12 F.4th 262
3rd Cir.2021Background:
- Singh (native of India) entered the U.S. in 1991 under a false name, was placed in exclusion proceedings and deported in absentia, then filed asylum and obtained LPR status by concealing that history.
- He naturalized in 2006 after willfully misrepresenting material facts on his application; in 2011 he pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute controlled substances while a naturalized citizen.
- The government revoked his citizenship in 2018 for fraud/willful misrepresentation and then initiated removal proceedings charging (inter alia) aggravated-felony removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii).
- An IJ and the BIA found him removable; Singh petitioned for review arguing the aggravated-felony provision applies only to persons who were aliens at the time of conviction (relying on Costello v. INS).
- The government defended the BIA’s precedent-based interpretation and urged Chevron deference; it also invoked relation-back of the denaturalization and relied on BIA decisions distinguishing Costello.
- The Third Circuit majority granted Singh’s petition: it declined to defer to the BIA and held the aggravated-felony provision does not apply to persons who were U.S. citizens at the time of conviction; a concurring judge agreed in the judgment on the alternate ground that Singh was never “admitted.”
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) (aggravated-felony removal) applies to someone who was a U.S. citizen at time of conviction but later denaturalized | Singh: Statute speaks to “any alien who is convicted” — a citizen at conviction is not an alien, so provision doesn’t apply | Government: BIA precedent and a reasonable reading allow removal of denaturalized persons; relation-back of denaturalization renders citizenship a nullity | Held: Provision does not apply; Singh not removable under the aggravated-felony provision because he was a citizen at the time of conviction |
| Whether Chevron deference applies to the BIA’s contrary interpretation | Singh: BIA rulings are unreasoned and pretextual; Costello controls; no deference | Government: Chevron applies; BIA’s interpretation (Rossi/Gonzalez‑Muro) is reasonable | Held: Chevron deference declined — BIA’s decision lacked reasoned explanation and its reliance on prior BIA rulings was arbitrary |
| Whether denaturalization relates back to make a person an alien at time of conviction (relation‑back under § 1451(a)) | Singh: Costello rejects using denaturalization relation‑back to determine removability; relation‑back is a limited fiction | Government: Denaturalization relates back and thus the person was effectively an alien when convicted | Held: Court follows Costello — relation‑back does not operate to render a citizen an alien for removal purposes |
| Whether Singh was ever "admitted" (alternate ground in concurrence) | Singh (and concurrence): Singh was never lawfully "admitted" under INA § 101(a)(13)(A) because his 1991 arrival led to detention/exclusion and his later adjustment of status does not equal admission | Government: He was effectively admitted (release on bond/adjustment to LPR) | Held (concurring opinion): Singh was never admitted; INA § 1227(a) therefore does not apply (concurring judge’s alternative ground for the judgment) |
Key Cases Cited
- Costello v. INS, 376 U.S. 120 (1964) (held a person who was a citizen at the time of conviction and later denaturalized was not deportable under a similarly worded provision; rejected relation‑back for removal purposes)
- United States ex rel. Eichenlaub v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 521 (1950) (interpreted a past‑tense deportation statute to reach denaturalized citizens)
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (established two‑step deference framework for agency interpretations)
- Nat’l Cable & Telecomms. Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967 (2005) (addressed when prior judicial constructions bind agencies under Chevron)
- United States v. Home Concrete & Supply, LLC, 566 U.S. 478 (2012) (discussed interplay of stare decisis and administrative deference)
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (held failure to advise a noncitizen criminal defendant of deportation consequences can be ineffective assistance of counsel)