Jesus Manuel Laredo-Miranda, A/K/A Raul Laredo-Miranda v. Immigration & Naturalization Service Etc.
555 F.2d 1242
5th Cir.
1977
Check Treatment

*2 watched from agent cover as Laredo- trol FAY, WISDOM, Circuit Before GEE completely waded across the Rio Miranda Judges. Grande, side, then returned to the Mexican GEE, Judge: Texas, Circuit finally again crossed once leading aliens with this time Petitioner Laredo-Miranda was 18- with By this Salas arrived him.3 resident alien in this when year-old car, entire entourage up, and the loaded wading five aliens in he assisted stopped away a short by distance Rio Grande River into Texas. across Patrol officers.4 Border shortly was arrested thereafter and Immigration and Naturalization Ser- deportation proceed- made immigration judge (INS) deport ordered seeks to Laredo-Miranda his de- vice ings; authority of of the Immi- and the Board of portation, Act, 8 Nationality gration peti- affirmed.1 Laredo-Miranda’s Appeals (1970), deporta- renders requires Rosenberg § our examination of tion who any ble Fleuti, U.S. S.Ct. (1963), progeny and its within inspec- L.Ed.2d entered the United States Circuit, to determine other than as any place whether tion or at time or surreptitious crossing Attorney General or is designated circumstances immigration judge’s may The Board modified the river. We Laredo-Miranda 1. surmise that voluntary departure rather order to allow deportation. any sought the attention of have to attract if so that arrests were officers in the area alien, made, only person lawful resident one —a group included Salas’s wife and Laredo- 2. The arrest, rather suffer than the at that —would friend, sisters, girl who Miranda’s were Thinking undiscovered, group. he entire The INS does not contest Lare- their mother. bring group. the rest of the he then returned he assertion that had no intention do-Miranda’s of first entered illegal crossing participating when he arrested, Juarez. gave 4. When Laredo-Miranda the offi- name, birthdate, and a fictitious destina- cers tion, that Laredo-Miranda’s officer testified 3. The simply hopes that he would returned one, noisy waving trip across was first could then re-enter the to Mexico and United water, splashing the and that this arms and identity. his correct States under employed by “pathfin- a common tactic bringing charges across the before der” unsuspected in violation of this risks and unintended conse- violation of other law chapter quences or in of such wholly innocent action. the United States. Id. S.Ct. at the river concededly crossed Although Suggested factors for evaluating Laredo-Miranda is inspection,” “without carries the necessary *3 the deportation visit, to include subject length intent of the so he “entered” the United by doing if travel only documents were required, that In Act defines term. as the of the the purpose visit, the of if purpose for the broad 1101(a)(13),an otherwise definition leaving country accomplish the is to of application to “entry” is constricted for of object which is itself contrary some to resident aliens: policy our some reflected in immigration laws, appear it would permanent interrup- alien a lawful [A]n thereby tion of residence occurring would in the United States shall not residence regarded be as properly meaningful. the regarded making as an into be purposes for the of United States 462, 1812, Id. at at S.Ct. L.Ed.2d at immigration proves laws if the alien to indicated, however, The Court 1008-09. Attorney General the satisfaction its list of such factors not exhaus- foreign port to a or departure that his tive: . intended or rea- . . was not

place operation of [Tjhe these and other possi- his sonably expected him or bly relevant factors remains to be devel- place . foreign port or presence in a gradual oped ‘by process judicial of voluntary. . not exclusion,’ . inclusion Rosenberg v. Fleu- 1812, Court in Supreme at Id. at S.Ct. exception of ti, fleshing out “intent” resident 101(a)(13), held that a alien’s Building upon Fleuti, panel a of Cir- this to have been can be considered departure INS, held in Yanez-Jacquez cuit possessed if he “an intent “intended” 1971), (5th Cir. that a resident alien’s can depart regard- in manner which a

