Hanif v. Attorney General of United States
694 F.3d 479
| 3rd Cir. | 2012Background
- Hanif, a Guyanese citizen, entered the United States in the 1980s, apparently on a fraudulent visa.
- He later adjusted to lawful permanent resident (LPR) status on May 17, 2006, after an immigration judge granted his waiver/adjustment of status.
- Hanif was involved in a counterfeit currency scheme; he pled guilty to dealing in counterfeit currency and was sentenced in 2009.
- In December 2009 DHS served him with a Notice to Appear charging inadmissibility under §1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) after his criminal conviction.
- Hanif sought a waiver under §1182(h); the IJ denied it, and the BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision following Matter of Koljenovic.
- The Third Circuit granted review, holding the statute §1182(h) unambiguously requires admission as an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §1182(h) requires prior admission as an LPR | Hanif: no admission; obtained LPR via adjustment from inside the U.S. | BIA/government: statute read in context yields a different admission date for LPR, making him ineligible | Statute clearly requires prior admission as an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence |
| Is the term 'admission' in §1182(h) ambiguous when read with §1255 | Plain text shows no prior admission; adjustment does not qualify as admission | Read with §1255 to align intent of waivers with overall statute | Statute is clear and unambiguous; interpretation does not require §1255-based reading |
| Does differing statutory language between §1182(h) and §1229b(a) affect meaning | Differences show Congress intended a broader scope for §1182(h) | Language differences reflect different purposes and definitions; must read as written | We read §1182(h) as written; the separate wording controls |
| Would adhering to a literal reading yield an absurd result | Literal reading would create irrational outcomes for those who adjust to LPR after entering unlawfully | Any absurdity is for Congress to remedy, not the courts to rewrite | Literal meaning does not render absurd results warranting departure from text |
Key Cases Cited
- Nelson v. Att’y Gen., 685 F.3d 318 (3d Cir. 2012) (clarifies interpretation of 'after having been admitted in any status' for continuous residence)
- De Leon-Reynoso v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 633 (3d Cir. 2002) (upholds rational basis for §1182(h) distinctions)
- Fogelman, 283 F.3d 561 (3d Cir. 2002) (discusses plain meaning and absurd results in statutory interpretation)
- Barrios v. Att’y Gen., 399 F.3d 272 (3d Cir. 2005) (limits on literal interpretations to avoid absurd results)
- Bracamontes v. Holder, 675 F.3d 380 (4th Cir. 2012) (treats §1182(h) interpretations in light of other circuits)
- Martinez v. Lynch, 519 F.3d 544 (9th Cir. 2008) (discusses interpretation of 'admitted' vs. 'admission' in immigration statutes)
- Lanier v. Att’y Gen., 631 F.3d 1363 (11th Cir. 2011) (statutory interpretation of waiver provisions for LPRs)
- Jarbough v. Att’y Gen., 483 F.3d 184 (3d Cir. 2007) (jurisdiction and review standards for BIA determinations)
- Sukwanputra v. Gonzales, 434 F.3d 627 (3d Cir. 2006) (constitutional questions and statutory interpretations in INA proceedings)