*1 Petitioner, ROTIMI, Felix Attorney Jr., as Gen H. HOLDER
Eric States, Department the United
eral of Security, Napolita Janet Homeland Secretary,
no, Department of Home Director, Security, New District
land District, Immigration and Cus
York Enforcement,* Respondents.
toms 06-0202-ag.
Docket No. Appeals, States Court
Second Circuit. 23, 2009.
Argued: March 14, 2009. Aug.
Decided: Shabasson, Pollack, Pollack,
Daniel DeCicco, York, N.Y., Esqs., Isaac & New for Petitioner. Enea, Special
Dione M. Assistant Campbell, Attorney, for Benton J. Attorney for the Eastern United States York, N.Y., Brooklyn, District of New Respondents. FEINBERG, NEWMAN, and
Before: KATZMANN, Judges.** Circuit separate in a Judge concurs NEWMAN opinion. respondents Secretary Chertoff ante Michael doubt. See at ill- where to reasonable this case. ** Meskill, J. the third Thomas Honorable
* Appellate Proce- to Federal Rule Pursuant panel originally heard member of the 43(c)(2), Eric Attorney General H. Hold- dure case, passed away remanded automatically substituted former er Jr. is Appeals prece- Immigration Board of Gonzales, Attorney De- General Alberto Thereafter, Judge Newman opinion. dential Security Secretary partment of Homeland designated third of this as the member automatically Napolitano pursuant Rule panel substituted to Second Circuit Local Janet 0.14(b). Security Department of Homeland former *2 134 regulations concurs a visa. Pursuant to the effect
Judge KATZMANN time, joined by Judge is that opinion, application which Rotimi’s was as separate asylum signed hearing to an officer FEINBERG. for 208.2(a) § adjudication. See 8 C.F.R. PER CURIAM. (1995). 17, 1996, asylum May On office us to upon interpret calls This case completed applica its of Rotimi’s review continuously” “lawfully resided as phrase Immigration and it tion referred to an Immigration §in of the it is used (“IJ”) Judge adjudication deporta for (“INA”), Nationality Act 8 U.S.C. and proceedings.1 tion 1182(h), § on applied pending and as Rotimi, July 1996, Petitioner a lawful In while his appeal. deportation pro- Felix resident, pro- ceedings permanent on-going, conceded but after the expi- removable, visa, below he is ceedings but ration of his visitor’s Rotimi married inadmissibility pur- citizen, sought waiver of a United States who then filed a Immigra- § suant Board of petition classify to The visa to Rotimi as an “im- (“BIA”) determined, on Appeals tion based 201(b), § mediate relative” under INA 8 “lawfully 1151(b). of con- its § In conjunction U.S.C. with his ineligible was for tinuously,” Rotimi petition, application wife’s Rotimi filed an below, For such relief. the reasons stated adjustment pursuant for of status to INA 245, the BIA’s § hold 8 1255. The visa continuously” 18, is approved was on November 1996. Ro- applied used in to Rotimi is and applications asylum adjust- timi’s for deny reasonable. We therefore pending ment status then remained be- petition for review. 20, 1997, fore the IJ until March at which time Rotimi asylum applica- withdrew his
Background adjustment tion favor pursuing 1, generally 1997, The facts of this are un May case status. On pursuant agen- to disputed. Felix entered cy practice, government Rotimi the United “use[d] its 7, 1995, June as a B-2 prosecutorial States on nonimmi to discretion terminate [Roti- permission with to remain for deportation] visitor mi’s to proceedings permit applied political asy six months. He for to proceed with application [him] lum Immigration adjustment with the former and Nat of status before the INS rath- (“INS”) September uralization Service er than court.”2 Resp’ts 1995, prior expiration of his visitor’s 6 n. ultimately granted Br. 3. The INS L-K, 1. The BIA characterized as a denial of action as a See officer's referral. In re asylum application. 677, See In Roti- (B.I.A.2004). Rotimi's re I. & N. Dec. 680 n. 8 mi, 567, (B.I.A.2008) 24 I. & N. Dec. ("On 17, 1996, May asylum appli- [Rotimi's] 2. Once an order show cause had been cation was denied and the DHS de- initiated case, acquired issued in Rotimi's the IJ exclu- [him].''). portation against proceedings jurisdiction adjudicate sive Rotimi's fact, asylum authority officer lacked the adjustment deportation cation of status in deny Rotimi's non- Rotimi's Roussis, proceedings. See In re 18 I. & N. immigrant expired, see 8 C.F.R. (B.I.A.1982) (citing Dec. 8 C.F.R. 208.14(b)(2) (1995), point conceded 245.2(a)(1)). only way the IJ government, see Letter from Dione M. they could terminate those once Enea, Special Attorney, U.S. Assistant upon request started had District Wolfe, O'Hagan Catherine (Mar. 31, 2009) ("Enea Letter”), Clerk of the Court (citing Director INS. Id. 8 C.F.R. Thus, at 2. 