Jean Jeudy v. Eric Holder, Jr.
768 F.3d 595
7th Cir.2014Background
- Jean Jeudy, a lawful permanent resident since 1989, pled guilty to attempted possession of crack cocaine in 1995 and was removable for that offense.
- By November 24, 1996 Jeudy had accrued seven years of continuous residence after admission, making him eligible under the pre-1997 law to request discretionary relief from removal.
- IIRIRA (effective April 1, 1997) added the "stop-time rule" (8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1)) which stops accrual of continuous residence upon service of a notice to appear or commission of specified offenses.
- The BIA applied the stop-time rule retroactively to Jeudy’s 1995 conviction and held he was ineligible for cancellation of removal because his continuous-residence accrual stopped in 1995.
- Jeudy challenged only the retroactive application of the stop-time rule; the Seventh Circuit reviewed whether (1) Congress clearly intended retroactivity and (2) retroactive application would produce an impermissible effect.
Issues
| Issue | Jeudy's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the stop-time rule applies retroactively to pre-IIRIRA offenses | Congress did not clearly state retroactive intent; applying the rule would attach new consequences to completed conduct | Transitional language and cross-references in IIRIRA/NACARA show retroactive application to relevant triggers | The statute lacks the clear statement required under Landgraf; transitional provision does not clearly reach offenses; rule is not retroactive |
| Whether applying the stop-time rule to Jeudy’s 1995 conviction would have an impermissible retroactive effect | Jeudy had acquired eligibility before IIRIRA; applying the rule would impose a new disability on past conduct | Cancellation of removal is a new IIRIRA-created remedy, so changes in eligibility cannot be retroactive in effect | Applying the stop-time rule would impose new, impermissible consequences on pre-IIRIRA conduct; impermissibly retroactive |
Key Cases Cited
- Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244 (presumption against retroactive application of statutes)
- INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289 (statutory ambiguity regarding retroactivity construed as prospective)
- Vartelas v. Holder, 132 S. Ct. 1479 (presumption against retroactivity does not require showing of subjective reliance)
- Zivkovic v. Holder, 724 F.3d 894 (7th Cir. 2013) (question of retroactivity reviewed de novo; statutory interpretation favors alien)
- Peralta v. Gonzales, 441 F.3d 23 (1st Cir. 2006) (held transitional rule applies broadly to stop-time triggers)
- Sinotes-Cruz v. Gonzales, 468 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2006) (transitional rule does not clearly authorize retroactive application to offenses)
- United States v. Gill, 748 F.3d 491 (2d Cir. 2014) (applying new disability to prior conduct is impermissible without clear congressional statement)