Perez Santana v. Holder, 1st Cir. (2013)

7/26/2019 Perez Santana v. Holder, 1st Cir. (2013)

1/26

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 12- 2270

VLADI MI R PEREZ SANTANA,

Pet i t i oner ,

v.

ERI C H. HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent .

PETI TI ON FOR REVI EW OF AN ORDER OF THEBOARD OF I MMI GRATI ON APPEALS

Bef or e

Howard, Li pez, and Kayat t a,Ci r cui t J udges.

J ef f r ey B. Rubi n and Kat hl een M. Gi l l espi e on br i ef f orpet i t i oner .

Tr i na Real mut o, wi t h whom Bet h Wer l i n was on br i ef , f orAmer i can I mmi gr at i on Counci l , Nat i onal I mmi gr at i on Pr oj ect of t heNat i onal Lawyer s Gui l d, and Post - Deport at i on Human Ri ght s Proj ect ,ami ci cur i ae.

Gr eg D. Mack, Seni or Li t i gat i on Counsel , Of f i ce of I mmi gr at i onLi t i gat i on, wi t h whomStuar t F. Del er y, Pr i nci pal Deput y Assi st antAt t or ney Gener al , Ci vi l Di vi si on, and Col i n J . Tucker , Tr i alAt t or ney, Of f i ce of I mmi gr at i on Li t i gat i on, wer e on br i ef , f or

r espondent .

September 27, 2013


2/26

LIPEZ, Circuit Judge. Bor n i n t he Domi ni can Republ i c i n

1987, Vl adi mi r Per ez Sant ana i mmi gr at ed t o t he Uni t ed St ates and

became a l awf ul permanent r esi dent ( "LPR") i n 1997. I n March 2010,

Per ez Sant ana pl ed gui l t y i n st at e cour t t o one char ge of

possessi on of a cont r ol l ed subst ance wi t h i nt ent t o di st r i but e. He

r ecei ved a one- year pr obat i onary sent ence.

The Depar t ment of Homel and Secur i t y ( "DHS") pl aced Perez

Sant ana i nt o r emoval pr oceedi ngs and f ound hi m bot h removabl e and

i nel i gi bl e f or di scr et i onar y r el i ef . Af t er t he agency or der ed hi s

r emoval , Per ez Sant ana sought vacat ur of hi s cr i mi nal convi ct i on on

const i t ut i onal gr ounds. Successf ul i n t hi s ef f or t , he t hen f i l ed

a mot i on t o reopen hi s pr oceedi ngs bef ore t he Boar d of I mmi gr at i on

Appeal s ( "BI A" ) , seeki ng vacat ur of hi s or der of r emoval as wel l .

By t he t i me he sought r eopeni ng, however , Per ez Sant ana had al r eady

been r emoved t o t he Domi ni can Republ i c. The BI A deni ed hi s mot i on,

i nvoki ng a r egul at i on known as t he "post - depar t ur e bar , " whi ch

pr ecl udes a nonci t i zen f r om f i l i ng a mot i on t o reopen "subsequent

t o hi s or her depar t ur e f r om t he Uni t ed St at es. " 8 C. F. R.

1003. 2( d) .

Per ez Sant ana pet i t i ons f or our r evi ew, cont endi ng, i nt er

al i a, t hat t he post - depar t ur e bar conf l i ct s wi t h t he cl ear l anguage

of t he i mmi gr at i on st at ut e, whi ch gr ant s "[ a] n al i en" t he r i ght t o

f i l e a si ngl e mot i on t o r eopen. 8 U. S. C. 1229a( c) ( 7) . We agr ee.

The post - depar t ur e bar cannot prevent a nonci t i zen f r om i nvoki ng

-2-


3/26

hi s st at ut or y r i ght t o f i l e a mot i on t o r eopen. We t her ef or e gr ant

Per ez Sant ana' s pet i t i on.

I.

The f act s of t hi s case ar e st r ai ght f or war d. Perez

Sant ana was bor n i n t he Domi ni can Republ i c i n 1987. When he was

ni ne year s ol d, he i mmi gr at ed t o t he Uni t ed St at es wi t h hi s f ami l y

as an LPR. On March 9, 2010, Per ez Sant ana pl eaded gui l t y i n

Massachuset t s st at e cour t t o one char ge of possessi on wi t h i nt ent

t o di st r i but e a cl ass D subst ance, namel y, mar i j uana. He was

sent enced to one year of pr obat i on.