to into Juarez with an ice pick to interruptive meaningfully as of ed avenge an earlier assault and robbery was permanent residence.” 374 at U.S. “meaningful departure,” not and thus 10 L.Ed.2d at 1008. 83 S.Ct. Yanez-Jacquez did not “enter” this homosexual, Fleuti, national and Swiss discovered, when he country after failing to this for four years resided in had carry vengeance, out his mission of that he Ensenda, Mexico,for he visited about when left his registration alien card in the hours; years later the moved three INS two States, and United back waded across 212(a)(9) and deportation under §§ his for His purpose departing river. was “less alleging that he had been exclud- salutory,” than id. at trip but his lasted at the time of his last because able hours, only a few past and he had in the depor- homosexuality. Reversing his trips a number of made short into con- remanding order further tation returning to each the United sideration, the Court held apparent intended home. These latter casual, innocent, brief outweighed facts illicit re- country’s alien by resident outside the conclusion quired that he did not intend as a may not have been ‘intended’ “interrupt any meaningful borders to manner his departure disruptive of resident alien as a status resident alien.” Id. held, not may INS, and therefore later in Vargas-Banuelos status We ‘entry’ (5th consequences of an into 466 F.2d 1371 Cir. that a return. The more civilized did not “enter” on his the United States when, immigration visiting our laws Mexico for two application about the resident alien from protects days, accepted money from four aliens however, we face meet them in the confluence of one party a third arrange for crossing, Vargas-Banuelos (aiding aspect river Paso — after El aliens) apparently was with another aspect Yanez-Jac which transportation provide (surreptitious crossing), under quez circum involved — to not area, and then re compelling stances more either of away from crossed, presenting Yanez-Jacquez’s and after those cases. intentions in alone checkpoints, into at border with inspection crossing Mexico armed an ice point At some pick, commendable, scarcely States. did he formed nothing leaving the little contravene either the decidedly improper, but spirit immigration laws; letter or in Fleuti indi language appropriate recrossing by wading river ac only his this was not complished nothing cated avoiding more than sufficient — leaving country,” U.S. “purpose of presenting inconvenience himself at a *4 1812, 462, L.Ed.2d at 1008 at 10 83 S.Ct. at checkpoint and waiting several hours for his added), his intentions rather than (emphasis Vargas-Ba identification fetched.7 leaving, on the determi after bore formed nuelos crossed into Mexico recrossed departure whether his was of nation legally; apparently neither the duration of interruptive” of resi “meaningfully his visit nor manner of his return were country: in this dence by extra-territorially acquired affected in progeny Fleuti and its this cir- Under commit upon intention to a crime his re cuit, of to turn, the failure the Government in and he committed no act further petition- purpose prior to show a criminal conspiracy into he had ance of the its case. fatal to departure er’s in until while Mexico after his wholly lawful return to the United States. added).5 (emphasis 1374 F.2d at 466 hand, Vargas-Banue- on the other was Yanez-Jacquez Both participant most in of the case before essential bear on some facets an active los established, believe, this at we aliens into Yanez-Jacquez bringing us. of wading crossing by of his covert precise act that Laredo-Miranda’s river, Grande, alone, standing Wading would not ren- river. avoid- way of the Rio inspection, of “meaningfully interrup- scrutiny border departure ing the der pathfinder role as for the and thus constitute an crucial to his of his residence tive” Supreme establishes The Court Fleuti left “entry.”6 group. aliens, development judicial to aid formed room of “other an intent departed evaluating from relevant factors” possibly resident alien visit, trip into a foreign country a does not make a should country for short whether this meaningful a of “meaningfully interruptive,” interruption considered departure be through proper a status as his return is an alien’s a least when at 462, 1812, than cross- at by rather clandestine alien. 374 U.S. 83 S.Ct. checkpoint case, instant 1009. border. In the L.Ed.2d at We can conceive of little appeal presenting have held that illicit himself at courts 5. Other departure checkpoint to “mean- make and sub- intent suffice makes will Although regardless interruptive,” jects deportation. ingfully we are to by depar- problems or after formed before faced those who to the such intent sensitive INS, 1073, laws, immigration v. 506 F.2d and do ture. Lozano-Giron seek to enforce See 1974) holding); utility (7th (express such a rule to their Palatian Cir. not doubt 1091, (9th INS, 1974) work, Yanez-Jacquez rigor- to a binds us less 1093-94 Cir. v. 502 F.2d declining pro- interpretation (noting to of the Act. INS’s follow ous INS, by adopted Vargas-Banuelos); posal v. en banc 473 F.2d could Bufalino stay court, Supreme Congress. (3d application for or the of de- Court Cir. 1522, denied, 901, portation 93 S.Ct. 411 U.S. apparently also wanted to remain on the 7. holding). (1973) (implicit 36 L.Ed.2d 191 Rio Grande watch the American side adopt appear. argument urged us to see if his assailants the INS other would At oral side 6. who crosses into resident alien at 702. rule that F.2d WISDOM, be more indicative of an Judge, which would Circuit dissenting: disrupt his status as a respectfully I I dissent. would hold that a fully resident than consummated lawful by this case Rosenberg controlled v. Fleu- intent, even if formed from ti, 1963, 449, 1804, 374 U.S. 83 S.Ct. actively in country, participate L.Ed.2d progeny and its in this Cir- bringing illegal aliens into the United cuit, Vargas-Banuelos coming while himself the same Service, Naturalization Cir. 466 F.2d very re-entry route. His in the illicit 1371and