Jose Medina-Nunez v. Loretta E. Lynch
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 9503
| 9th Cir. | 2015Background
- Petitioner Jose Juan Medina-Nunez, a Mexican national, entered the U.S. without inspection in 1985 and was accepted into the Family Unity Program (FUP) in 1996.
- FUP confers benefits including protection from removal, work authorization, travel authorization, and voluntary departure options.
- Medina-Nunez became an LPR in 2007 and later faced removal proceedings based on criminal convictions; he applied for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a).
- Section 1229b(a)(2) requires seven years of residence “after having been admitted in any status”; Medina-Nunez argued his FUP acceptance constituted an ‘‘admission’’ beginning his residence clock in 1996.
- The BIA, relying on its published decision In re Reza-Murillo, held FUP acceptance is not an ‘‘admission’’ for § 1229b(a)(2) purposes and denied cancellation; Medina-Nunez petitioned for review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FUP acceptance constitutes an “admission” under § 1229b(a)(2) | FUP acceptance is an admission that starts the seven‑year residence period (so 1996 counts) | BIA: “Admission” means lawful entry after inspection/authorization; FUP does not involve entry/inspection so it is not an admission | Court deferred to BIA’s published Reza‑Murillo and held FUP acceptance is not an admission |
| Whether this court’s prior decision in Garcia‑Quintero controls over the BIA’s later published interpretation | Garcia‑Quintero held FUP acceptance was an admission and argued that precedent should control | Government argued Brand X permits agency reinterpretation when prior decision didn’t rest on unambiguous statutory text | Held Brand X applies: Garcia‑Quintero did not rest on an unambiguous statutory construction, so the BIA’s later published interpretation gets Chevron deference |
Key Cases Cited
- Garcia‑Quintero v. Gonzales, 455 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2006) (prior panel held FUP acceptance constituted an admission for § 1229b purposes)
- National Cable & Telecommunications Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967 (2005) (court precedent yields to reasonable agency interpretation unless the court’s reading was compelled by unambiguous statutory text)
- Cuevas‑Gaspar v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 1013 (9th Cir. 2005) (earlier court decision consulted in statutory interpretation)
- Holder v. Martinez Gutierrez, 566 U.S. 583 (2012) (overruled Cuevas‑Gaspar reasoning referenced by the parties)