Marina Hernandez v. Eric Holder, Jr.
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 6041
4th Cir.2015Background
- Marina del Carmen Hernandez, an El Salvador native who entered unlawfully in 1997 and later held Temporary Protected Status, was convicted (2007) of petit larceny in Virginia (30 days’ jail).
- DHS initiated removal proceedings (2013); Hernandez conceded removability but sought cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1) based on hardship to her U.S.-citizen children.
- § 1229b(b)(1)(C) bars cancellation for aliens convicted of an offense “under” § 1182(a)(2), § 1227(a)(2), or § 1227(a)(3). § 1182(a)(2) contains a petit-offense exception; § 1227(a)(2) does not and applies to admitted aliens within five years of admission.
- Hernandez argued the cross-reference should import only the inapplicable parts of § 1182(a)(2) (i.e., the petit-offense exception) and that § 1227(a)(2) should not apply to an unadmitted alien like her.
- The BIA, relying on its precedent in Matter of Cortez Canales, held § 1229b(b)(1)(C) cross-references the listed offenses themselves (not the immigration-status–contingent operation of those provisions) and denied cancellation; the Fourth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1229b(b)(1)(C) disqualifies unadmitted aliens based on offenses listed in § 1227(a)(2) despite § 1227(a)(2)’s text applying to admitted aliens | Hernandez: cross-reference should import only the parts of the provisions that apply to unadmitted aliens (so the petit-offense exception in § 1182(a)(2) preserves eligibility) | Gov’t/BIA: § 1229b(b)(1)(C) references the offenses listed in the three provisions, not the provisions’ status-contingent operation; hence listed offenses anywhere in those sections disqualify | Court: Affirmed BIA; § 1229b(b)(1)(C) properly cross-references offenses listed in § 1182(a)(2), § 1227(a)(2), § 1227(a)(3) regardless of admission status; Chevron deference applies |
| Whether the petit-offense exception in § 1182(a)(2) protects Hernandez | Hernandez: her petit larceny falls within § 1182(a)(2)’s petit-offense exception | Gov’t/BIA: the petit-offense exception is irrelevant when offense is listed under § 1227(a)(2), which has no such exception | Court: Held petit-offense exception does not save Hernandez because § 1229b(b)(1)(C) looks to offenses listed in § 1227(a)(2), which lacks the exception |
| Whether § 1229b(b)(1)(C) should be read to import timing/immigration-consequence elements (e.g., five-year rule in § 1227(a)(2)) | Hernandez: timing and admission-language in § 1227(a)(2) means it shouldn’t apply to unadmitted aliens | Gov’t/BIA: § 1229b(b)(1)(C) creates its own consequence (ineligibility) and thus need only reference the offense description | Court: Held timing/immigration-consequence elements are irrelevant to § 1229b(b)(1)(C)’s cross-reference to the offenses |
| Whether Chevron deference to BIA’s Cortez Canales interpretation is appropriate | Hernandez: urges narrower reading and relies on canons/lenity; disputes applicability of BIA precedent | Gov’t/BIA: Cortez Canales is a reasonable, precedential BIA construction entitled to Chevron deference | Court: Applied Chevron; BIA’s construction is reasonable and entitled to deference; petition denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Martinez v. Holder, 740 F.3d 902 (4th Cir.) (BIA precedential decisions by three-judge panel receive Chevron deference)
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (administrative interpretations entitled to deference if reasonable)
- Judulang v. Holder, 132 S. Ct. 476 (Supreme Court 2011) (distinguishing inadmissibility vs deportability consequences)
- Gonzalez-Gonzalez v. Ashcroft, 390 F.3d 649 (9th Cir.) (§ 1229b cross-references offenses listed in the three statutes, not the statutes’ full operation)
- Reyes v. Holder, 714 F.3d 731 (2d Cir.) (interpreting similar regulatory language; distinguished from § 1229b(b)(1)(C))
- Coyomani-Cielo v. Holder, 758 F.3d 908 (7th Cir.) (discussing ambiguity and reasonableness of Cortez Canales construction)
- Nino v. Holder, 690 F.3d 691 (5th Cir.) (rejecting five‑year timing argument for § 1229b(b)(1)(C) application)
- Hosh v. Lucero, 680 F.3d 375 (4th Cir.) (rule of lenity is last resort; applies only to grievous ambiguity)