Jose Barahona v. Eric Holder, Jr.

“experience” gut and “sort of in- cer’s

stinct”). sure, BARAHONA, H. To Jose given the relative Jose Her a/k/a Barahona, competencies institutional man between district Jose Her a/k/a courts, given Barahona, Petitioner, and circuit and the control- nan ling suppression standards of review of v. judges, see ante trial not the rulings, Jr., court, HOLDER, Attorney Eric H. judges primary this have role the General, Respondent. in the policing police. recent in Our decision United States No. 11-2046.

Sowards, (4th Cir.2012), United States Court of Appeals, wholly on-going consistent with our ef- Fourth forts; Circuit. lays an important down marker are the scope there indeed limits to Argued: May 2012. creativity law enforcement inherent in the otherwise standardless doctrine. Whren Aug. Decided: 2012. here, however, majority the I Unlike can- identify any

not in the differences

facts at hand that will difference

in and outcome between this case the out-

come Sowards on the issue uncorrob- estimates, visual speed although

orated I

fully agree that Sowards does not sound knell speed death use of visual

estimates enforcement law officers.6

Accordingly, justification as to the for the case, stop join only

vehicle I Part majority which,

II.A.2 opinion, as an holding,

alternative sustains the district

court’s determination that the ostensible

following-too-elosely supported violation probable existence of cause to effect stop

the vehicle here. I also concur I, II.B., majority

Parts and III of the

opinion, judgment. and hour, Interestingly, suppres- per the evidence sixty-five per at miles miles at hour hearing, including testimony sion the officers' stop finally the location where the traffic images from video taken Apparently, up York's effected. the officers set their camera, dashboard indicated that operation, over “criminal interdiction” in which during approximately speeds five miles which played offi- visual estimates of vehicle role, cers York and major optimal Wolfe surveilled Mubdi after stop location to they Dodge Magnum, traveling first posted fifty- observed vehicles more than the limit, posted speed per just limits on 1-77 1-40 in- mile five hour before (where fifty-five per creased from sixty, sixty-five, miles hour limit increased and then to Mubdi), sixty per officers first observed miles hour. Campbell,

ARGUED: Kristina Michelle Columbia, of University of the District D.C., Ethan Washington, for Petitioner. Kanter, Department of States B. United D.C., Justice, Washington, Respondent. for West, Tony Assistant Attor- BRIEF: ON Division, General, Michael P. Civil ney Unit, Chief, Lindemann, Security National Justice, Department States United D.C., Washington, Respondent. TRAXLER, Judge, and Before Chief WYNN, Judges. Circuit KING and by published Petition for review denied majority Judge wrote opinion. KING Judge TRAXLER opinion, in which Chief dissenting WYNN wrote joined. Judge opinion.

OPINION KING, Judge: Circuit Barahona, H. José a native Petitioner Salvador, petitions this citizen of -El for review of the final order of Court (the Immigration Appeals Board “BIA”), 2, 2011, September which dated ineligibility “special affirmed his under section rule” cancellation removal Nicaraguan Ameri- and Central (the “NACARA”).1 Relief Act of 1997 can by BIA that the erred Barahona contends deeming NACARA relief ineligible him provided had because he organization early to a terrorist by allowing anti-government Salva- 1980s guerrillas of “FMLN” doran the so-called 1996, NACARA, Responsibility Act of which had amend- 1. The was enacted in 1997 which (the 105-100, Immigration Nationality Act by Stat. 2193- ed the Public Law “INA”) by rendering groups year certain of aliens and amended that Public Law Gen., 105-139, Attorney inadmissible. See Cheruku 111 Stat. is codified in several Thus, Cir.2011). Code, (3d including United 662 F.3d titles of the States INA, Gonzales, effectively the NACARA amended Title 8. Peralta v. (1st Cir.2006). country's statuto- which constitutes basic The NACARAamended relating immigration. Illegal Immigration Immigrant ry enactment Reform (the Frente Farabundo para Marti la Li- removal. Such a cancellation of removal is Nacional) berción the use of the kitchen authorized section 203 of NACARA, his Salvadoran home. As explained below, codified 1229b(b), U.S.C. reject we Barahona’s contentions deny and which the Attorney General is empowered petition for review. to “cancel removal of ... an alien who is

