Crespo v. Holder
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 502
| 4th Cir. | 2011Background
- Crespo, a Peruvian citizen, entered the U.S. on a B-2 visa in 1997 and overstayed.
- He married U.S. citizen Diane Duran; the I-130 petition was filed, but the marriage later dissolved and the petition was denied.
- A notice to appear was issued in 2000; Crespo was detained in 2006 after pledging guilty to assault and battery in Fairfax, Virginia.
- In 2001 Crespo fathered a child with Rachel Crawford, a U.S. citizen, and later married her after his release in 2006.
- In 2007 Crawford filed an I-130 for Crespo; Crespo filed an I-485 and, after the I-130 was approved, applied for a § 212(h) waiver.
- An IJ concluded Crespo was ineligible for § 212(h) because of two marijuana convictions, including a 1997 Virginia adjudication under Va. Code § 18.2-251 that deferred adjudication, and the BIA affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Crespo's 1997 Virginia adjudication qualifies as a conviction | Crespo asserts no conviction under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(48)(A)(i) due to deferred adjudication. | Government argues the statute encompasses deferred adjudications and the Virginia adjudication satisfies the criteria. | Petition granted; the adjudication does not meet § 1101(a)(48)(A)(i) and remand to BIA. |
Key Cases Cited
- Herrera-Inirio v. I.N.S., 208 F.3d 299 (1st Cir. 2000) (definitively interprets § 1101(a)(48)(A) to include deferred adjudications when guilt is established)
- United States v. Campbell, 980 F.2d 245 (4th Cir. 1992) (distinguishes final conviction under state law from deferred adjudication)
- Lamie v. United States Tr., 540 U.S. 526 (2004) (interpretation of text in statutory context; plain language controls)
- North Carolina ex rel. Cooper v. Tenn. Valley Auth., 515 F.3d 344 (4th Cir. 2008) (plain meaning and ordinary usage guide statutory interpretation)
- Connecticut National Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249 (1992) (textual interpretation principles; speak what the statute says)
- Sigmon Coal Co. v. Apfel, 226 F.3d 291 (4th Cir. 2000) (statutory interpretation related to congressional intent)
- U.S. v. Fritz, 449 U.S. 166 (1980) (legislative text controls; consistency in statutory design)