On Sept ember 7, 2010, Per ez Santana was i ssued a not i ce

t o appear f or r emoval pr oceedi ngs, whi ch charged t hat hi s cr i mi nal

convi ct i on was a dr ug t r af f i cki ng aggr avat ed f el ony under t he

i mmi gr at i on st at ut e. See 8 U. S. C. 1101( a) ( 43) ( B) ,

1227( a) ( 2) ( A) ( i i i ) . Thr ee mont hs l at er , t he i mmi gr at i on j udge

( " I J " ) f ound Per ez Sant ana r emovabl e on t he basi s of hi s

convi ct i on, and al so det er mi ned t hat because t he convi ct i on

const i t ut ed an aggr avat ed f el ony, he was i nel i gi bl e f or r el i ef f r om

r emoval . See 8 U. S. C. 1229b( a) ( 3) ( r equi r i ng t hat appl i cant f or

cancel l at i on of r emoval f or LPRs must not be convi ct ed of "any

aggr avated f el ony") . Per ez Sant ana sought r evi ew bef ore t he BI A,

whi ch appl i ed i t s pr i or pr ecedent on t hi s subj ect and di smi ssed hi s

-3-


4/26

appeal . 1 See Mat t er of Cast r o Rodr i guez, 25 I . & N. Dec. 698, 702

( BI A 2012) . The BI A' s or der was ent ered, and Per ez Sant ana' s

r emoval became f i nal on Apr i l 16, 2012.

On May 23, 2012, Per ez Sant ana f i l ed a mot i on t o wi t hdr aw

hi s pl ea i n t he Massachuset t s st at e cour t s. He cont ended t hat

under t he Supr eme Cour t ' s t hen- r ecent deci si on i n Padi l l a v.

Kent ucky, 559 U. S. 356 ( 2010) , hi s pl ea was t aken i n vi ol at i on of

hi s Si xth Amendment r i ght t o the ef f ect i ve assi st ance of counsel

because he was not i nf ormed of t he potent i al i mmi gr at i on

consequences of hi s convi ct i on.

Whi l e Per ez Sant ana sought vacatur of hi s cr i mi nal

convi ct i on, he al so sought t o st ay hi s r emoval bef or e t he DHS.

Somet i me i n May 2012, DHS deni ed hi s r equest f or a st ay and

depor t ed hi m t o the Domi ni can Republ i c on May 29, 2012. 2

On J ul y 11, 2012, af t er i ni t i al l y denyi ng Per ez Sant ana' s

mot i on to wi t hdr aw hi s pl ea, t he Massachuset t s cour t r econsi der ed

1 Al t hough t he val i di t y of t he agency' s f i ndi ng ofr emovabi l i t y i s not bef or e us, i t i s not ewor t hy t hat t hi sdet er mi nat i on r el i ed on our opi ni on i n J ul ce v. Mukasey, 530 F. 3d30 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) , whi ch hel d t hat a Massachuset t s convi ct i on f orpossessi on of mar i j uana wi t h i nt ent t o di st r i but e was cat egor i cal l ya dr ug t r af f i cki ng aggr avated f el ony. The Supr eme Cour t abr ogatedJ ul ce i n Moncr i ef f e v. Hol der , 133 S. Ct . 1678 ( 2013) , hol di ng t hatan anal ogous Geor gi a convi ct i on f or possessi on wi t h i nt ent t o

di st r i but e was not a dr ug t r af f i cki ng aggr avat ed f el ony. I d. at1693- 94.

2 Per ez Sant ana has not i dent i f i ed document at i on i n t he recor dconf i r mi ng t hat he sought and was deni ed a st ay of r emoval , i nst eadr el yi ng on asser t i ons f r om hi s br i ef s t o t he agency. Thegover nment does not di sput e t hi s f act , however .

-4-


5/26

and gr ant ed hi s mot i on. Per ez Sant ana i mmedi atel y f i l ed a mot i on

t o reopen hi s r emoval pr oceedi ngs bef or e the BI A, ei ght y- ei ght days

af t er hi s r emoval became f i nal . He argued t hat because hi s

cr i mi nal convi ct i on was now vacat ed, i t coul d no l onger serve as a

gr ound f or hi s r emoval .