inadmissible or deportable from the Unit- I. States, ed if the alien” satisfies certain criteria, including not being either “inad- A. missible deportable” or provi- under other Barahona entered the United States ille- sions of the INA. § 1229b(b), U.S.C. gally in 1985. He filed his first application (c)(4). The IJ’s evidentiary hearing was for 1987, asylum pursuant to 8 U.S.C. on 22, 2011, conducted March and Baraho- § 1158(a), and it was denied July 15, on na was only present witness to evi- 1988. Barahona was then given thirty dence. days to leave the United States. Baraho- na nevertheless remained this country B. and applied again asylum for in 1995. On Barahona May 9, 2007, his second testified before the asylum IJ he application was born in was city referred in the Carolina, to immigration judge (“IJ”) the San Miguel adjudication department El removal proceed- Salvador. Prior to the ings. 11, On outbreak of November violence incident Barahona to a twelve-year was arrested civil war in Prince William between County, military Virginia, government charged and of El with a state Salvador felony and guerillas, FMLN maliciously causing “bodily Barahona worked on injury to a small Barahona, Maria farm in wife, Miguel. San with In the intent about his. maim, the FMLN disfigure, disable, guerillas or took kill.” control of J.A. Carolina, and (citing 18.2-51.2).2 gave § Va.Code Ann. seizure rise to local On violence. December Due Barahona FMLN’s seizure pleaded frequent and guilty to a disputes, labor misdemeanor Barahona offense of domes- tic unable to assault continue battery, working. For receiving nearly a term of year, the probation. FMLN guerillas took control of Barahona’s using it as their needs home— In December asylum Barahona’s arose, mainly for preparing food in its proceedings were administratively closed kitchen, but occasionally sleeping over- for failure to prosecute. His case was night when the weather was unfavorable. May recalendared in 2009 for the resolu- tion of allegations that he was removable Barahona confirmed that the FMLN § 1182(a)(6), U.S.C. as an alien guerillas would arrive at his home and present in the United States without law- announce that they were going to use the ful admission parole. During the subse- kitchen. He explained that, if he had re- quent IJ proceedings, conducted in late fused to allow the FMLN access and use 2009, Barahona was found to be remova- residence, his they would have consid- ble, but was accorded an opportunity to ered him the enemy. In event, apply “special for a rule” cancellation of would have been given twelve hours -" 2. Citations herein to "J.A. parties refer to the in this matter. contents of the Appendix Joint filed Indeed, organiza- rial ... city or killed. vacate his home 1182(a)(3)(B)(iv)(VI)(cc).4 cousin both tion.” had Id. Barahona’s father guerillas, and providing the FMLN includes “a support” “Material been executed op- house, been accorded the communica- transportation, had not father safe early until tions, funds, From leaving. tion of funds or other transfer benefit, departure the United Barahona’s false documen- material financial 1985, many as February identification, ..., weapons States in ex- tation or kitchen. used Barahona’s guerillas training.” FMLN plosives, Id. (hereinafter utilized water They 1182(a)(3)(B)(iv)(VI) generally home, always Bar”) facilities of but cooking (emphasis “Material add- On occa- their own food. several brought ed). guerrillas sions, gave the di- Barahona difficulty deciding Acknowledging to jungle other loca- through rections Barahona, accommodating whether tions. guerrillas, provided had FMLN twenty-four he was early In when organization, to the IJ support a terrorist El for

