Padilla-Caldera v. Holder, Jr.
637 F.3d 1140
10th Cir.2011Background
- Petitioner Concepcion Padilla-Caldera entered the U.S. without inspection in 1996 and later married a U.S. citizen who filed an immigrant-relatives petition in 2000.
- After filing, petitioner returned to Mexico to seek an immigrant visa; the consulate found him ineligible due to inadmissibility on multiple grounds.
- His wife sought a waiver of inadmissibility, but she fell ill, and petitioner reentered the U.S. without inspection, triggering 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(C)(i)(I) permanent inadmissibility.
- An IJ denied adjustment of status under § 1255(i) because petitioner was not admissible for permanent residence; the BIA summarily affirmed.
- On remand, the IJ granted adjustment under § 1255(i), but the BIA reversed, relying on a published BIA opinion (Briones) issued during the remand period.
- The court held that Briones is entitled to Chevron deference and justified departing from the law-of-the-case and mandate, affirming the BIA’s denial of adjustment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Briones controls and warrants departure from law-of-the-case. | Padilla-Caldera should control; Briones is intervening but not controlling. | Briones is controlling authority that justifies departing from the law of the case. | Briones is given Chevron deference; permits departure from prior law. |
| Whether Chevron deference applies to Briones given ambiguity in §1255(i) and §1182(a)(9)(C). | Our earlier decision in Padilla-Caldera should govern; agency deference not warranted here. | Briones provides a reasonable construction and is entitled to Chevron deference. | Chevron deference applied to Briones; Briones' interpretation is reasonable. |
| Whether the BIA's final order of removal is reviewable and proper under the mandate. | BIA should have remanded to IJ to enter an order of removal if necessary. | BIA’s reversal of discretionary relief and removal order constitutes a final order reviewable on appeal. | The BIA’s final order of removal is reviewable. |
| Whether Padilla-Caldera remains controlling law after Briones and during remand. | Padilla-Caldera continues to govern absent a valid overriding authority. | Briones provides a compelling reason to depart from Padilla-Caldera under Chevron and Brand X. | Briones governs; Padilla-Caldera is superseded on the remand issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla-Caldera v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1237 (10th Cir. 2006) (conflicting interpretations of §1255(i) and §1182(a)(9)(C)(i)(I))
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (Supreme Court 1984) (establishes deferential approach to agency statutory interpretation)
- Brand X Internet Services v. FCC, 545 U.S. 967 (Supreme Court 2005) (agency deference where statute ambiguous; not bound by court precedent if reasonable interpretation exists)
- Sosa-Valenzuela v. Gonzales, 483 F.3d 1140 (10th Cir. 2007) (IJ findings of removability suffice for BIA removal authority; court reviews eligibility for relief)
- Herrera-Castillo v. Holder, 573 F.3d 1004 (10th Cir. 2009) (discusses ambiguities in §1255(i) and §1182(a) interplay in this circuit)
- Mora v. Mukasey, 550 F.3d 231 (2d Cir. 2008) (recognizes ambiguity in 1255(i) and 1182(a) and supports agency interpretation)
- Ramirez v. Holder, 609 F.3d 331 (4th Cir. 2010) (Chevron deference applied to Briones-related reasoning)
- Ramirez-Canales v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 904 (6th Cir. 2008) (discusses interpretive approaches to §1255(i) and related inadmissibility provisions)
- Renteria-Ledesma v. Holder, 615 F.3d 903 (8th Cir. 2010) (applies Briones-like reasoning to §1255(i) and §1182(a)(9)(C))