On September 24, 2012, t he BI A r et urned Per ez Sant ana' s

mot i on t o t he I J wi t hout f ur t her act i on, concl udi ng t hat t he post -

depar t ur e bar pr event ed hi m f r om f i l i ng a mot i on t o r eopen once he

depar t ed t he Uni t ed St at es. See 8 C. F. R. 1003. 2( d) ; see al so i d.

1003. 23( b) ( 1) . The BI A al so r el i ed on i t s pr i or opi ni on i n

Mat t er of Ar mendarez- Mendez, 24 I . & N. Dec. 646 ( BI A 2008) , whi ch

hel d t hat t he post - depar t ur e bar di vest ed i t of j ur i sdi ct i on t o

consi der a mot i on t o reopen f i l ed by a nonci t i zen subsequent t o hi s

depar t ur e f r om t he Uni t ed St at es.

Per ez Sant ana t i mel y sought r evi ew bef or e t hi s cour t of

t he deni al of hi s mot i on t o r eopen. 3

II.

We revi ew t he BI A' s deni al of a mot i on t o reopen f or

abuse of di scr et i on. Bead v. Hol der , 703 F. 3d 591, 593 ( 1st Ci r .

2013) . Under t hi s st andar d, t he pet i t i oner must demonst r at e t hat

" ' t he BI A commi t t ed an er r or of l aw or exer ci sed i t s j udgment i n an

ar bi t r ar y, capr i ci ous, or i r r at i onal way. ' " I d. ( quot i ng Raza v.

3 Pet i t i oner ceded hi s oral ar gument t i me t o counsel f or ami cicur i ae, whom we thank f or t hei r abl e pr esent at i on of t he ar gument swe address t oday.

-5-


6/26

Gonzal es, 484 F. 3d 125, 127 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) ) . Per ez Sant ana' s

pr i mary cont ent i on i s t hat t he agency commi t t ed a l egal er r or when

i t concl uded t hat t he post - depar t ur e bar di vest ed i t of t he abi l i t y

t o consi der hi s mot i on t o r eopen. Our r evi ew of l egal quest i ons i s

de novo, "wi t h def er ence gi ven ' t o t he BI A' s r easonabl e

i nt er pr et at i ons of st at ut es and r egul at i ons f al l i ng wi t hi n i t s

pur vi ew. ' " Apont e v. Hol der , 683 F. 3d 6, 10 ( 1st Ci r . 2012)

( quot i ng Mat osSant ana v. Hol der , 660 F. 3d 91, 93 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ) .

A. The Motion to Reopen Statute and the Post-Departure Bar

"The mot i on t o reopen i s an ' i mport ant saf eguard'

i nt ended ' t o ensur e a pr oper and l awf ul di sposi t i on' of i mmi gr at i on

pr oceedi ngs. " Kucana v. Hol der , 558 U. S. 233, 242 ( 2010) ( quot i ng

Dada v. Mukasey, 554 U. S. 1, 18 ( 2008) ) . The pr ocedur e i s codi f i ed

i n a st at ut e, 8 U. S. C. 1229a( c) ( 7) ( A) , whi ch pr ovi des t hat "[ a] n

al i en may f i l e one mot i on t o r eopen pr oceedi ngs. " The st at ut e

expr essl y pr escr i bes ot her r equi r ement s, i ncl udi ng t hat t he mot i on

"st at e t he new f act s t hat wi l l be pr oven at a hear i ng t o be hel d i f

t he mot i on i s gr ant ed, " i d. 1229a( c) ( 7) ( B) , t hat t he mot i on "be

suppor t ed by af f i davi t s or ot her evi dent i ar y mat er i al , " i d. , and

t hat t he mot i on "be f i l ed wi t hi n 90 days of t he dat e of ent r y of a

f i nal admi ni st r at i ve or der of r emoval , " i d. 1229a( c)( 7) ( C) ( i ) .

I mport ant l y, t he st at ut e does not denomi nate a physi cal pr esence or

geogr aphi c l i mi t at i on i n i t s gener al pr ovi si ons.

