Jurado-Delgado (not precedential): Lying To The Government Is A CIMT and Cancellation Stop-Time Rule Applies Retroactively

Jurado-Delgado v. Mukasey
http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/064495np.pdf
January 15, 2009
Not Precedential
Judges Sloviter and Jordan. Also, Judge Arthur Alarcon (visiting from the Ninth Circuit). Opinion by Judge Jordan. Judge Sloviter wrote a concurring decision.

For Jerado-Delgado, George A. Terezakis of Mineola, NY. For the government, Jesse M. Bless argued and worked with Edward J. Duffy and Ernesto H. Molina of OIL. Oral argument held.

Two points from the decision are: first, making an unsworn falsification to authorities under 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. 4904(a) is something that the BIA may conclude is a crime involving moral turpitude.

Second, the Third Circuit creates a circuit split with the Ninth Circuit about whether crimes can retroactively be used to block cancellation of removal for legal permanent residents. In Sinotes-Cruz v. Gonzales, 468 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2006), the Ninth Circuit prohibited invoking the stop-time rule for crimes before IRRIRA was enacted in a way that ended an immigrant's hope to get cancellation of removal. The Third Circuit disagrees, arguing that because someone seeks relief under an IRRIRA-created avenue, the person waives all retroactivity objections to another provision in IRRIRA regarding that relief. Judge Sloviter did not join this part of the decision and wrote a concurring opinion. Unlike the majority, Judge Sloviter believes the Landgraf test for retroactive application of statutes does need to be run in this case. Judge Sloviter explains that under step two of the Landgraf analysis, retroactive application would be acceptable because he did not have any vested rights when he acted that would be affected by retroactive application of the requirements.