Jim Route v. Merrick Garland, 996 F.3d 968

Background

Petitioner Jim Route, a Federated States of Micronesia citizen admitted under the US‑FSM Compact, entered the U.S. in 2005 and again in June 2015; he lived and worked in Hawai‘i.
In June 2018 Route was convicted in Hawai‘i of first‑degree unlawful imprisonment (a crime involving moral turpitude) and sentenced to jail and probation.
DHS charged removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) (CIMT committed within five years after the date of admission); the IJ and the BIA treated the 2015 entry as the operative admission and ordered removal.
The BIA’s unpublished decision relied on its published precedent Matter of Alyazji, which holds that the relevant “date of admission” is the admission by virtue of which the alien was present when the crime was committed (i.e., the admission that produced the relevant presence).
Route petitioned for review arguing the 2005 admission should control and that the US‑FSM Compact (COFA) requires a different interpretation; the Ninth Circuit found the phrase ambiguous, deferred to Alyazji under Chevron, and denied the petition.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the phrase “the date of admission” in § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) is unambiguous	Route: statute means the original/earliest lawful entry (2005)	Government/BIA: statute is ambiguous; Alyazji reasonably interprets it	Court: phrase is ambiguous; proceed to Chevron step two
Whether the BIA’s Alyazji interpretation is entitled to Chevron deference when applied in an unpublished BIA order	Route: Alyazji doesn’t govern or was inapplicable; unpublished order shouldn’t get Chevron if not directly controlled	Government: Alyazji is a published, reasoned decision that directly controls the unpublished order	Court: Alyazji is a published, reasoned rule that directly controls the unpublished decision; Mead/Marmolejo‑Campos/Uppal criteria met; Chevron deference applies
Whether Alyazji’s construction is a permissible reading of § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i)(I)	Route: Alyazji yields harsh, unfair results for COFA nonimmigrants; proposes a ties/continuity test	Government/BIA: Alyazji is a reasonable bright‑line rule tied to admission plus presence and avoids ad hoc IJ discretion	Court: Alyazji is a permissible, reasonable construction; defer under Chevron and apply it
Whether the US‑FSM Compact requires a different interpretation for Micronesian citizens	Route: COFA’s special relationship supports a COFA‑specific, more flexible reading	Government: COFA expressly subjects COFA nationals to the INA and lists only narrow exemptions; statute should be applied uniformly	Court: COFA does not exempt Route from § 1227(a); uniform application required; COFA does not alter Alyazji’s application

Key Cases Cited

Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (agency deference framework)
United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218 (limits on Chevron deference; when agency adjudication qualifies)
Marmolejo‑Campos v. Holder, 558 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. 2009) (when BIA decisions qualify for Chevron deference)
Uppal v. Holder, 605 F.3d 712 (9th Cir. 2010) (published BIA decision can control unpublished orders for Chevron purposes)
Shivaraman v. Ashcroft, 360 F.3d 1142 (9th Cir. 2004) (interpretive background on "date of admission" and adjustments of status)
Sijapati v. Boente, 848 F.3d 210 (4th Cir. 2017) (holding the INA silent/ambiguous on which admission governs)
Saldivar v. Sessions, 877 F.3d 812 (9th Cir. 2017) (limits on extending published BIA holdings to different factual contexts)
United States v. Terrence, 132 F.3d 1291 (9th Cir. 1997) (COFA interpretation: exemptions are limited to those expressly listed)