-6-


7/26

The st at ut e car ves out cer t ai n except i ons t o t hese

gener al r equi r ement s. Appl i cant s f or asyl um, f or exampl e, ar e

exempt f r omt he ni net y- day t i me l i mi t i f t hei r appl i cat i on i s based

on evi dence of changed count r y condi t i ons i n t he count r y to whi ch

t hey are to be r emoved, and " i f such evi dence i s mat er i al and was

not avai l abl e and woul d not have been [ pr evi ousl y] di scover ed or

pr esent ed. " I d. 1229a( c) ( 7) ( C) ( i i ) . Ther e i s al so a speci al

r ul e f or bat t er ed spouses, whi ch ext ends t he f i l i ng deadl i ne t o one

year and wai ves t he numer i cal l i mi t at i on. I d. 1229a( c) ( 7) ( A) ,

1229a( c) ( 7) ( C) ( i v) . I n cont r ast t o t he st at ut e' s gener al

pr ovi si ons, t he speci al r ul e f or bat t er ed spouses r equi r es t he

nonci t i zen t o be "physi cal l y pr esent i n t he Uni t ed St at es at t he

t i me of f i l i ng t he mot i on. " I d. 1229a( c)( 7) ( C) ( i v) ( I V) .

I n i t s cur r ent f or m, t he post - depar t ur e bar compr i ses t wo

separ at e r egul at i ons, one of whi ch appl i es t o mot i ons f i l ed bef or e

t he BI A and t he ot her t o mot i ons f i l ed bef or e t he I J . See 8 C. F. R.

1003. 2( d) ( BI A) ; i d. 1003. 23( b) ( 1) ( I J ) . Though codi f i ed i n

di f f er ent sect i ons, t he r egul at i ons cont ai n t he same l anguage:

A mot i on t o reopen . . . shal l not be made byor on behal f of a per son who i s t he subj ect ofr emoval , depor t at i on, or excl usi on pr oceedi ngssubsequent t o hi s or her depar t ur e f r om t heUni t ed St at es. Any depar t ur e f r om t he Uni t ed

St at es, i ncl udi ng t he depor t at i on or r emovalof a per son who i s t he subj ect of excl usi on,depor t at i on, or r emoval pr oceedi ngs, occur r i ngaf t er t he f i l i ng of a mot i on t o r eopen . . .shal l const i t ut e a wi t hdr awal of such mot i on.

8 C. F. R. 1003. 2( d) ; see al so i d. 1003. 23( b) ( 1) .

-7-


8/26

The BI A has publ i shed a precedent i al opi ni on uphol di ng

t he post - depar t ur e bar ' s val i di t y. I n Mat t er of Ar mendar ez- Mendez,

t he BI A const r ued t he post - depar t ur e bar as a l i mi t at i on on i t s own

j ur i sdi ct i on and deci ded t hat t he agency t heref or e l acked t he power

t o ent er t ai n mot i ons t o reopen f i l ed by nonci t i zens who had

depart ed t he Uni t ed St ates. 24 I . & N. Dec. at 648- 49, 660.

B. Pena-Muriel and Subsequent Litigation Concerning the Post-

Departure Bar

Thi s case i s not t he f i r st t i me we have addr essed t he

val i di t y of t he post - depar t ur e bar . I n Pena- Mur i el v. Gonzal es,

489 F. 3d 438 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) , t he pet i t i oner asser t ed t hat t he

I l l egal I mmi gr at i on Ref or mand I mmi gr ant Responsi bi l i t y Act of 1996

( " I I RI RA" ) abr ogated t he r egul at i on we now know as t he post -

depar t ur e bar . Thi s i s t r ue, t he pet i t i oner asser t ed, because

I I RI RA r epeal ed st at ut or y pr ovi si on 8 U. S. C. 1105a( c) ( 1994)

( r epeal ed by Pub. L. No. 104208, Ti t l e I I I , 306( b) , 110 St at .

3009, 3009- 612) . The r epeal ed st atut e pr ecl uded a f eder al cour t

f r om r evi ewi ng "[ a] n or der of depor t at i on . . . i f t he al i en . . .

has depar t ed f r om t he Uni t ed St at es af t er t he i ssuance of t he

or der . " 8 U. S. C. 1105a( c) ( 1994) .

