Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Benito Pulido-Gomez, A019 987 183 (BIA Jun. 27, 2012)
Benito Pulido-Gomez, A019 987 183 (BIA Jun. 27, 2012)
A019-987-183
ICE, 1705 E. HANNA ROAD
ELOY, AZ 85131
Name: PULIDO-GOMEZ, BENITO
U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Ofce fr Immigration Review
Board of Immigration Appeals
Ofice of the Clerk
J!07LccvhurgFtkc.5utc2000
IdI/vLhurch. Irgdiu 2201I
OHS/ICE Ofice of Chief Counsel - EAZ
P .0. Box 25158
Phoenix, AZ 85002
A019-987-183
Date of this notice: 6/27/2012
Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision and order in the above-referenced case.
Enclosure
Panel Members:
Guendelsberger, John
Mullane, Hugh G.
Pauley, Roger
Sincerely,
Donna Carr
Chief Clerk
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t
&
R
e
f
u
g
e
e
A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e
C
e
n
t
e
r
|
w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t
Cite as: Benito Pulido-Gomez, A019 987 183 (BIA Jun. 27, 2012)
For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit www.irac.net/unpublished
= :>: "
:..
7
;g- -.
`
-
J"
C
;-1:r
)"o: ...
3
*@
- .,
"
,r1r.
a<r.
c C
. . F
These removal proceedings were initiated by the filing
of a Notice to Appear dated December 15, 2011 by the Department
of Homeland Security. The Department alleges that the
respondent is not a citizen or a national of the United States,
but is a native and citizen of Mexico who became a lawful
permanent resident of the United States effective March 3, 1971.
C
O
-
.
7
.*C
i
7
C
-
-
"
,
.,
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t
&
R
e
f
u
g
e
e
A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e
C
e
n
t
e
r
|
w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t
(
The Department further alleges that on Novemer 16, 2010, the
respondent was convicted in the California Superior Court, Los
Angeles County for grand theft auto with prior in violation of
Section 666. 5 of the California Penal Code and sentenced to two
years' confinement. Therefore based on those allegations, the
Government charges that the respondent is subject to removal
from the United States pursuant to INA Section 237(a} (2} (A} (iii}
as an alien who after his admission has been convicted of an
aggravated felony as defined in Section lOl(a} (43) (g), a theft
offense for which a term of imprisonment of at least one year
was imposed.
REMOVABILITY
The respondent admitted his alienage, as well as his
status as a lawful permanent resident, but denied the alleged
conviction and sentence, and contested his removability as
charged.
In support of the contested allegations and charge of
removability, the Department submitted portions of the record of
the respondent's conviction, which was admitted into evidence
without objection as Exhibit 2. Those documents include the
abstract of judgment, as well as the six-page felony complaint.
The abstract establishes that the respondent was convicted
pursuant to his plea of count two of the charging document, a
violation of Section 666. 5 of the California Penal Code
described on the abstract of judgment as grand theft auto with
A019-987-183 2 March 1, 2012
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t
&
R
e
f
u
g
e
e
A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e
C
e
n
t
e
r
|
w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t
(
\.
prior. That conviction took place on November 16, 2010 and
resulted in a sentence of confinement of two years.
Count two of the charging document, the felony
complaint, alleges that the respondent committed the crime of
"unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle with prior in violation
of Penal Code Section 666.5, a felony," in that the respondent,
"did unlawfully drive and take a certain vehicle to, a Nissan
Pathfinder, license number 4FHR743, then in there the personal
property of Ramirez Ignacio without the consent of and with
intent either permanently or temporarily to deprive the owner,
the said owner of title to and possession of said vehicle."
Applying the Ninth Circuit precedent decision of U. S.
v. Rivera, 2011 WL 4375672 (9th Cir. 2011), which held that a
violation of Section 666, petty theft with prior with a sentence
of more than one year, could be an INA Section lOl (a) (43) (g)
"theft offense" under a rodif ied categorical analysis of the
record of conviction if that record establishes that the
conviction was for the non-consensual taking of property. In
this case, the respondent was convicted of Section 666.5 of the
California Penal Code, which like Section 666 criminalizes a
theft offense where a prior conviction exists. However, CPC
Section 666.5 specifically relates to theft involving a motor
vehicle, although Section 666.5 is more specific in nature,
focusing on motor vehicles, whereas Section 666 is broadly
focused. The Court does not see the distinction as significant
A019-987-183 3 March 1, 2012
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t
&
R
e
f
u
g
e
e
A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e
C
e
n
t
e
r
|
w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t
.... . sa.-C
in the application of U. S. v. Rivera .
. Based on a modified categorical analysis of the
respondent' s record of conviction and applying U.S. v. Rivera,
the Court finds that the respondent's conviction is an
aggravated felony under Section lOl(a) (43) (g) inasmuch as it
involves the taking of property and not services, and therefore,
the charge of removability filed by the Department against the
respondent pursuant to INA Section 237 (a) (2) (A) (iii) is
sustained by clear and convincing evidence.
RELIEF
The respondent designated Mexico as the country of
removal should that be necessary and expressed no specific fear
of return to that country cognizable under Sections 208 or
24l (b) (3) of the Act or Article III of the Convention Against
Torture, inasmuch as the respondent has been convicted of an
aggravated felony as a lawful permanent resident, he is
statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal as a lawful
permanent resident pursuant to INA Section 240 (A) (a), as well as
voluntary departure pursuant to INA Section 240 (B) (b).
Additionally, the respondent would not be able to seek
readjustment of his status pursuant to INA Section 24S (a)
inasmuch as no waiver of an admissibility, which would be
required as a result of his conviction, is available to him
under Section 212 (h) as a permanent resident who has suffered an
aggravated felony conviction.
A019-987-183 4 March 1, 2012
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t
&
R
e
f
u
g
e
e
A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e
C
e
n
t
e
r
|
w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t
\
There being no forms of relief for which the
respondent appears to be statutorily eligible, the Court sees no
alternative but to order the respondent removed from the United
States to Mexico.
ORDER
THE RESPONDENT IS HEREBY ORDERED removed from the
United States to Mexico on the charge reflected in the Notice to
Appear.
A019-987-183 5 March 1, 2012
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t
&
R
e
f
u
g
e
e
A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e
C
e
n
t
e
r
|
w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t
CERTIFICATE PAGE
I hereby certify that the attached proceeding before JDGE
RICHARD A. PHELPS, in the matter of:
BENITO PULIDO-GOMEZ
A019-987-183
ELOY, ARIZONA
is an accurate, verbatim transcript of the recording as provided
by the Executive Off ice for Immigration Review and that this is
the original transcript thereof for the file of the Executive
Office for Immigration Review.
MICHAEL PERLMAN (Transcriber)
DEPOSITION SERVICES, Inc.
APRIL 4, 2012
{Completion Date)
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t
&
R
e
f
u
g
e
e
A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e
C
e
n
t
e
r
|
w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t