Petra Carranza-De Salinas v. Eric Holder, Jr.
700 F.3d 768
5th Cir.2012Background
- Carranza, a Mexican citizen, entered the U.S. in 1985 and was convicted in 1993 in Louisiana for possession with intent to distribute marijuana, sentenced to five years’ hard labor with most suspended and four years’ probation.
- She received an automatic first offender pardon in 1994 and her conviction was expunged on April 16, 1999, while she remained eligible for discretionary relief under former INA § 212(c).
- In 1996, Congress enacted IIRIRA which repealed § 212(c) and narrowed eligibility for discretionary relief under § 1229b(a)(3) so that certain aggravated felons could not obtain relief.
- In 1997, Carranza was charged with removability based on her 1993 conviction; at a 1999 deportation hearing, the IJ found removability and Carranza sought § 212(c) relief; INS conceded eligibility.
- During a 2003 merits hearing, the government argued Carranza was ineligible for § 212(c) relief because her conviction resulted from a jury trial; the IJ did not hear arguments on eligibility and ordered removal.
- On appeal, the BIA remanded; Carranza I remanded to the BIA for further proceedings to consider reliance on the pre-IIRIRA regime; on remand, evidence of reliance was disputed and the IJ denied relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the presumption against retroactivity apply to the IIRIRA repeal of §212(c)? | Carranza. | GOVERNMENT. | Yes; presumption applies and favors relief analysis. |
| Does Vartelas govern retroactivity analysis in this case? | Carranza should apply Vartelas framework. | GOVERNMENT: Vartelas not controlling for eligibility. | Vartelas governs the analysis. |
| Did Carranza demonstrate a sufficient likelihood of reliance on prior law? | Deliberate trial decision, delay in filing, and other factors show reliance. | No explicit reliance evidence; not enough. | Carranza showed likelihood of reliance; remand warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Vartelas v. Holder, 132 S. Ct. 1479 (Supreme Court 2012) (presumption against retroactivity; likelihood of reliance suffices)
- Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244 (Supreme Court 1994) (test for retroactivity; new consequences to past events)
- St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289 (Supreme Court 2001) (plea agreements and continued eligibility for relief)
- Ponnapula v. Ashcroft, 373 F.3d 480 (3d Cir. 2004) (reliance considerations in retroactivity analysis)
- Hernandez-Castillo v. Moore, 436 F.3d 516 (5th Cir. 2006) (distinction between trial and plea when assessing eligibility)
- Olatunji v. Ashcroft, 387 F.3d 383 (4th Cir. 2004) (reliance considerations may be irrelevant to retroactivity analysis)
- INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289 (Supreme Court 2001) (plea agreements and eligibility for discretionary relief)
- Carranza De Salinas v. Gonzales, 477 F.3d 200 (5th Cir. 2007) (predecessor decision noting St. Cyr and reliance considerations)