Quinones-Saucedo
Quinones-Saucedo v. Ashcroft
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Ramon Quinones-Saucedo appeals the district court’s denial of his habeas corpus petition. The sole issue he presents is whether the laws repealing INA § 212(c), AEDPA § 440(d) and IIRIRA § 304(b), imposed impermissible retroactive effects upon him. The district court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241 , 1331. This court has jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm.
In Armendariz-Montoya v. Sonchik, 291 F.3d 1116 (9th Cir.2002), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 123 S.Ct. 2247 , 156 L.Ed.2d 110 (2003), we held that application of AEDPA § 440(d) did not result in a retroactive effect to “those aliens who pleaded not guilty and elected a jury trial” prior to AEDPA’s enactment. Id. at 1121-22. Undertaking the Supreme Court’s Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244, 280 , 114 S.Ct. 1483 , 128 L.Ed.2d 229 (1994), retroactivity analysis, we concluded that
Unlike aliens who pleaded guilty, aliens who elected a jury trial cannot plausibly claim that they would have acted any differently if they had known about § 440(d).
*867 Armendariz-Montoya, 291 F.3d at 1121 . As the not guilty plea and decision to go to trial eliminated any reliance…