Oria

Oria v. Gonzales

Good Law
220 F. App'x 663
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFebruary 14, 2007No. 04-73707California658 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Eddie Padilla Oria seeks judicial review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) ruling that Oria was inadmissible as an alien convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT). See 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (a)(2)(A)(i)(I). We agree with the BIA and deny Oria’s petition.

Notwithstanding the “petty offense” exception in § 1182(a)(2)(A)(ii), an alien who has committed more than one CIMT is inadmissible. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (a)(2)(A)®. In the inadmissibility context, the CIMTs are not subject to the “single scheme” limitation of the statute governing deportable aliens. Compare 8 U.S.C. § 1227 (a)(2)(A)(ii) (rendering deportable an alien “who at any time after admission is convicted of two or more crimes involving moral turpitude, not arising out of a single scheme of criminal misconduct ... ”) with 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (a)(2)(A)® and (ii) (addressing inadmissible aliens and lacking “single scheme” language). Thus, an alien may be inadmissible for committing two CIMTs, even if the crimes arose out of a single scheme of criminal misconduct.

*665 Here, the IJ concluded, and the BIA agreed, that Oria’s two 1987 theft convictions were…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.