Garcia-Garcia v. Sessions
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 7892
| 1st Cir. | 2017Background
- Victor Garcia Garcia, a Guatemalan Mayan, was removed from the U.S. in 2007 after uncounseled group proceedings in which he apparently did not understand Spanish; he later reentered in 2015.
- Upon reentry, immigration authorities reinstated his 2007 removal order; Garcia expressed fear of return and an asylum officer found a reasonable fear of persecution, referring him for withholding-of-removal consideration.
- At an IJ hearing the government conceded that Garcia met the higher "clear probability" standard for withholding of removal; the IJ granted withholding but concluded Garcia could not apply for asylum because 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5) bars "any relief" for aliens subject to reinstated orders.
- The BIA affirmed the IJ; Garcia petitioned for review in the First Circuit, arguing § 1158(a)(1) unambiguously allows "any alien" present in the U.S. to apply for asylum and that DHS regulations barring asylum but allowing withholding are unreasonable and conflict with international obligations.
- The First Circuit majority applied Chevron deference, found the statutory text ambiguous as to whether § 1158(a)(1) overrides § 1231(a)(5), and upheld DHS regulations that bar asylum applications by aliens subject to reinstated removal orders while preserving withholding of removal and CAT protection.
Issues
| Issue | Garcia's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1158(a)(1) unambiguously entitles aliens subject to reinstated removal orders to apply for asylum | § 1158(a)(1) "any alien...irrespective of such alien’s status" plainly allows Garcia to apply despite § 1231(a)(5) | § 1231(a)(5) specifically bars aliens with reinstated orders from "any relief" under chapter 12, and is the controlling limitation | Court: Text ambiguous; § 1158 does not unambiguously override § 1231(a)(5) (Chevron step 1 loss for Garcia) |
| Whether DHS regulations distinguishing asylum (barred) from withholding/CAT (allowed) are a reasonable agency construction | Regulations are arbitrary because both asylum and withholding are "relief" under chapter 12 and should be treated alike | Distinguishing asylum (discretionary "relief") from withholding (mandatory "protection") reasonably reconciles statutory aims and streamlines reinstatement removals | Court: Agency construction reasonable; uphold regulation permitting withholding/CAT consideration but barring asylum applications |
| Whether canons (rule of lenity / Charming Betsy) require resolving ambiguity in favor of Garcia or to avoid international-law conflict | Ambiguities should be resolved for the alien (lenity) and to conform with Refugee Convention obligations (Charming Betsy) | Agency interpretation is reasonable and does not create an irresolvable conflict with treaty obligations; Refugee Protocol is non‑self‑executing and exceptions exist | Court: Canons do not overcome reasonableness; no reversible conflict with international obligations shown |
| Whether the court must or may look behind the prior removal order because of alleged due-process defects in 2007 proceedings | (Pressed chiefly in dissent) Due-process defects in the underlying order warrant closer review and may render reinstatement bar inapplicable | Reinstatement/statutory scheme limits reopening; challenges to underlying order are not the contested statutory question here | Majority: declined to reach (jurisdiction acknowledged over present order); did not accept due-process argument as controlling on the statutory asylum issue |
Key Cases Cited
- INS v. Aguirre-Aguirre, 526 U.S. 415 (agency distinctions between withholding and asylum) (1999)
- Cardoza-Fonseca v. INS, 480 U.S. 421 (well‑founded fear vs. clear probability standards; asylum vs. withholding distinctions) (1987)
- INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407 (clear‑probability standard for mandatory withholding) (1984)
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (framework for judicial deference to reasonable agency interpretations) (1984)
- National Cable & Telecommunications Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Services, 545 U.S. 967 (deference to agency construction even if it conflicts with prior judicial interpretation) (2005)
- Ramirez-Mejia v. Lynch, 794 F.3d 485 (5th Cir.) (interpreting interplay of § 1158 and § 1231(a)(5))
- Perez-Guzman v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir.) (analyzing ambiguity and reasonableness of agency rule distinguishing asylum from withholding)
- Jimenez-Morales v. U.S. Attorney General, 821 F.3d 1307 (11th Cir.) (upholding reinstatement bar against asylum applications)
- Lattab v. Ashcroft, 384 F.3d 8 (1st Cir.) (discussing reinstatement efficiency and limits)