The en banc court denied the petition for review, concluding that the petitioner was ineligible for cancellation of removal on the ground that he failed to establish good moral character because, during the requisite period, he had been a “habitual drunkard.” The court further held that the term “habitual drunkard” was not unconstitutionally vague, because it readily lends itself to an objective factual inquiry.
Home » Immigration Updates » CA9 Finds Substantial Evidence Supported BIA’s Finding That Petitioner Was a “Habitual Drunkard”

CA9 Finds Substantial Evidence Supported BIA’s Finding That Petitioner Was a “Habitual Drunkard”