Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Wenceslao Cornejo Soriano v. Alberto Gonzales, United States Attorney General

Wenceslao Cornejo Soriano v. Alberto Gonzales, United States Att’y Gen., 489 F.3d 909 (8th Cir. 2007)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
2007-02-12
Topic
commercial

How later courts describe this case

  • holding that Soriano “was ineligible for a waiver of removability under Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) § 212(c
  • rejecting the reasoning of the Second Circuit's decision in Blake
  • petitioner ineligible for a waiver of remov-ability because there was no statutory counterpart in the grounds of inadmissibility
  • petitioner ineligible for a waiver of removability because there was no statutory counterpart in the grounds of inadmissibility
  • failure to list impairment as severe at step two 17 harmless where limitations considered at step four

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Wenceslao Cornejo Soriano v. Alberto Gonzales, United States Attorney General. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
18 opinions
SORIANO v. GONZALES,489 F.3d 909(8th Cir. 2006)
Wenceslao Cornejo SORIANO, Petitioner, v. Alberto GONZALES, United States
Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-2590.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: October 6, 2006.
Filed: October 19, 2006.
Ordered Published: February 12, 2007.
Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Michael H. Said, Des Moines, IA, for Petitioner.

Thomas W. Hussey, Patricia A. Smith, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC, Lori Scialabba, U.S. Department of Justice, Executive Office for Immigration Review, Falls Church, VA, for Respondent.
Before SMITH, MAGILL, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Wenceslao Cornejo Soriano, a citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his motion to reconsider or to reopen.

We conclude that the BIA acted within its discretion in denying Soriano's motion.See Patel v. Ashcroft,375 F.3d 693,695-96(8th Cir.2004) (standard of review). We agree with the BIA that Soriano was ineligible for a waiver of removability under Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) § 212(c),8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (1994) (repealed effective Apr. 1, 1997), because the ground for which he was found removable — the aggravated felony of sexual abuse of minor — does not have a statutory counterpart in the grounds of inadmissibility listed in INA § 212(a),8 U.S.C. § 1182(a).See8 C.F.R. § 1212.3(f)(5) (2005) (§ 212(c) relief shall be denied if alien is removable on ground which does not have statutory counterpart in grounds of inadmissibility under § 212(a));Campos v. INS,961 F.2d 309,312-15(1st Cir.1992) (§ 212(c) waiver may be granted to alien facing deportation only when there is ground of exclusion comparable to charge triggering deportation);In re Blake,23 I. N. Dec. 722,Page 910723-29,2005 WL 778740(BIA 2005) (sexual-abuse-of-minor removability ground has no statutory counterpart in § 212(a) inadmissibility grounds).

Accordingly, we deny the petition.