Skip to main content
Deniz Sevim Arik

Deniz Arik’s Legal Cases

7 total

  • Marmolejo-Campos v. Holder, 558 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc),cert. denied, (U.S. Dec. 14, 2009) (No. 09- 5124)

    Practice Area:
    Immigration
    Date:
    Dec 14, 2009
    Outcome:
    Cert. denied (U.S. Dec. 14, 2009) (No. 09-5124)
    Description:
    Arizona Aggravated DUI under Arizona Revised Statues 28-1383(A)(1) is a crime involving moral turpitude only if the petitioner was driving the vehicle, rather than in actual physical control, and that the petitioner had actual knowledge, or should have known, his license was suspended.
  • Morales-Garcia v. Holder, 567 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2009)

    Practice Area:
    Immigration
    Date:
    Jun 03, 2009
    Outcome:
    Petition for Review Granted, Remanded
    Description:
    California Penal Code section 273.5(a) is not categorically a crime involving moral turpitude.
  • Escobar v. Holder, 567 F.3d 466 (9th Cir. 2009) vacated on procedural grounds, Escobar v. Holder, 572 F.3d 957 (9th Cir. 2009)

    Practice Area:
    Immigration
    Date:
    May 27, 2009
    Outcome:
    Petition Granted, Vacated on Procedural Grounds
    Description:
    For purposes of Cancellation of Removal for Residents under section 240A(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, a parent's five years of admission as a lawful permanent resident is imputed to an un-emancipated minor who is a lawful permanent resident. The Ninth Circuit vacated this case on procedural grounds, 572 F.3d 957 (9th Cir. 2009). However, the Court adopted its reasoning in Mercado- Zazueta v. Holder, 580 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2009).
  • Trejo-Mejia v. Holder, 593 F.3d 913 (9th Cir.2010)

    Practice Area:
    Immigration
    Date:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Outcome:
    Venue changed to the Fifth Circuit.
    Description:
    Under the REAL ID Act of 2005, a Petition for Review must be filed in the circuit in which the petitioner was ordered removed, even in cases when the removal order pre-dated the REAL ID Act of 2005, but the Petition for Review was filed after passage of the REAL ID Act.
  • Eneh v. Holder, 601 F.3d 943 (9th Cir. 2010)

    Practice Area:
    Immigration
    Date:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Outcome:
    BIA decision vacated; case remanded.
    Description:
    The Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded the BIA’s decision, stating that both the Immigration Judge and the Board of Immigration Appealsfailed to acknowledge and analyze testimony and documentary evidence that the petitioner would be individually and intentionally targeted for mistreatment because of his HIV status and associated medical problems.
  • Vasquez de Alcantar v. Holder, 645 F.3d 1097, 1099 (9th Cir. 2011)

    Practice Area:
    Immigration
    Date:
    Jun 03, 2011
    Outcome:
    Petition for Review dismissed/denied
    Description:
    An approved Form I-130 Petition for Alien Relative does not confer admission status on a non-citizen foreign national for purposes of showing seven years of continuous residence under section 240A(a)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. An approved Form I-130 petition merely provides a non-citizen foreign national - one who entered without inspection or authorization and has not otherwise been admitted- permission to apply for adjustment of status.
  • Aragon-Munoz v. Mukasey, 520 F.3d 82 (1st Cir. 2008)

    Practice Area:
    Immigration
    Date:
    Mar 21, 2008
    Outcome:
    Petition for Review dismissed/denied
    Description:
    The petitioner, who was ordered removed in absentia, was not automatically entitled to reopening on the basis that he did not receive oral warnings in Spanish of the consequences of failing to appear. The court ruled that section 240(b)(7) of the Immigration and Nationality Act does not purport to require such notice, and only operates as a ten-year bar to future eligibility for certain forms of discretionary relief when oral notice in the alien’s native language is given, prior to entry of the in absentia removal order. The court explained that the government’s failure to give such notice in an alien’s native language means only that relief is not precluded by the statute and that the alien must still meet the requirements for motions to reopen.