Planes v. Holder
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 11299
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- Immigration statute defines conviction as a formal judgment of guilt entered by a court (8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(48)(A)).
- Panel held IIRIRA eliminated the finality requirement for direct appeals as of right, making a conviction deportable upon entry of a formal judgment even if direct appeals are pending.
- Dissent argues IIRIRA did not eliminate the finality rule for direct appeals as of right and would keep immigrants’ right to appeal protected.
- BIA had not expressly ruled on the finality-elimination question in the Planes case; the issue was not briefed to the BIA or the panel.
- Seven of fourteen BIA members in Matter of Abreu suggested the elimination argument was forceful, but the agency did not publish a definitive ruling on the issue.
- The majority relies on sister circuits’ interpretations of the statute and on the plain-language reading of §1101(a)(48)(A); the dissent favors preserving the longstanding finality rule and deferring to the BIA for a formal, published ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether IIRIRA eliminated the finality rule for direct appeals as of right | Planes contends the statute eliminates finality for direct appeals | DHS argues the finality rule remains applicable | Yes, finality rule eliminated for direct appeals as of right |
| Whether the court should have remanded to the BIA to decide the issue | None explicitly relied upon by BIA; panel overstepped authority | Panel should defer to BIA if agency’s views are controlling | No remand; panel properly decided the issue given unambiguous statutory text |
Key Cases Cited
- Waugh v. Holder, 642 F.3d 1279 (10th Cir. 2011) (definition of conviction aligns with panel’s reading of §1101(a)(48)(A))
- Puello v. Bureau of Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 511 F.3d 324 (2d Cir. 2007) (IIRIRA eliminated requirement that direct appeals be exhausted before final conviction)
- Montenegro v. Ashcroft, 355 F.3d 1035 (7th Cir. 2004) (IIRIRA treats conviction as final upon formal judgment; finality rule removed)
- Moosa v. INS, 171 F.3d 994 (5th Cir. 1999) (IIRIRA eliminated finality for deferred adjudications; direct-appeal finality retained)
- Griffiths v. INS, 243 F.3d 45 (1st Cir. 2001) (similar interpretation of finality under §1101(a)(48)(A))
- United States v. Adame-Orozco, 607 F.3d 647 (10th Cir.) (cites statutory interpretation aligning with panel’s view)
- United States v. Saenz-Gomez, 472 F.3d 791 (10th Cir. 2007) (rejects exhaustion/waiver interpretation in favor of literal text)
- Fuello v. Bureau of Citizenship & Immigration Services, 511 F.3d 324 (2d Cir. 2007) (noting elimination of exhaustion requirement in context of conviction)