242.7). proper way to characterize the because he had been a a lawful and Rotimi became application, visitor, asy- August nonimmigrant resident status, lum and a lawful was convicted May On *3 during period. resident that permanent of a possession criminal attempted of degree, in the second forged instrument disagreed. explained She that The IJ §§ 110.00 and Penal Law violation of N.Y. lawfully Rotimi had although of five 170.25, a sentence and he received for the six months fol- the United States 2002, upon In November years’ probation. 7, 1995, the date on which he lowing June abroad, Rotimi trip a brief his return from country nonimmigrant a entered the as into the United States as admission sought visitor, in De- his lawful residence ended resident. returning permanent a nonimmigrant 1995 when his cember conviction was Because Rotimi’s Furthermore, the IJ stated that expired. in- turpitude, moral his involving crime asy- for “filing application [of] Thereafter, on was “deferred.” spection lum in 1995 did not [September] exten[d] 13, 2003,3 of Home- Department June stay in the non-immigrant his (“DHS”) filed a Notice Security4 land expired] his visa had nor did [after States charg- Court Immigration with the Appear it on lawfulness in his [Rotimi] confer inadmissible as an being with ing Rotimi residence in the United States.” continued involving a crime committed alien who had Finally, applica- the IJ ruled that Rotimi’s See turpitude. moral adjustment tion for of status not “d[id] (I). 1182(a)(2)(A)(i) § overstayed his time the United make IJ, Rotimi con- before the Appearing IJ therefore concluded legal.” States The a removability applied for his ceded that Rotimi’s lawful residence this coun- to INA inadmissibility pursuant waiver 212(h) § Au- try purposes began for on “ 1182(h) (a 212(h), 8 U.S.C. 13, 1997, gust the date he became a lawful waiver”). 212(h), however, pro- Section resident, thereby making him permanent resident is that a lawful vides statutorily ineligible for a waiver. alia, if, for such a waiver inter decision to the appealed Rotimi continu- “the alien has BIA, nonprece- which affirmed the IJ in period ously in the United States by single decision member. dential years immediately preced- not less than resi- period BIA of lawful “[a] stated proceedings of initiation of ing the date an alien has affirma- dence is one which from the United States.” remove the alien tively right accorded the or been that he had resid- argued Rotimi residing here and abides the rules for continuously” in the United States ed privilege.” right associated with years immediately preceding the seven analysis would not discrepancy regarding date that our and conclusion 3. There is a proceedings com- change which Rotimi’s removal the correct date were in fact June if originally menced. When Rotimi’s case was agency, IJ and the BIA both the before proceedings started on removal found on March 4. The INS was reconstituted 9, 2003, which the Notice to June the date on Immigration and Cus- as the Bureau of remand, BIA Appear On stat- was issued. and the Bureau of United toms Enforcement 13, 2003, ed that the relevant date was Services, Citizenship Immigration Appear the date on which the Notice Department of Se- both within the Homeland Immigration Court. We will with the filed Mukasey, curity. See Rashid 13, 2003, date is June assume the correct (2d Cir.2008). 129 n. although opinion, we note purposes of this Rather, recognized spe- that Rotimi the BIA Although the addressed the asylum prior to filed his cific “whether [Rotimi’s] had visa, nonimmigrant expiration applicant of his months as (and make [Roti- that this “did not earlier overlapping) concluded status and his country in this continued residence mi’s] time to- count Accordingly, any legal sense.” establishing ‘lawfully ‘lawful’ re- ward he has statutorily BIA held that Rotimi was for 7 continuously’ years sided before ineligible for a waiver. removal Id. initiated.” at 570. filed a for review of the decision, and this Court heard oral *4 BIA’s requested, analysis As the BIA’s set pase in the" on December argument forth rationale for its of Thereafter, granted we 2006. matter, § As an initial BIA decision, vacated the and petition, BIA’s phrase “lawfully that the re- acknowledged BIA op- the case to an give remanded 212(h) continuously” unique § sided is to provide precedential to inter- portunity meaning its ambiguous. and that See “lawfully pretation phrase of the resided Although id. at recognized Gonzales, continuously.” See Rotimi may “range possible constructions it be (2d Cir.2007). particu- In BIA given,” the reasoned that because lar, explained we that “Congress phrase ‘lawfully has used the construing “lawfully continu- a technical immigration resided’ in provi- 212(h),
