Lanier v. U.S. Attorney General
631 F.3d 1363
| 11th Cir. | 2011Background
- Lanier, a Nigerian-born US lawful permanent resident, petitions for review of a BIA removal order to Nigeria.
- Immigration Judge (IJ) ordered removal after finding Lanier ineligible for § 212(h) waiver due to an aggravated felony conviction.
- BIA affirmed the IJ’s ruling denying the § 212(h) waiver.
- Lanier had entered the US in 1992 without inspection and later adjusted to LPR status in 1996.
- In 2007 the DHS charged Lanier as removable for an aggravated felony and a crime involving moral turpitude; she sought a § 212(h) waiver on hardship grounds for her US citizen daughter.
- Issue on appeal: whether adjusting to LPR status while already in the US qualifies Lanier as having “previously been admitted to the United States as an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence” for § 212(h).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does §212(h) bar apply to Lanier given post-entry adjustment to LPR status? | Lanier: bar requires prior admission as LPR; post-entry adjustment does not count. | Lanier was previously admitted as an LPR, so bar applies. | Inapplicable bar; Lanier is eligible to seek § 212(h) relief. |
| What is the proper meaning of 'admitted' and 'lawfully admitted for permanent residence' in §212(h)? | Definitions should include post-entry adjustment as LPR. | Definitions focus on status at entry; post-entry adjustment excluded. | 'Admitted' requires physical entry after inspection; post-entry adjustment does not count for the bar. |
Key Cases Cited
- Martinez v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 532 (5th Cir. 2008) (definition of 'admission' and post-entry adjustment discussed)
- Hing Sum v. Holder, 602 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2010) (parses §212(h) into two phrases; clarifies bar scope)
- United States v. Velez, 586 F.3d 875 (11th Cir. 2009) (contextual statutory interpretation; give effect to every word)
- Aremu v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 450 F.3d 578 (4th Cir. 2006) (definition of 'admission' excludes post-entry adjustment)
- Burgess v. United States, 553 U.S. 124 (U.S. 2008) (interpretation of statutory terms defined by Congress)
- Delgado v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 487 F.3d 855 (11th Cir. 2007) (statutory text governs unless ambiguity)
- Quinchia v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 552 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir. 2008) (further statutory interpretation guidance)