Garfias-Rodriguez v. Holder
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 7406
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Garfias-Rodriguez, Mexican national, entered without inspection in 1996 and reentered after brief departures in 1999 and 2001.
- Married U.S. citizen in 2002 and applied to adjust status under 8 U.S.C. §1255(i) with an added fee due to unlawful entry.
- ICE initiated removal proceedings in 2004; Garfias admitted unlawful presence and removability but sought adjustment or voluntary departure.
- IJ denied adjustment, granted voluntary departure; found inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. §1182(a)(9)(C)(i)(I) with no waiver available.
- BIA, after remand, relied on Briones and denied adjustment, granting voluntary departure with a 60-day deadline and warning that petition for review terminates voluntary departure.
- Garfias filed a petition for review challenging the BIA’s Briones-based interpretation and the regulation terminating voluntary departure upon review petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Briones controls over Acosta on §1182(a)(9)(C)(i)(I) vs. §1255(i). | Garfias argues Acosta controls; Briones should not trump Acosta. | BIA interpretation in Briones is entitled to Chevron deference and supersedes Acosta. | Briones controls; Garfias cannot adjust under §1255(i). |
| Whether Garfias may retroactively rely on Briones after its ruling. | Garfias contends Briones cannot be applied retroactively to him. | Brand X deferential framework allows retroactive agency interpretations to govern earlier cases. | Briones retroactively applied; Garfias denied adjustment. |
| Whether 8 C.F.R. §1240.26(i) permitting automatic termination of voluntary departure is valid. | Garfias argues equitable stay authority remains despite §1240.26(i). | §1240.26(i) valid; regulation terminates voluntary departure upon petition for review. | §1240.26(i) valid; no equitable stay authority remains for Garfias. |
| Whether §1182(a)(9)(C)(i)(I) bars §1255(i) adjustment for Garfias. | Garfias seeks adjustment despite inadmissibility. | Briones-based interpretation makes §1255(i) unavailable where inadmissible. | Aliens inadmissible under §1182(a)(9)(C)(i)(I) cannot adjust under §1255(i). |
Key Cases Cited
- Acosta v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 550 (9th Cir. 2006) (held §1182(a)(9)(C)(i)(I) does not bar §1255(i) adjustment (initial Acosta reasoning))
- Perez-Gonzalez v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 783 (9th Cir. 2004) (interpreted interplay of §1182(a)(9) and §1255(i) before Briones)
- Matter of Briones, 24 I. & N. Dec. 355 (BIA 2007) (held §1182(a)(9)(C)(i)(I) bars §1255(i) adjustment; Chevron deference to BIA)
- Torres-Garcia, 23 I. & N. Dec. 866 (BIA 2006) (BIA elaboration reconciling §1182(a)(9) with regulations)
- Duran Gonzales v. DHS, 508 F.3d 1227 (9th Cir. 2007) (Brand X deference to agency interpretations over judicial view )