Yanez-Jacquez Immigration and crime, just committing course Service, Naturalization 5 Cir. carrying though he had returned contra- more, words, in other band. He did far petitioner, In Yanez-Jacquez, the river; our merely wade the focus is admitted into the United States in crossing, the manner of his but rath- not on made a brief Mexico in 1963 ferrying of aliens as er on his simultaneous avenge an assault upon committed holding he crossed. Our would be no differ- day while he was Mexico the before. He ent had he driven across an international forgot to take with him Border Crossing bridge presented his identification to Identification Card. heWhen failed to find carrying the authorities while these aliens victim, his intended Yanez-Jacquez crossed in the trunk of his automobile. Rio Grande back into United States. *5 picked He up by patrol, was the border then, we To sum hold that up, was released when mother came to the was of short dura- Laredo-Miranda’s visit station with his patrol Border Crossing tion, upon leaving the and his intentions In Identification Card. Yanez-Jac- innocent, country brought were he about quez uttering forged was convicted of meaningful in his interruption permanent States, and the relying instrument actively participated residence when he in as an “entry”, on the incident sought bringing five aliens into the United States deport him under 8 1251(a)(4). U.S.C. § by serving their pathfinder guide, and provides section This an alien is de- seeking inspection to evade and assisting portable who “is convicted of a crime in- them to do by surreptitiously crossing so volving turpitude moral committed within the border at an unauthorized location. His . entry five . .” years Despite 16, 1975, crossing August on thus must be petitioner’s criminal motive in leaving considered an under “entry” States, the United this Court held that the he “entered” country and has crossing did “entry”, not constitute an inspection (and at an unauthorized “there than adequate because is less evi- place), subject so that he deportation is in support dence the record to a finding U.S.C. § petitioner left the with the (1970). We believe that our holding fully interrupt any meaningful man- and, indeed, consistent with Fleuti that a ner his status as a contrary holding quite would be inconsist- 440 F.2d at 704. alien”. ent, for we do not here Laredo-Mi- Vargas-Banuelos, petitioner In “sport randa to the of chance” or “meaning- perma- admitted into the United States as a less and irrational hazards” in attempting nent resident alien in 1963. In 1970 he country, to remain in this 374 U.S. at pay went to Mexico to a condolence call. 1008; 83 S.Ct. at there, approached he While four crossing manner of his wholly volun- who his aid in sought Mexicans gaining tary and inextricably tied into his active illegal entry into the United States. The illegal facilitation of entries into the United accepted money petitioner from them and The States. order is helped arrange illegal them entry. AFFIRMED. parties, including Vargas-Banue- All of the shortly 16, 1975, af- apprehended August Texas los, were for the sole unclear. crossing border. It a meal purpose girl with his ter actually family . . .” at 1243. her and friend manner. Second, as the majority and Immigra- aiding to four counts of pleaded guilty and Naturalization tion Service also con- entering abetting Mexicans in cede, the four left and when Laredo-Miranda the United the United country illegally, and “did not intend to part take and using his condolence smuggling”. actual Id. States — deport “entry” attempted as an return — Furthermore, rather than supporting the This sec- 1251(a)(13). under U.S.C. § order, the one factor Board’s that distin- deportable alien is provides tion Fleuti, Yanez-Jacquez, guishes Vargas- or at to, entry, or at “prior who from the instant appeal Banuelos makes the entry, years any five time within case for reversal of Laredo-Miranda’s de- encour- have, gain, knowingly shall order even more portation compelling. In abetted, assisted, or aided induced, aged, cases, those involved was sim- to enter try enter or to alien to other necessary prerequisite ply deporting of law”. in violation United Stated resident aliens for other reasons—Fleu- not Vargas-Banuelos did Emphasizing homosexuality, Yanez-Jacquez’s ti’s convic- leaving intent before any criminal harbor uttering forged instrument, tion of and that the Vargas-Banuelos’s aiding conviction of call, make a brief trip was to condolence abetting illegal case, entry. In this Vargas-Banuelos’s 1970 bor- held we hand, the alleged other resident alien’s ille- entry un- der-crossing did not constitute an gal very alone is the he is reason Yanez-Jacquez, and issued Fleuti and der deported. being petitioners in Yanez- not exalt words of caution: “Let us these Jacquez Vargas-Banuelos, who were rectitude migrant’s deviation from every acts, of criminal certainly convicted were statutory ‘entries’ within the culpable less more desirable residents definition”. *6 alleged whose Thus, law circuit of the in this state aiding wrongdoing enter aliens to regarding what constitutes even has never been the given of that definition term within prosecution. This especially of a criminal of the and Nation- that, light the fact so in addition Act, ality purposes acts, subsequent criminal Yanez-Jac- deporting a resident alien for definitely, 1963 entrance was quez’s in 241 of reasons listed 8 U.S.C. Vargas-Banuelos’s entry appar- 1251, is as follows: a resident Where ently as Laredo-Miranda’s excursion out of the I would Board’s was here. REVERSE the brief, government (1) must show order. subjective alien had a at the intention of his from the United status, interrupt residential States a crimi- resident harbored

(2) before leaving the United

nal into the re-entry to make the alien’s “entry”. Neither of these First, case. met in instant are

criteria contend, noth- does not government indicates, that Laredo-Mi- the facts as a interrupt his status intended

randa Indeed, recog- majority alien. Juarez, “Laredo-Miranda nizes