Ledezma-Cosino v. Sessions

The Ninth Circuit denied petitions for review of the BIA's final order affirming the IJ's denial of petitioner's application for removal. The en banc court held that substantial evidence supported the finding that petitioner was a habitual drunkard; the statutory "habitual drunkard" provision is not unconstitutionally vague under the criminal law standard or any lesser vagueness standard that might apply in a non-criminal context; the statutory "habitual drunkard" provision does not violate equal protection principles because the denial of cancellation of removal to habitual drunkards is rationally related to the legitimate governmental interest in public safety. View "Ledezma-Cosino v. Sessions" on Justia Law