Oppedisano v. Holder
769 F.3d 147
2d Cir.2014Background
- Oppedisano is an Italian citizen and long-time lawful permanent resident in the United States since 1973.
- He was convicted on January 6, 2012, in the Eastern District of New York of unlawful possession of ammunition by a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
- On December 14, 2012, DHS initiated removal proceedings, charging removability as an alien convicted of an aggravated felony.
- The INA defines an aggravated felony to include offenses described in 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) in the firearms offenses context, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(E)(ii).
- The BIA held that the ‘relating to firearms offenses’ parenthetical is descriptive, making ammunition possession under § 922(g)(1) an aggravated felony.
- Oppedisano petitioned for review, and the court applied Chevron deference to the BIA’s interpretation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ‘relating to firearms offenses’ is descriptive or restrictive. | Oppedisano argues the parenthetical is restrictive, limiting § 922(g)(1). | Oppedisano contends BIA’s descriptive interpretation should not be adopted. | BIA’s descriptive reading is permissible under Chevron. |
| Whether Chevron deference applies to the BIA’s interpretation of the INA. | Oppedisano challenges deference to agency interpretation of ambiguous INA language. | BIA interpretation is reasonable and entitled to Chevron deference. | The court applies Chevron deference to the BIA’s construction. |
| Whether rule of lenity limits the BIA interpretation. | Lenity requires a narrow reading in deportation statutes in Oppedisano’s favor. | Lenity is a last-resort tool and does not override reasonable BIA construction. | Lenity does not apply; BIA interpretation is reasonable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mei Juan Zheng v. Holder, 672 F.3d 178 (2d Cir. 2012) (establishes Chevron deference in INA interpretations)
- Evangelista v. Ashcroft, 359 F.3d 145 (2d Cir. 2004) (descriptive versus restrictive treatment discussed)
- Torres v. Holder, 764 F.3d 152 (2d Cir. 2014) (arson/E844(i) context under INA interpretation)
- Gertsenshteyn v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 544 F.3d 137 (2d Cir. 2008) (categorical approach in aggravated felonies)
- Ruiz-Almanzar v. Ridge, 485 F.3d 193 (2d Cir. 2007) (rule of lenity as last resort in deportation statutes)
- Adams v. Holder, 692 F.3d 91 (2d Cir. 2012) (lenity not invoked when agency interpretation permissible)