[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
July 10, 2007
No. 06-16502 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
BIA No. A41-075-231
CESAR ISIDRO PALOMINO-ABAD,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
_________________________
(July 10, 2007)
Before WILSON, PRYOR and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Cesar Isidro Palomino-Abad (“Palomino”) petitions for review of the denial
of his motion to reconsider by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”).
Palomino challenges the BIA’s decision not to reconsider its prior dismissal of his
appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order of removal. The IJ relied upon
In re Blake, 23 I. & N. Dec. 722 (BIA 2005), petition for review granted sub nom.
Blake v. Carbone, __ F.3d __ (2d Cir. June 1, 2007), to conclude that Palomino
was not eligible for relief under former § 212(c) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act.
In In re Blake, the BIA determined that there was no comparable ground for
exclusion for the “sexual abuse of a minor” category of aggravated felony offenses.
Blake, 23 I. & N. Dec. at 729. While this petition for review was pending before
us, the Second Circuit granted the petition for review of Blake. The Court then
rejected the BIA’s reasoning, instead holding that “petitioners’ eligibility for a
§ 212(c) waiver must turn on their particular criminal offenses. If the offense that
renders a lawful permanent resident deportable would render a similarly situated
lawful permanent resident excludable, the deportable lawful permanent resident is
eligible for a waiver of deportation” Blake, manuscript op. at 25-26.
Without expressing any opinion about the issues raised in Palomino’s
petition for review or Palomino’s eligibility for § 212(c) relief, we GRANT the
petition, VACATE the order denying reconsideration, and REMAND this case to
2
the BIA for the purpose of allowing the BIA to consider Palomino’s motion to
reconsider in light of Blake v. Carbone.
3