VAWA Cancellation of Removal a. General Eligibility Requirements b. Extreme Hardship c. Continuous Physical Presence d. Good Moral Character (GMC) e. Not Inadmissible or Deportable on Certain Criminal Grounds f. Stop-Time RuleVIII. Important Case Law a. Overview of Changes in Cancellation-B Eligibility Interpretation b. Matter of Almanza-Arenas, 24 I&N Dec. 771 (BIA 2009) c. Matter of Cortez, 25 I&N Dec. 301 (BIA 2010) d. SummaryI. Introduction:Cancellation of removal for aliens who are not lawful permanent residents (cancellation-B or cancellation of removal, part-B) is a defensive form of immigration relief that an alien may apply for before an immigration judge when embroiled in removal proceedings.

Id. (citing Matter of Cortez, 25 I&N Dec. 301, 311 (BIA 2010)). With this perspective in mind, the Board concluded that Mr. Velasquez-Rios’ conviction still rendered him ineligible for cancellation of removal under section 240A(b)(1)(C), because the maximum possible sentence at the time of his conviction was 365 days.

480 and 205.690(2)Inadmissibility ground found in INA § 212(a)(6)(A)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i)Jordan v. De George, 341 U.S. 223, 227 (1951)Matter of Cortez, 25 I&N Dec. 301, 306 (BIA 2010)Descamps v. United States, 133 S.Ct 2276, 2283-86 (2013)Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575, 598-602 (1990)Lawyer website:http://myattorneyusa.com

Hernandez appealed to the Fourth Circuit. The Fourth Circuit first found that the BIA’s decision in this case, and in its prior case of Matter of Cortez Canales, 25 I. & N. Dec. 301 (2010), 2010 WL 3250517, were entitled to Chevron deference. In Cortez Canales, which the BIA relied on in deciding this case, the BIA found that 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(C) cross-referenced only the offenses listed in 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a)(2), 1227(a)(2), and 1227(a)(3), not the substantive operation of the offenses.