years Barahona left Salvador age, against ruled him. Decision nevertheless so, doing by country. In travelled ruling, that In so the IJ concluded Baraho- and Mexico. Bar- through bus Guatemala na, guerrillas in allowing the FMLN to use Texas, the United ahona entered States year, provided nearly his kitchen for a had being inspected properly without admit- the INA.5 “material under The IJ support” ted. was accepted fact that Barahona under guerril- duress when he accommodated C. las, that recognized and the Barahona IJ evidentiary March After his guerrillas had no choice to allow the to but hearing, the IJ rendered oral decision reasoned, use his kitchen. The IJ howev- (the Decision”) denying Barahona’s “IJ er, for that there is no duress or The asylum application.3 IJ Decision Sup- involuntariness under the Material testimony, found credited Barahona’s and result, port Bar. the IJ Decision As that a special the criteria for rule cancella- for a application special denied Barahona’s entirely tion for except satis- one— were— cancellation, ordered rule Barahona provision underlying fied. sole INA The removed to El Salvador. rejection special of the rule can- Id’s specifies that alien is inadmis- cellation D. engaged in activi- sible if he has terrorist appealed Barahona the IJ ty by providing support” “material thereafter BIA, asserting Decision to the three organization. 8 U.S.C. First, 1182(a)(3)(B)(i)(I). activity” grounds relief. Barahona “Terrorist INA, FMLN allowing com- claimed that the use by is defined includes knows, support person] that of his kitchen constituted that was mitting [the “an act know, only, and thus reasonably should mate- de minimis immaterial. affords Barahona, expressly 3. at J.A. the Decision never links The IJ Decision is found 322-29. support any aspect statutory agree parties 4. that the FMLN a terror- The is assume, We support.” definition of “material purposes organization ist of the INA. today, purposes of our decision such house.” a link at least "a safe includes Although the IJ Decision found that materi- provided al was the FMLN Second, he asserted that he acting sion, was we review both rulings. See Cer Holder, duress that his vantes v. (4th 597 F.3d FMLN was entirely Cir.2010); involuntary. Finally, see also Holder, Kourouma v. Barahona (4th contended IJ Decision Cir.2009) (“When contravened international law. The BIA the BIA and both [IJ] issue deci (the filed its order on September case, sions in a we review both decisions Order”), “BIA upon agreeing appeal.”). with 202(f) the IJ and Pursuant to section affirming NACARA, the IJ Decision.6 “[a] determination Attorney General as to whether an alien rejected BIA Order Barahona’s first satisfies the requirements of [cancellation contention, finding no error in the IJ’s of removal] is final and shall not subject conclusion that Barahona’s support any review by court.” 1101; material, and agreeing that there no Holder, see Ixcot v. 1202, 1213-14 exception in the Material Bar for (9th Cir.2011) (recognizing that court is de minimis activities on behalf of a terror- precluded from reviewing agency’s factual organization. ist Similarly, rejecting Bar- determination that alien is ineligible for contention, ahona’s second the BIA ex- special rule cancellation of removal under plained that the Material Bar Support NACARA). Notwithstanding the forego “does not any contain language support to ing legal principle, a court of appeals has exception support terrorist where an jurisdiction to review constitutional claims alien can establish duress or involuntary questions of arising law from denials contributions, and we decline to find one at of relief under NACARA, even though this time.” BIA 2. Order the BIA Finally, such a court “cannot review discretionary to find a declined violation of international determinations regarding requests spe law. According BIA, to the pro- the INA cial rule cancellation of removal under NA- vides a waiver, for discretionary subject to CARA, legal absent er constitutional limitations, some authorizes Sec- ror.” Holder, Gonzalez-Ruano v. 662 retary of State or Secretary of Home- (1st F.3d Cir.2011); 63 see 8 U.S.C. Security land grant a waiver the Bar. 1252(a)(2)(D). Barahona’s primary con 1182(d)(3)(A). Such a tention in this case—that may waiver apply in instances where re- Support Bar excludes involuntary support, moval would violate international law. or support of a organization un recognized, however, BIA that “it is der presents question a of law duress — well-established Congress may enact only, as to which we possess jurisdiction.7 statutes that conflict with international law.” BIA Order In end, 2. the BIA III. Order dismissed appeal. Barahona’s In petition review, Barahona maintains that his contacts with the

