Guaman-Yuqui v. Lynch
786 F.3d 235
| 2d Cir. | 2015Background
- Guarnan, an Ecuadorian national, entered the U.S. without inspection on January 14, 2001.
- DHS personally served him a Notice to Appear (NTA) on March 15, 2010 that did not specify the date/time of the initial hearing.
- A mailed Notice of Hearing (with date/time) sent April 30, 2010 was returned as undeliverable; Guarnan was ordered removed in absentia but later obtained reopening when the mailing address error was shown.
- In September 2011 (more than ten years after entry) a new hearing notice with date/time was served; Guarnan applied for cancellation of removal based on ten years’ continuous physical presence.
- The IJ found Guarnan ineligible because the stop-time rule was triggered by the earlier NTA/mailings within ten years; the BIA upheld, relying on Matter of Camarillo that an NTA need not include date/time to trigger the stop-time rule.
- The Second Circuit granted Chevron deference to the BIA and denied Guarnan’s petition, holding Camarillo’s interpretation reasonable: service of an NTA (even without date/time) can trigger the stop-time rule.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an NTA that omits date/time of the initial hearing can trigger the stop-time rule under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1) | Guarnan: stop-time requires notice that satisfies §1229(a)(1), including date/time, to end continuous presence | BIA/DHS: reference to §1229(a) is definitional; service of an NTA (even without date/time) triggers stop-time | Court: Held for DHS/BIA; Camarillo interpretation is reasonable and entitled to Chevron deference |
| Whether prior Second Circuit precedent (Guamanarrigra) conflicts with Camarillo | Guarnan: Guamanarrigra implies date/time must be provided within 10 years to trigger stop-time | DHS/BIA: Guamanarrigra addressed combined documents and does not require date/time in the initial NTA; no direct conflict with Camarillo | Court: Guamanarrigra not inconsistent; any contrary language was dictum and not controlling |
| Whether Chevron deference applies to BIA’s construction of §1229b(d)(1) | Guarnan: (implicitly) statutory text controls; agency interpretation not entitled to deference on this point | DHS/BIA: BIA’s interpretation reasonable and within agency expertise | Court: Applied Chevron and deferred to BIA’s reasonable construction |
| Whether other NTA defects could preclude triggering stop-time (scope question) | Guarnan: not raised here | DHS/BIA: concedes some defects might matter but date/time omission is not fatal | Court: Did not decide broader question; held date/time omission alone does not prevent trigger |
Key Cases Cited
- Mei Juan Zheng v. Holder, 672 F.3d 178 (2d Cir.) (Chevron deference to BIA statutory interpretations)
- Adams v. Holder, 692 F.3d 91 (2d Cir.) (deference standard; agency interpretations not arbitrary or capricious)
- Higgins v. Holder, 677 F.3d 97 (2d Cir.) (Chevron deference extends to unpublished BIA decisions relying on published ones)
- Rojas-Reyes v. I.N.S., 235 F.3d 115 (2d Cir.) (purpose of stop-time rule: prevent accrual after charging document served)
- Gonzalez-Garcia v. Holder, 770 F.3d 431 (6th Cir.) (deferring to BIA’s Camarillo interpretation)
- Wang v. Holder, 759 F.3d 670 (7th Cir.) (deferring to BIA; consistent reading with Camarillo)
- Urbina v. Holder, 745 F.3d 736 (4th Cir.) (deferring to BIA’s Camarillo rationale)
- Guamanarrigra v. Holder, 670 F.3d 404 (2d Cir.) (held stop-time triggered when NTA plus subsequent hearing notice together satisfy §1229(a)(1))
- Dababneh v. Gonzales, 471 F.3d 806 (7th Cir.) (reasoning adopted by Guamanarrigra regarding combined-document triggers)