ously” §in as used we would sion to waive designed grounds criminal from benefit the BIA’s consideration of inadmissibility Immigra- set forth in the the term its use in re- including Nationality Act[,] tion and ... the mean- lawful-— lation to seekers and ing phrase of the needs to be derived applicants provisions other the context Id. laws.” —in regulations, INA and the implementing The BIA then specific identified four along with Congress’s provid- intent which it upon construing sources relied in ing In reviewing waiver. the statute. the BIA’s definition of First, legislative examined the 212(h), from an would also benefit 212(h), history provides which in rele- explanation of the source of the defini- part “managers vant that intend analysis asy- tion as to whether governing the provisions continuous resi- seeker adjustment applicant lum or an dence set forth INA section 240A as meets that definition of “lawful.” legislation enacted this shall applied be panel jurisdiction to
Id. retained de- purposes as well waivers under INA any appeal cide See id. following remand. 212(h).” 104-828, H.R.Rep. section at No. remand, (1996) prece- On the BIA (Conf.Rep.). issued The BIA stated opinion in interpreted history, extensive, which it dential that this “while not phrase “lawfully continuously.” support lends some that proposition Rotimi, In re Dec. See I. & N. 567 an for lawful alien’s status (B.I.A.2008). At its opinion, might the outset of other not ‘sta- benefit entail a BIA explained attempt- actually approved that it was tus’ must be before his ing adopt “a definition of comprehensive country or her this be residence will statutory expan- language” pur- because considered lawful for section Rotimi, necessary sive re poses.” was not In I. & N. Dec. particular resolve this id. at case. See country in this presence alien’s to INA
Second, BIA looked legalizing his or her purpose limited phrase 101(a)(20), defines the which provides stay. It is this distinction resi- permanent “lawfully admitted our refusal primary basis for having been mean “the status dence” spent as an count time [Rotimi’s] residing privilege of accorded the periods during which cant benefits States as in the United permanently purposes here for resided” immi- with the in accordance immigrant of a section waiver. laws, having status such gration 1101(a)(20). The 8 U.S.C. changed.” Rotimi, 24 I. & N. Dec. at 575-76. In re supported asserted agency the BIA con- light of these sources, not become a law- an alien does view that lawfulllss associated with cluded applying simply by ful resident Rotimi’s residence United States Rotimi, 24 I. In re & status. See for that nonimmigrant expired ended when his N. Dec. 573-74. at 577. Further- in December 1995. Id. Third, more, the Merriam- the BIA relied on it stated that Rotimi’s “submission *5 Dictionary, which de- Collegiate adjustment applications did Webster’s harmony in with “being change “lawful” as the fact that his status as a fines not “constituted, authorized, or nonimmigrant or visitor had ended. Nor did the law” (inter- Id. at 574 applications give the law.” such filing [Rotimi] established omitted). this, here, From merely marks an quotation nal residence as he was with, best, an alien’s resi- temporary that for the BIA concluded cant for benefits lawful, authorized adju- “it must be applications to be while his reprieve dence law, requires the which BIA con- harmony Accordingly, with Id. the or dicated.” request a mere beyond action that Rotimi’s continuous lawful resi- some formal cluded 1997, August or the existence some on when he began authorization dence resident, physical actual removal.” and it permanent became a lawful impediment statutorily ineligible for a held that he was Id. his lawful resi- § waiver because law, case Fourth, BIA examined was fourteen months short dence important it contended draws which years. required seven merely being appli between distinction to remain of the BIA’s Following cant for a the issuance granted that country actually being filed a motion for this opinion, Rotimi The BIA id. at 574-76. the mandate this case privilege. See Court to restore upon that two of the cases raised acknowledged and consider question Lok, I. N. re 18 & for review—whether it relied — In initial which (B.I.A.1981), and this Court’s de had not by holding BIA erred Dec. INS, continuously” F.2d 107 Lok v. resided cision Tim (2d Cir.1982) analyzed period the “lawful domi for a of at least seven United States — 212(c). § INA requirement immediately preceding of former June years cile” however, although question It that we now explained, It is to require domicile contains no turn. ment, Discussion construction long-standing on the
based
be-
deemed inadmissible
Rotimi was
in the Lok deci-
of the term “lawful”
committing
convicted of
sions,
cause he had been
that there is a distinction
we think
turpitude. See 8
involving moral
a crime
permitting
between
to be drawn
1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I).
