714 F.3d 399
6th Cir.2013Background
- Sejdini is from the former Yugoslavia and entered the United States in 1987 as a child.
- Removal proceedings were initiated against Sejdini in 1999.
- In 2003 the IJ granted special-rule cancellation of removal under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (Nicaraguan Act), which amended the INA.
- In 2010 Sejdini was convicted in Michigan state court for possession of Vicodin and ecstasy, resulting in a prison sentence and probation.
- Because the conviction made him removable, removal proceedings resumed in 2011 and Sejdini sought cancellation under INA § 240A(a).
- The IJ pretermitted Sejdini from applying for § 240A relief because of the prior Nicaraguan Act cancellation; the Board affirmed; Sejdini petitions for review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether cancellation under the Nicaraguan Act is cancellation under INA §240A. | Sejdini argues the Nicaraguan Act relief is not §240A relief. | The agency reads §203 to operate via §240A, making the Nicaraguan Act cancellation §240A relief. | Yes; the Nicaraguan Act cancellation is cancellation under §240A. |
Key Cases Cited
- Aburto-Rocha v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d 500 (6th Cir. 2008) (jurisdictional note on review of §240A determinations and questions of law)
- Gilaj v. Gonzales, 408 F.3d 275 (6th Cir. 2005) (review of IJ decisions; de novo review for statutory interpretation under Chevron)
- Denko v. Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 351 F.3d 717 (6th Cir. 2003) (statutory interpretation governing agency decisions)
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (establishes deferential Chevron framework for agency interpretation)
- Sad v. Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 246 F.3d 811 (6th Cir. 2001) (supports de novo interpretation and Chevron applicability)