FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 31 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ADELA CASAREZ, No. 06-72154
Petitioner, Agency No. A092-730-239
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 14, 2011 **
San Francisco, California
Before: HUG, SCHROEDER, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Adela Casarez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) summary affirmance of an Immigration
Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of application for cancellation of removal. The IJ concluded
that Casarez’s conviction for felony welfare fraud constituted a crime involving
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
moral turpitude that halted accrual of time under the stop-time rule for purposes of
the continuous physical presence required for cancellation of removal. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a) and deny the petition for review.
Section 240A(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a) (2004), authorizes the
Attorney General or his delegate to cancel removal of an alien who is inadmissible
or removable if the alien: 1) has been an alien lawfully admitted for permanent
residence for not less than five years; 2) has resided in the United States
continuously for seven years after having been admitted in any status; and 3) has
not been convicted of an aggravated felony, as defined by 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43).
Commission of certain crimes interrupt the accrual of continuous residence
necessary to establish eligibility for cancellation of removal for permanent
residence. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1). Since Casarez first attained lawful
immigration status on May 23, 1988, she would have needed to remain in the
United States lawfully until May 23, 1995 to accrue the necessary seven years of
continuous residency.
Casarez plead guilty, on September 10, 1998, to felony welfare fraud, receipt
of aid by misrepresentation, in violation of C AL. W ELF. AND INST. C ODE
§ 10980(c)(2). Such fraud constitutes a crime involving moral turpitude, which
triggers the stop-time rule. See Marmolejo-Campos v. Holder, 558 F.3d 903, 908
2
n.7 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc). She admitted that her criminal conduct began on
June 1, 1993.
Casarez contends that the stop-time rule is triggered at the time of
conviction, not when the criminal conduct was committed. This interpretation is
contrary to the plain language of the statute and was flatly rejected by the BIA in
Matter of Perez, 22 I&N Dec. 689, 693 (BIA 1999).
In California, welfare fraud for less than $400 carries a maximum jail
sentence of six months, C AL. W ELF. AND INST. C ODE § 10980(c)(1) (1998).
Casarez contends that because the record does not establish when her criminal
conduct exceeded $400, she qualifies for the petty offense exception to
inadmissibility, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(ii)(II). Casarez, however, failed to meet
her burden to show that her conduct became felonious after she accrued seven
years. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(4)(A)(i). The IJ properly concluded that the
accrual of time for the seven-year requirement ended at the time she committed the
criminal act, not at the date of her conviction.
PETITION DENIED.
3