Immigration — cancellation of removal

Listen to this article

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit

Civil

Immigration — cancellation of removal

In determining whether offenses are ‘described under’ INA §§ 212(a)(2), 237(a)(2), and 237(a)(3) for purposes of the eligibility criteria of INA § 240A(b)(1)(C), only language specifically pertaining to the criminal offense, such as the offense itself and the sentence imposed or potentially imposed, should be considered.

“This interpretation is reasonable. It is a sensible way (and perhaps the only way) to give effect to each word of INA § 240A(b)(1)(C). To be sure, this interpretation does not give effect to certain words in the cross-referenced provisions, but as noted, every possible construction necessarily reads out certain terms. And it is quite possible that by using the phrase ‘offense under,’ Congress meant to do exactly what the Board has done (even if Congress could have achieved this result much more clearly). See Gonzalez-Gonzalez, 390 F.3d at 651–52. In addition, the Board’s interpretation gains further support from the fact that Congress has more precisely distinguished between ‘inadmissibility’ and ‘deportability’ in other provisions of the INA. See, e.g., INA § 240A(d)(1) (explaining that, when measuring an alien’s period of continuous physical presence in the United States, the clock stops ‘when the alien has committed an offense … that renders the alien inadmissible to the United States under section 212(a)(2) or removable from the United States under section 237(a)(2) or 237(a)(4), whichever is earliest’); 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1); Cortez, 25 I. & N. Dec. at 308.” Petition Denied.

13-2955 Coyomani-Cielo v. Holder

Petition for Review of a Final Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals, Flaum, J.