FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 11 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GUSTAVO ADOLFO HIDALGO, AKA No. 11-73122
Felipe Morres,
Agency No. A077-344-047
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted June 5, 2014
Pasadena, California
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, and TROTT and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Gustavo Hidalgo petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
order denying him suspension of deportation under § 244(a)(2) of the INA, 8
U.S.C. § 1254(a)(2) (repealed 1997). We deny Hidalgo’s petition because we
agree with the Board that the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Responsibility Act’s (“IIRIRA”) repeal of § 244(a)(2) is not impermissibly
retroactive in his case.
The “essential inquiry” is “whether the new provision attaches new legal
consequences to events completed before its enactment.” Vartelas v. Holder, 132
S. Ct. 1479, 1491 (2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). While it is true that
Hidalgo was powerless to alter his 1989 guilty plea, he still cannot show that
IIRIRA’s repeal of § 244(a)(2) “ranks as a ‘new disability.’” Id. at 1487. IIRIRA
did not “alter the character of [Hidalgo’s] conviction or deny him any existing
eligibility for discretionary relief.” Valencia-Alvarez v. Gonzales, 469 F.3d 1319,
1330 (9th Cir. 2006). Hidalgo was not statutorily eligible for relief under §
244(a)(2) at the time IIRIRA’s took effect, because he had not accrued the requisite
ten years of continuous presence in the United States following his guilty plea.
Thus, IIRIRA did not “attach[] new legal consequences” to his conviction.
Vartelas, 132 S. Ct. at 1491.
Petition Denied.
2