II. guerrillas FMLN do fall not under the Where, here, as the BIA has Material Bar. Support He asserts that the adopted and supplemented the IJ’s deci- use of his kitchen guerrillas FMLN 6. The BIA Order is found at J.A. guerrillas 438-40. that, such, de was minimis and could not support. amount to material Inas- review, petition 7. In his appears Barahona much as challenges this contention finding a to have abandoned his earlier of a claim vio- fact, jurisdiction we lack to reach ad- lation of law. international Barahona reit- Ixcot, dress it. See F.3d at 1213-14. erates, however, support that his FMLN for further BIA and remanded duress, versed do[es] and as such under

“occurred proceedings. ‘material providing the level not rise to ” Restated, Bar- Br. of Pet’r 13. support.’ howev- Negusie, the situation Unlike provide he did not is that position ahona’s rely on er, case did not the BIA this FMLN because to the support statute interpreting different precedent execution, to forced, threat of appeal. Barahona’s it dismissed when his kitchen. to use guerrillas allow Rather, carefully examined the BIA Bar and determined Material Sup- that the Material Barahona admits language sup- any contain it “does not voluntariness silent on whether port Bar is to terrorist port asserts, He thereof. requirement duress or an alien can establish where however, silence renders that such BIA Order involuntary contributions.” Relying Negusie on ambiguous. statute statutory faithful to the Remaining Holder, S.Ct. 555 U.S. scheme, to read such an BIA declined (2009), argues that Barahona L.Ed.2d 20 Bar. Material exception into the a lack of volun- decide whether we must Sup- to the Material is relevant tariness us turns the issue before Because relevant, If it is port INA, Bar determination. of the we must interpretation on an fact that his argues, the Barahona under the famil the BIA deference “afford Holder, under duress provided FMLN was Midi v. iar Chevron standard.” him. applying (4th Cir.2009) Bar from precludes (citing NRDC, Inc., U.S.A., 467 Inc. v. Chevron decision, reject BIA Negusie In its 2778, 837, 844, 81 L.Ed.2d 104 S.Ct. U.S. a alien that there was the claim of an ed (1984)). standard, 694 Under Chevron “Persecu exception to the so-called duress plain initially examine the statute’s “we 1101(a)(42). § The Bar.” See 8 U.S.C. tor clearly language; Congress spoken if has an alien from ob prevents Bar Persecutor issue, at the statu precise question on if immigration participat relief taining If, however, the tory language controls. person. of another persecution ed in the ambiguous, we defer statute is silent on an Negusie ruling BIA’s had relied The it interpretation if is reason agency’s decision, Fedorenko Supreme earlier Court (citations Midi, at able.” 136-37 States, 449 101 S.Ct. v. U.S. United omitted). (1981),which declined 66 L.Ed.2d 686 into exception to read involuntariness Support Bar contains The Material Act. The result of Displaced Persons exception for material express no Negusie ruling was to render the BIA’s organization a either provided to terrorist refugees after European inadmissible involuntarily Congress or under duress. at guards II who had served as created, however, World War general waiver has camps. Supreme concentration Nazi in aliens who are otherwise provision for 1182(d)(3)(A) BIA Negusie decision was that the § Court’s of Title admissible. Under relying on Fedorenko to re may had erred seek an alien who is inadmissible ject exception Secretary the alien’s asserted duress for admission from the approval is, Negu Secretary Bar. That of Homeland to the Persecutor or the of State inadmissibility. BIA A Security despite held that is not bound “[t]he sie Court that motive on the use of statutory placed the Fedorenko rule limitation is apply waiver, however, may it not be that intent are irrelevant to the [Persecu 522-23, 129 voluntarily an alien who has extended to Negusie, tor 555 U.S. Bar].” 8 result, activities. supported the Court re- S.Ct. 1159. As 355 1182(d)(3)(B). Thus, Barahona, CARA relief last U.S.C. because he had entered alien any similarly crewman, situated who has the United as a States and sec- supported organization 240A(c) (the a terrorist tion INA “Crewman duress, possesses Bar”) an alternative avenue of renders alien who entered as a inadmissibility.8 Notably, relief from Con- crewman ineligible cancellation of re- voluntary of terror- gress included moval. Gonzalez contended in the court of exception its to the waiver ist activities appeals that the Crewman Bar does not 1182(d)(3)(B), provision contained in but apply to an alien who has eligi- established voluntary made no distinction between and bility prior relief to entering NACARA involuntary Sup- conduct the Material country as a crewman. As relevant port Bar. therefore assume Con- We here, Circuit First declined read gress not intend to an involun- did create any into the Bar exception, Crewman such exception to tariness holding that “the simply statute does not Bar, voluntary support otherwise the ex- exceptions.... contain any cannot We re- ception to the would provision waiver Gonzalez, write the statute.” 