Broadcasters, Inc.,
(2d
such cir-
cumstances,
Cir.2000).
Attorney
General has dis-
Under the
analysis,
Chevron
where,
inadmissibility
cretion to waive
as we first ask
Congress
“whether
has direct
here,
spouse
ly
the alien is the
of a
spoken
precise
to the
question at issue.
citizen,
States
and “the alien’s
If
clear,
denial of
Congress
intent of
that is
admission would result
extreme
matter;
court,
hard-
the end of the
for the
ship” to that United States citizen spouse. well as
agency,
must give effect to the
1182(h)(1)(B).
Id.
Such a waiver is
unambiguously
expressed intent of Con
available, however,
Chevron,
to an alien
gress.”
842-43,
“who has
467 U.S. at
previously been admitted to
If, however,
the United S.Ct. 2778.
“the statute is
lawfully
States as an alien
admitted for
silent or ambiguous with respect
issue,
residence if ...
specific
the alien has
question
for the court is
continuously
in the whether the agency’s answer is based on a
period
permissible
of not less than
construction of the statute.”
7 years immediately preceding
the date of
Id.
139 to a States years, 14 he is married he was an in which periods those ing removal, citizen, adjustment of status and the basis for his or for cant claiming forgery other basis the second de lacked conviction Rotimi, 24 I. & In re significance. residence.” rather minor in gree, seems (“The 568; at 574 see also id. Dec. at private N. Perhaps he is a candidate stems an alien’s residence Government, lawfulness wholly perhaps the bill.1 Or specific privilege of a from statutory provision from waiver apart fact that country, not the mere stay in this 212(h), might simply exercise its of section privi- for such he or she is Rotimi to remain here permit discretion sharply framework lege.”). The Chevron are the millions of others who along with above, As noted this Court. constrains their lack of a lawful despite not removed interpreted the stat- if we would have even status, of whom are still here ten or some if had arisen differently ute See, a removal order. years more we are with- judicial proceeding, in a first Holder, Fed. e.g., Kong Yin v. Chion interpreta- authority to substitute out Cir.2009) (2d (adjudicating deni Appx. 621 view is agency’s if the agency’s, tion for an years reopen al of filed twelve the circumstances Given reasonable. order); after issuance of removal Khatun case, interpre- BIA’s hold that the this (2d Cir.2009) Filip, Fed.Appx. and there- is reasonable tation of (same, years); Mukasey, ten Bao Li Xu v. Quinehia, to it. See fore defer (2d Cir.2008) (same, Fed.Appx. ineligible Rotimi is Consequently, years). twelve waiver because he did political or not the branches Whether continuously in the United lawfully reside permit can or will Rotimi to remain period for the between country, judicial branch has no authori- 13,1997.5 August him for section ty to render statutory by rejecting relief the reasonable Conclusion made reasons, foregoing peti- For the that the intervals case when it concluded tion for review is DENIED. *7 two for lawful applications in which his NEWMAN, Judge, pending Circuit did not count toward JON O. status were concurring: lawful residence. opinion judg and I concur in the Court’s KATZMANN, Judge, with whom Circuit
ment, these brief additional but add FEINBERG, joins, Judge, Circuit unsym an Rotimi’s case is not thoughts. concurring: country law one. He entered the pathetic I the that the Chevron agree with Court long has fully (although that lawfulness to defer to the BIA’s requires here now for doctrine us expired), he has been since issued, employment and attempt to which an visa was We that the BIA did not note interpretation “lawfully resided inexcusably postponed decision on craft the BIA continuously” apply all cases in that would to expiration application until the questions about the lawfulness of which initial lawful status. might re arise. See In Roti- alien’s residence Thus, mi, 24 & N. Dec. at I. Service, Congressional Research Pri- 1. See a lawful status need not consider whether 9, 2005), Immigration Legislation (Aug. vate ap- might an alien he or she be accorded if http://www.ilw.com/immigdaily/ available at early in a plied for a lawful status substantial (last news/2005,0819-crs.pdf visited status, for exam- period of some other lawful 2009). year period for ple, three months a two into 140 reasonable, er, it I in Tim long so as believe circumstances “the if that is not read- one significant respect
even
Lok differed
if the
the court would have reached
ing
from
circumstances of
this case.
