Rony Paz Calix v. Loretta Lynch
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 7069
| 5th Cir. | 2015Background
- Rony A. Paz Calix, a Honduran national and lawful permanent resident since Dec. 1997, was convicted in 2001 (marijuana) and 2007 (cocaine).
- DHS charged him removable in 2009; he conceded removability and sought cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a).
- The IJ applied the stop-time rule, concluding the 2001 marijuana offense halted accrual of continuous residence and precluded the 7-year requirement for cancellation; IJ ordered removal in 2011.
- Paz Calix appealed to the BIA arguing the 2001 offense could not render him “inadmissible” because he was already admitted and not seeking admission; the BIA affirmed in 2013.
- Paz Calix petitioned for review in the Fifth Circuit, raising (1) exhaustion/jurisdiction and (2) whether a Section 1182(a)(2) offense “renders” an LPR who is not seeking admission inadmissible for stop-time purposes.
- The Fifth Circuit concluded it had jurisdiction, rejected the exhaustion argument, and held the stop-time rule applied so that Paz Calix’s continuous residence stopped with the 2001 offense, denying relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction — did Paz Calix exhaust administrative remedies? | Paz Calix contends he adequately raised the statutory argument before IJ and BIA, citing In re Lara-Terrazas. | Government contends the argument was inadequately briefed and thus not exhausted. | Court: Exhaustion satisfied — Paz Calix fairly presented the issue and cited relevant authority. |
| Stop-time rule — does an offense that would make an alien inadmissible stop continuous residence for an LPR not seeking admission, and does “renders” require conviction/admission? | Paz Calix: An LPR not seeking admission is not “rendered inadmissible” by a §1182(a)(2) offense; the stop-time rule should not apply. | Government/BIA: If an offense would render an alien inadmissible (or removable), it triggers the stop-time rule even for LPRs not seeking admission; conviction or admission gives effect to “renders.” | Court: Statute ambiguous but reasonable reading (and precedent) treats “renders” as requiring the subsequent immigration consequence (e.g., conviction or admission); the stop-time rule applies to LPRs — Paz Calix’s 2001 offense halted accrual, making him ineligible. |
Key Cases Cited
- Claudio v. Holder, 601 F.3d 316 (5th Cir.) (exhaustion of administrative remedies is jurisdictional)
- Miresles-Zuniga v. Holder, 743 F.3d 110 (5th Cir.) (de novo review of stop-time legal questions)
- Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (framework for agency deference)
- FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120 (2000) (limits of Chevron and statutory ambiguity analysis)
- Nino v. Holder, 690 F.3d 691 (5th Cir.) (interpretation of cross-references in §1229b and which provisions are incorporated)
- Gonzalez-Gonzalez v. Ashcroft, 390 F.3d 649 (9th Cir.) (contrast of cross-reference incorporation and stop-time reasoning)
- Vartelas v. Holder, 132 S. Ct. 1479 (2012) (treatment of LPRs and admission rules)