Legal Opinion · Dissent

Salomon Ledezma-Cosino v. Jefferson Sessions

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided May 30, 2017No. 12-73289Published

1DissentThomas, Chief Judge

The government proposes to bar the petitioner from immigration relief simply because is he a recovering alcoholic. It reasons that, because he was diagnosed with the disease during the qualifying period, he categorically must be labeled a “habitual drunkard,” and is per se ineligible for cancellation of removal as someone who lacks good moral character. But the terms *1054“alcoholic” and “habitual drunkard” are not synonymous, either as a matter of immigration law, or as a matter of fact. For that reason, I would grant the petition for review and remand for the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”)…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Middlesex County Sewerage Authority v. National Sea Clammers Assn.Supreme Court of the United States · 1981
  2. King v. BurwellSupreme Court of the United States · 2015
  3. Maricela M. Fernandez, Danelia Fernandez Covarrubias v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney GeneralCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2006
  4. S. D. Warren Co. v. Maine Board of Environmental ProtectionSupreme Court of the United States · 2006
  5. RECINASBoard of Immigration Appeals · 2002

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API