Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

U.S.

Department of Justice

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Board ofImmigration Appeals


Office ofthe Clerk

5107 leesburg Ptke. Sutte 2000


Falls Church. Vtrgmta 22041

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net


Tolchin, Stacy, Esq. OHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - LOS
Law Offices of Stacy Tolchin 606 S. Olive Street, 8th Floor
634 S. Spring St. Suite SOOA Los Angeles, CA 90014
Los Angeles, CA 90014

Name: BONILLA, MACARIO JESUS A 090-170-253

Date of this notice: 3/29/2017

Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision and order in the above-referenced case.

Sincerely,

Cynthia L. Crosby
Acting Chief Clerk

Enclosure

Panel Members:
Guendelsberger, John

Userteam: Docket

For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit


www.irac.net/unpublished/index

Cite as: Macario Jesus Bonilla, A090 170 253 (BIA March 29, 2017)
U.S. Department of Justice Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Executive Office for Immigration Review

Falls Church, Virginia 22041

File: A090 170 253 - Los Angeles, CA Date:

In re: MACARIO JESUS BONILLA MAR 2 9 2017

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net


IN DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS

MOTION

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Stacey Tolchin, Esquire

APPLICATION: Reopening

On October 17, 1995, the Board dismissed the respondent's appeal from the Immigration
Judge's May 5, 1995, decision. This case was last before the Board on November 2, 2012, when
we denied the respondent's motion to reopen. The case is now before the Board on remand from
the United States Court of Appeals from the Ninth Circuit. Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575
(9th Cir. 2016).

The respondent was found deportable under former section 241(a)(2)(C) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1251(a)(2)(C), as an alien convicted of a firearms offense as
defined at 18 U.S.C. 92l(a). Following the order of remand to the Board, the respondent filed
a motion to terminate the proceedings. The respondent contends that under current law, his 1994
conviction of the offense of carrying a concealed firearm in a vehicle, in violation of
section 12025(a)(l) of the California Penal Code, is not a firearms offense for immigration
purposes. The Department of Homeland Security has not responded to the respondent's
contention.

The Ninth Circuit has determined that former section 12001(b) of the California Penal Code
(the provision defining "firearm") is indivisible and "clearly criminalize[s] a swath of conduct
not contemplated by the generic offense," i.e., 18 U.S.C. 921(a). See Medina-Lara v. Holder,
771 F.3d 1106, 1117 (9th Cir. 2014). Inasmuch as the conviction underlying the respondent's
deportability is not a firearms offense within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 92l(a), the Board will
reopen this matter sua sponte and terminate the deportation proceedings. See Matter of G-D-, 22
I&N Dec.1132 (BIA 1999) (holding that a fundamental change in the law may qualify as an
exceptional situation that merits the exercise of discretion by the Board to reopen or reconsider a
case sua sponte); 8 C.F.R. 1003.2(a). Accordingly, the following orders will be entered.

ORDER: The motion to reopen is granted.

FURTHER ORDER: The deportation proceedings are terminated.

Cite as: Macario Jesus Bonilla, A090 170 253 (BIA March 29, 2017)