judicial
initially
arisen in
Lok,
had
although
Tim
the alien entered the
U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat-
proceeding.” Chevron
lawfully,
country
overstayed
he
visa
his
Council, Inc.,
Res.
467 U.S.
ural
Lok,
deported.
and was ordered
See Tim
Def.
L.Ed.2d 694
843 n.
104 S.Ct.
110;
INS,
see
681 F.2d at
also Tim Lok
(1984).
slate, I
Writing
would
clean
(2d
Cir.1977). Thereafter,
F.2d
continu-
interpreted
have
government
did not
order
enforce that
period
to include the
between June
ously”
began
pursue
because Lok
to
avenues
13, 1996,
13, 1997,
and
when Roti-
August
that, if granted,
relief
permit-
would have
mi
while
the United States
stay
ted him to
in the country. Lok’s
(later)
applications
adjust-
and
presence in
continued
States
Indeed,
I
pending.
ment of status were
truly
therefore
reflected the government’s
below, in the
discuss
narrow circumstances
grace
government
because
could have
(1)
of this
filed
case—
deported
any
Lok at
time.
while
residing
for lawful status
Unit-
contrast,
By
subject
Rotimi was never
(2)
status;
in a
ed States
never
a deportation
any
order at
time between
subject
deportation
any
to a
order at
country
when he
entered the
completion
the admin-
prior
time
when
a lawful permanent
he became
resi-
istrative
that followed the sub-
Thus,
dent.
he continued to
reside
(3)
of that application;
mission
after his nonimmigrant
ultimately
granted
authorities
expired
the immigration
because
authori-
Rotimi lawful
resident status
deport
See,
ties
e.g.,
could
him.
pro-
the conclusion
those administrative
(1996)
ceedings
§ 1252
(providing
pro-
believe
the most sensible con-
—I
aliens);
deporting
would be
cess
clusion
for Rotimi to be statutori-
from
Letter
Enea,
ly
Special
waiver.
Dione M.
Assistant
At-
U.S.
Wolfe,
torney,
O’Hagan
to Catherine
Clerk
concluded that Rotimi’s resi-
(Mar. 31,
(charac-
2009),
of the Court
at 2
during
dence
United States
the rele-
terizing a final order of deportation as “a
period
vant
time
to August
—June
alien”).
prerequisite
the removal
1997—was not
“lawful” because
did not
words,
In other
resi-
continued
stem from the
of a specific
not a
dence was
reflection
govern-
Rather,
BIA,
here.
according
be
presence
ment’s mere tolerance of his
but
Rotimi’s continued residence in this coun-
*8
rather was attributable to the fact
the
that
try after his nonimmigrant
expired
in
agency
was legally barred
merely
gov-
December 1995
reflected the
deporting
from
him. Consequently, al-
indulgence
pend-
ernment’s
presence
of his
though
Tim Lok
the
decisions draw the
adjudication
the
ing
applications
of his
for
between being
distinction
for
asylum
adjustment
applicant
and
of status. The
a
or benefit
agency explained
privilege
being granted
and
that the
be-
distinction
benefit,
privilege
that
being
privi-
tween
for
those decisions do
certain
support
to
leges
being granted
appear
application
the
of
privileges
those
in
“primary
was the
that
basis” for its decision
distinction
circumstances
this
Lok,
and was
I.
that
derived from In re
18 & N.
case.
this
Given
distinction served as
(B.I.A.1981),
Dec.
