hous. Auth. of Durham, 393…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- United States v. Schooner PeggySupreme Court of the United States · 1801
- Local 900, International Union of Electrical, Radio and MacHine Workers, Afl-Cio v. National Labor Relations BoardCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1984
- Gregorio Perez-Gonzalez v. John Ashcroft, Attorney GeneralCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2004
- BRIONESBoard of Immigration Appeals · 2007
- Montgomery Ward & Co., Incorporated v. Federal Trade CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1982
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.