Reyes v. Holder
714 F.3d 731
| 2d Cir. | 2013Background
- Reyes, an unadmitted Salvadoran, sought NACARA special rule cancellation of removal in 2005 after a 1995 NY menacing in the second degree conviction.
- NACARA § 203 and 8 C.F.R. § 1240.66 authorize cancellation if the alien is not inadmissible under INA § 212(a)(2)/(3) or deportable under INA § 237(a)(2)/(3)/(4).
- BIA held Reyes ineligible because the conviction would render an admitted alien deportable under § 237(a)(2), despite Reyes not being admitted to the United States.
- Court holds the terms “inadmissible” and “deportable” are defined by the INA provisions they reference, and unadmitted aliens are not deportable under § 237(a).
- Court explains the petty offense exception to § 212(a)(2) applies to inadmissibility, not to unadmitted aliens’ eligibility for NACARA relief.
- The case is remanded for the BIA to determine Reyes’s eligibility on other NACARA requirements, if any.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can § 1240.66(b)(1) apply to unadmitted aliens? | Reyes argues unadmitted status prevents deportable interpretation. | BIA held conviction makes admitted aliens deportable; unadmitted status irrelevant. | BIA erred; unadmitted aliens are not deportable under § 237. |
| Does a § 237(a)(2) crime render an unadmitted alien ineligible for NACARA relief? | Convicted crime listed in § 237(a) cannot bar eligibility for unadmitted Reyes. | BIA treated conviction as disqualifying regardless of admission status. | Conviction under § 237(a)(2) cannot render an unadmitted alien ineligible. |
Key Cases Cited
- Judulang v. Holder, 132 S. Ct. 476 (2011) (interpretation deference to agency unless plainly erroneous)
- Gonzalez-Gonzalez v. Ashcroft, 390 F.3d 652 (2d Cir. 2004) (limitations of criminal offenses for inadmissibility/deportability context)
- Jankowski-Burczyk v. INS, 291 F.3d 172 (2d Cir. 2002) (higher standard for LPRs under immigration enforcement)
- Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006) (agency interpretation must reflect statutory words)
- Gonzalez-Ruano v. Holder, 662 F.3d 59 (1st Cir. 2011) (notions of continuous presence and eligibility in NACARA-like relief)
- Decker v. Nw. Env’t Def. Ctr., 133 S. Ct. 1326 (2013) (Chevron-like deference to agency interpretation on regulatory text)