Lok
“primary
and Tim
v.
basis” for the BIA’s decision
INS,
(2d Cir.1982).
case,
Finally, although explanation by Ochoa-Colchado, F.3d United does not undermine its approach “stasis” (10th Cir.2008), support propo- to certainly conclusion in this case into calls an alien’s the “lawfulness of sition its reliance on Ochoa-Colchado. specif- of a from the residence stems analysis, appears close it Upon country, stay this privilege ic BIA’s what drove the alien] fact that [the the mere [from] that, its concern this case was In re Roti- privilege,” a applicant for such merely be- lawful residence exist case, mi, N. 24 I. & Dec. legal impediment was cause there some one, an alien who was this involved unlike removal, majority then “the vast an alien’s applied when he country illegally in the are in the States who of aliens to remain. See Ochoa-Col- hearing a removal and the asso- entitled to Indeed, chado, given F.3d at 1293. rights could claim lawful res- appeal ciated circumstances, appears that difference physical on a combination of idence based against counsels that Ochoa-Colchado and some barrier to removal.” presence rendered at 573. 24 I. & N. Dec. In re BIA in this case. important to be sensitive Although it is Ochoa-Colchado, the Tenth Circuit concern, I it is am not sure or lawful- legally an alien was not held that in the narrow circumstances of warranted purposes of 18 ly in the United States case, where the alien filed 922(g)(5)(A) simply because residing while pending application had ultimately status and States in lawful In ex- of status. See resident granted the court relied on United why, plaining *9 administra- at the conclusion of the status (5th Lucio, F.3d 525 v. 428 I would proceedings that followed. tive Fifth Cir.2005), a in which the Circuit case that Rotimi is that to conclude also note of an alien whose characterized “the status ” 212(h) eligible for a waiver statutorily pending as a sort of ‘stasis.’ application is Attorney call into the Ochoa-Colchado, would not at 1298 521 F.3d See his or her ability to exercise good descrip- a General’s (noting that this was “as 142 eligible then deny pired, to either or an the alien would not be
discretion
212(h)
§a
waiver on remand.
cation for
such a
precisely
waiver. This is
the
unjust consequence
type
absurd
Moreover,
of these
disregard
the BIA’s
that should be avoided when interpreting
the alien filed his
circumstances —where
561
application
Napolitano,
in law-
statutes.
Lockhart
asylum
residing
while
Cf.
(6th Cir.2009)
ulti-
ful
States and
status
(rejecting
F.3d
620-21
permanent resi-
mately
granted
lawful
interpretation
an
of the “immediate rela-
to an
dent status —could lead
unreasonable
provision
tive”
of the INA where “either
“lawfully
continu-
interpretation of
timing
adjudication
Secretary’s
the
of the
interpretation could
ously” because that
[immediate
of the
or the
relative]
unjust consequences.
result in absurd and
timing
citizen-spouse’s
of the
death would
Airlines, Inc.,
F.3d
See Ehrlich v. Am.
control the
outcome
immediate relative
(“
(2d Cir.2004)
‘A construction of
petitions,”
interpretation
such an
because
unjust
leading
a statute
or absurd con-
result).
unjust
would lead to an absurd and
” (alteration
avoided.’
sequences should be
omitted)
Butz,
Quinn v.
(quoting
510 F.2d
said,
present
That
Rotimi does
quite
(D.C.Cir.1975)));
see
Troll
also
circumstances,
applica-
such
because the
Co.,
Co. v. Uneeda Doll
agency
granted—
tion
the
ultimately
(2d Cir.2007) (“[I]t
princi-
elemental
is
adjustment
his
application
of status
—was
ple
statutory
that an am-
construction
nonimmigrant
filed
his
visa had ex-
biguous statute
construed to avoid
must be
this,
In
pired.1
light of
I return to the
results.”).
absurd
presented by
issue
core
case—wheth-
212(h),
construing §
In
the BIA ex-
er
requires
Chevron
the court
defer to
that an
plained
alien’s status at the time he
interpretation
“lawfully
the BIA’s
resid-
application
privilege
or
files an
for a
or
she
continuously.” Although
respectfully
ed
I
analysis
benefit
irrelevant
the
be-
disagree with
I
agency,
the
and would
cause the alien’s
is not lawful if
residence
interpret
differently
I
statute
merely
he or she is
instance,
on
called
to do so
the first
I
this,
It
benefit.
follows from
say
cannot
that the BIA’s
however,
here,
where,
an alien files
the case before us is unreasonable. See
status,
in a
application while
lawful
Chevron,
U.S.
UNITED STATES
Appellee, PARKER, Defendant-
Travious
Appellant.
Docket No. 08-4199-cr. Appeals, States Court Circuit.
Second Aug.
Argued: Aug.
Decided: