Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Immigration Law

CA10 on Jurisdiction

Martinez-Perez v. Barr

"We now turn to Petitioner’s second argument: that “the B[IA] erred when it [found] . . . that it lacked ‘jurisdiction’ to consider [Petitioner] as having a qualifying relative for cancellation” and dismissed Petitioner’s appeal. Pet. Opening Br. at 27. Petitioner contends that, contrary to its ruling, the BIA had jurisdiction and “retained the quasi-legislative power to interpret the ambiguous cancellation statute in a way that would have fixed the age of [Petitioner’s] daughter as of the date he filed his cancellation application, in light of the ‘undue or unfair delay’ in the scheduling of his final hearing.” Id. We agree with Petitioner and remand for further proceedings. ...  we GRANT in part and DENY in part the petition for review, VACATE the order of the BIA dismissing Petitioner’s appeal, and REMAND to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this opinion."

[Hats off to Mark Barr!]