Legal Opinion
Cristian Guzman v. Attorney General United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Decided November 3, 2014No. 13-3196PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
RENDELL, Circuit Judge:
Petitioner Cristian Guzman appeals from a ruling by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) that the so-called “stop-time rule,” as enacted by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Pub.L. No. 104-208, div. C., 110 Stat. 3009 (1996) (“IIRIRA”) (effective April 1, 1997), was not impermissibly retroactive as applied to his 1995 criminal offense. The BIA rejected Petitioner’s argument that the application of the stop-time rule poses a “new disability” on his past conduct. For the reasons set forth below, we will affirm.
I. Background
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Landgraf v. USI Film ProductsSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
- Padilla v. KentuckySupreme Court of the United States · 2010
- Immigration & Naturalization Service v. St. CyrSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
- Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Aguirre-AguirreSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
- Chaidez v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2013
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Jose Chavez-Alvarez v. Attorney General United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2015
- Paek v. Attorney General of the United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2015
- Carlos Eduardo Rendon v. U.S. Attorney GeneralCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2020
- Dorley v. CardinaleDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2015
- Carlos Eduardo Rendon v. U.S. Attorney GeneralCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2020
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.