673 F.3d at superfluous. Kap- rendered See Bilski v. — U.S.-, 3218, 3228, pos, 130 S.Ct. Put simply, the (2010) terms of the Material (recognizing “canon L.Ed.2d encompass voluntary Bar both interpreting statutory against any provi- and, involuntary support like those of sion in a manner that render anoth- would Bar, the Crewman fail to provision superfluous”); provide er Russello v. States, 16, 23, exception under which United U.S. S.Ct. Barahona seeks re- (1983) (“[WJhere INS, lief. 78 L.Ed.2d Con- See De Osorio (4th Cir.1993) gress particular language in includes one (deferring to BIA’s statute it in section of a but omits another permissible statutory construction where Act, is generally section of same statute with respect was silent presumed Congress intentionally acts Bar”).9 to “Aggravated Felony Moreover, in disparate the inclusion or purposely Congress discretionary vested has waiver (internal marks quotation exclusion.” omit- authority Secretary in the of and the State ted)). Secretary Security of Homeland for an provided alien support, who has material proceeding This bears several similari- excepted but has from such a waiver those by ties to the recent faced situation the provided who voluntarily support. material Holder, First v. Circuit Gonzalez By (1st Cir.2012). excepting only voluntary supporters Gonzalez peti- authorization, from Congress the waiver court of appeals tioned the review of has created an alternative of special the BIA’s denial of a rule cancella- avenue relief tion the for an under NACARA. The BIA alien who is inadmissible because he had ruled that involuntarily support Gonzalez was barred from NA- provided material lawyer argument 8. Barahona’s advised at oral aliens who ... the ] that member- "establishf applied already that had her client for relief ship involuntary.” or affiliation is or was provision, under waiver and that such 1182(a)(3)(D)(ii). § of this ex- inclusion by Secretary relief denied of Home- ception admissibility, in a bar to titled "Ex- Security in land March 2012. ception membership,” involuntary pro- support proposition vides further for the that 1182(a)(3)(D) 9. Section of Title which bars Congress never intended to create an involun- any immigrant who admission has been exception Support in the tariness Material affiliated with the or another to- Communist Bar. party, talitarian contains an WYNN, Judge, dissenting: rea- Circuit organization. It was thus a terrorist here, BIA, in its decision for the sonable majority opinion, Petitioner José Per the excep- create an involuntariness decline to ineligible Barahona is for relief from Bar. We Support Material tion from the twenty- because over deportation order of interpretation to the BIA’s therefore defer during twelve-year civil years ago, five Bar, we must under Chevron. as Salvador, ... in El he was “forced war 264, 270 Ashcroft, See Asika execution, to allow the under threat Cir.2004) (4th are (recognizing “we however, I, use his kitchen.” guerrillas to to the by [BIA’s] defer bound Chevron passive acquiescence hold that this would long of the Act so as is construction of terrorists consti- to the crimes does not reasonable”). sup- an “act” that tute “affords material sum, support In Barahona’s organization” ... a terrorist port falls under the Material guerrillas FMLN plain language petition for review Support Bar and his (the 1182(a)(3)(B)(iv)(VI) Sup- § “Material denied, though must be even Bar”). respect- I port Accordingly, must involuntarily pro- and was was rendered fully dissent. under du- guerrillas vided to the FMLN namely, the threat of execution. As ress— I. such, today recognize ruling that our we yielding a reasonably could be viewed as Bar, an Under testimony Barahona’s before harsh result. engaged alien is inadmissible if he has IJ, accepted value and taken face activity by providing “material IJ, many by compelling credible is support” organization. to a terrorist See 8 disposi- ways. are constrained our We 1182(a)(3)(B)(i)(I). “Terrorist ac- U.S.C. however, proceeding, tion of this tivity” in turn to include the defined terms of the Material Bar and the person] commission of “an act that [the interpretation BIA’s reasonable thereof. knows, know, reasonably affords should recently explained, As the First Circuit organi- ... to terrorist statute,” cannot rewrite the see Gon- “[w]e 1182(a)(3)(B)(iv)(VI)(cc) zation.” Id. zalez, BIA and the fact has added). (emphasis seemingly reached a harsh result does not statutory provisions. vitiate the clear If majority opinion, As noted governing the are to be legal principles provide any type statute does not of “du- altered, obligation legis- that rests with the ress” for an “act” committed un- government, lative branch of our rather type der the of violence and intimidation judiciary. than with the parties acknowledge all Barahona faced However,

