Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility
Home / Opinion / Immigration – removal — imputation

Immigration – removal — imputation

U.S. Supreme Court

Civil

Immigration – removal — imputation

The BIA’s rejection of imputation of years an alient’s parent spent in the country is based on a permissible construction of 8 U.S.C. 1229b(a).

The Board has required each alien seeking cancellation of removal to satisfy §1229b(a)’s requirements on his own, without relying on a parent’s years of continuous residence or immigration status. That position prevails if it is a reasonable construction of the statute, whether or not it is the only possible interpretation or even the one a court might think best. See e.g., Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, 843–844, and n. 11. The BIA’s approach satisfies this standard.  The Board’s position is consistent with the statute’s text. Section 1229b(a) does not mention—much less require—imputation. Instead, it simply calls for “the alien” to meet the prerequisites for cancellation of removal. See §§1101(a)(13)(A) and (a)(33). Respondents contend that this language does not foreclose imputation, but even if so, that is not enough to require the Board to adopt that policy. Pp. 6–7.

411 Fed. Appx. 121, reversed and remanded.

10-1542 Holder v. Gutierrez

Kagan, J.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*