this case. Ante at the 354-55. IV. requirement “something of an done “act”— Dictionary 27 performed,” or Black’s Law deny foregoing, Pursuant to the we Bar- (9th 2009),1 should not be conflated ed. for petition ahona’s review. which an with an excuse for conduct for DENIED. individual would otherwise be liable: PETITION FOR REVIEW 1.13; law, § legal Penal Code and from civil 1. Other relevant definitions of act in- Model law, (1) bodily clude: from criminal "a move- "an external manifestation of the actor’s will,” (Second) voluntary involuntary,” § ment whether Restatement of Torts 2. or I finding If will make a factual person manipulates a hand that [Bara- way occupied as to cause a living territory hona] another such a committed, person guerrillas, the latter that he had no as crime to be choice not to let guilty is of no crime because he has whether or them use his hand, and, find, therefore, house ... I performed, no act. On other if would matter, a person a threatens another with harm as factual that there was du- crime, thereby and ress in this unless he commits a case. committed,

causes the crime to Immigration J.A. 327-28. Judge The con- act, person performed coerced has because, cluded “[u]nfortunately, act], excuse the [though may duress today, provides law as it stands no defense 1 Charles E. Torcía duress,” Wharton’s Criminal for Barahona had violated the (15th 2011) § (emphasis Law 52 ed. add- was, Material Bar and conse- ed). Moreover, justice system our has quently, ineligible relief.2 The Board long distinguished committing between Immigration Appeals agreed and ruled See, failing e.g., Wayne that, and to act. act due to the of a lack duress exception LaFave, R. Criminal Substantive Law requirement, or voluntariness vi- Barahona (2d 2008) (“For liability § 6.2 ed. criminal olated Bar allow- upon be based a failure to act it must be ing guerrillas to use his is kitchen. It duty that there a to act—a legal conclusion, found is legal this affirmed the ma- duty duty.”); and not moral simply a Re- jority opinion, issue, with which I I take (Second) (“The § Torts statement find that plead Barahona need not either or fact that the actor realizes should real- duress or involuntariness when he can be part necessary ize action on his is “guilty of no crime because he has per- protection another’s aid or does not of Torcía, formed no supra act.” 52. No- duty impose upon itself him to take such where in the record before this is Court action.”). any suggestion there that Barahona took any step, affirmative per- otherwise

Here, Immigration Judge, whose de- deed, “kn[ew], formed or any did adopted supplemented by cision was reasonably known], [have should af- Immigration Appeals, the Board of made support” guerillas. ford[ed] material to the following findings: factual 1182(a)(3)(B)(iv)(VI)(ce). issue Rather, particular Immigration case ... is Judge [Barahona] has testified that the did Board of guerrillas Immigration Appeals essentially make use of his kitchen to cook their food ... found threat of that —under death —Bara- during approximately year. one I hona prevent guerillas will did not from gave occupying state also that state that he using he did his home and his kitchen guerrillas to prepare directions showed them their approximately meals shortcuts, opinion year. plain language but Yet the of the stat- Court that not have ute only would constituted refers to whether the individual act,” support guerrillas. “commit[s] 1182(a)(3)(B)(iv)(VI)(ec) There is no he was trying (emphasis evidence add- ed). help any military them on A failure should not equated missions.... to act NACARA, Immigration Judge 2. The further remarked relief under 203 of I [section] decision, urge making that: "I clear want to make were it not for would whoever is Department Security, this material issue I would have of Homeland to allow respondent exception.” found the meets the criteria of the duress J.A. 328. 358 II. phrase. e.g., read into—that

with—or (4th Holder, 132, 566 F.3d Midi v. home, Barahona lost his members José Cir.2009) (noting that under standard family, guerilla of his and his homeland to De- Natural Resources v. from Chevron today’s ruling, terrorists. Under he will Inc., 837, 844, Council, 467 U.S. I adopted country. fense his Because now lose (1984), 2778, L.Ed.2d 694 “we S.Ct. plain language find that the of the Material lan- plain the statute’s initially examine requires Bar that Barahona have clearly on Congress spoken has if guage; beyond simply be- “committed] act”— issue, statutory question precise ing the unfortunate victim of terrorists —to controls.”). language seeks, I deny respectful- the relief he must ly dissent. Bar to a apply To case, act, failure to such as Barahona’s justice contrary system’s to our

runs both between commit-

longstanding distinction act,

ting failing an act and discussed above, and to the well-established tenet America, UNITED STATES of that we should construe statutes to avoid Plaintiff-Appellee, absurd results. v. Oceanic Con- Griffin v. tractors, 575, Inc., 102 S.Ct. U.S. (1982) (“[interpreta- L.Ed.2d DINKINS, Miami, James a/k/a produce tions of a statute which would Defendant-Appellant. if alterna- absurd results are to be avoided America, United States of interpretations leg- tive consistent with the Plaintiff-Appellee, available.”). purpose islative are v. Consider, majority that the example, Gilbert, Defendant-Appellant. Melvin opinion’s holding would still bar Barahona immediately from relief he fled even had America, United States returned, and the his home never Plaintiff-Appellee, absence, guerillas in his had used his home yet reasonably they should have known Goods, Man, Darron Moo a/k/a home once he occupy would and use his Defendant-Appellant. Likewise, eligible left. he would not be 09-4668, 09-4669, Nos. 09-4755. relief even if he had taken some sort of prevent guerillas being action to from Appeals, United States Court meals, able prepare sabotaging such as Fourth Circuit. stove, they fireplace. if instead used his Argued: March 2012. Congress, Such cannot be the intent of Aug. 2012. Decided: specifically provides when the statute an individual must “commit an act” that support.”3

“affords material Indeed, of S-K-, every (making voluntary payments); case cited the Board of Matter Immigration (BIA 2006) Appeals, duress (donating its 23 I. & N. Dec. otherwise, analysis or involves the commis- Ashcroft, money); Singh-Kaur v. See, Gonzales, e.g., sion of an act. Arias v. food). (3d Cir.2004) (providing (3d Cir.2005) Fed.Appx.

Case Details

Case Name: Jose Barahona v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Date Published: Aug 13, 2012

Citation: 691 F.3d 349

Docket Number: 11-2046

Court Abbreviation: 4th Cir.