Pena- Mur i el cont ended that t he post - depart ur e bar was

"i next r i cabl y l i nked" wi t h t hi s j udi ci al r evi ew pr ovi si on, and t hat

i t s del et i on "si gnal ed [ Congr ess' s] i nt ent " t hat t he gover nment

shoul d cease enf or ci ng t he post - depar t ur e r egul at i on as wel l .

Pena- Mur i el , 489 F. 3d at 441. We di sagr eed, expl ai ni ng t hat " [ t ] he

-8-


9/26

At t or ney Gener al ' s aut hor i t y t o pr ohi bi t consi der at i on of mot i ons

t o r eopen f r om al i ens who have depart ed t he Uni t ed St ates di d not

or i gi nal l y depend upon t he st at ut or y l anguage i n 1105a( c) . " I d.

Thus, t hat provi si on' s r epeal di d not , by ext ensi on, abrogate t he

post - depar t ur e bar . I d.

Pena- Mur i el pet i t i oned f or r ehear i ng en banc, ar gui ng

t hat t he text of t he mot i on t o reopen st atut e unambi guousl y gave a

nonci t i zen t he r i ght t o f i l e a mot i on t o r eopen r egar dl ess of t he

nonci t i zen' s geogr aphi c l ocat i on at t i me of f i l i ng. See 8 U. S. C.

1229a( c) ( 7) ( A) . Pena- Mur i el ' s cont ent i on, r ai sed f or t he f i r st

t i me vi a hi s pet i t i on, r el i ed on a st at ut or y pr ovi si on separ at e

f r om t he r epeal ed j udi ci al r evi ew pr ovi si on he i nvoked i n t he

mer i t s br i ef i ng. See Par t I I . C. 2, i nf r a. I n our or der denyi ng t he

pet i t i on, we observed t hat " [ w] hen t hi s case was present ed t o t he

panel , pet i t i oner [ had] pr esent ed onl y one st at ut or y ar gument . "

Pena- Mur i el v. Gonzal es, 510 F. 3d 350, 350 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) . We

added t hat , " [ n] ot havi ng been asked t o do so, we di d not deci de"

whet her t he post - depar t ur e bar conf l i ct ed wi t h the mot i on to reopen

st at ut e, and we decl i ned t o r esol ve t he quest i on on r ehear i ng. I d.

As a r esul t , t he par t i es agr ee t hat our opi ni on i n Pena- Mur i el does

not cont r ol t he out come of t hi s case.

Si nce we deci ded Pena- Mur i el , t he val i di t y of t he post -

depar t ur e bar has been t he subj ect of subst ant i al l i t i gat i on i n t he

f eder al cour t s of appeal s. Si x of our si st er ci r cui t s have hel d

-9-


10/26

t hat t he post - depar t ur e bar conf l i ct s wi t h t he cl ear l anguage of

t he mot i on t o r eopen st at ut e. See Garci a- Car i as v. Hol der , 697

F. 3d 257, 264 ( 5t h Ci r . 2012) ; Li n v. U. S. At t ' y Gen. , 681 F. 3d

1236, 1241 ( 11t h Ci r . 2012) ; Cont r er as- Bocanegr a v. Hol der , 678

F. 3d 811, 819 ( 10t h Ci r . 2012) ( en banc) ( unani mousl y over t ur ni ng

pr i or panel deci si on) ; Pr est ol Espi nal v. At t ' y Gen. , 653 F. 3d 213,

21718 ( 3d Ci r . 2011) ; Reyes- Tor r es v. Hol der , 645 F. 3d 1073,

107677 ( 9t h Ci r . 2011) ; Wi l l i am v. Gonzal es, 499 F. 3d 329, 332

( 4t h Ci r . 2007) . Anot her t hr ee have st r uck down t he r egul at i on as

an i mper mi ssi bl e cont r act i on of t he agency' s j ur i sdi ct i on, hol di ng

t hat t he agency cannot di scl ai m aut hor i t y t hat Congr ess has

expr essl y conf er r ed upon i t . See Luna v. Hol der , 637 F. 3d 85, 100

( 2d Ci r . 2011) ; Pr ui dze v. Hol der , 632 F. 3d 234, 239 ( 6t h Ci r .

2011) ; Mar i n- Rodr i guez v. Hol der , 612 F. 3d 591, 595 ( 7t h Ci r .

2010) .

As mat t er s cur r ent l y st and, t he r ul e i n ever y ci r cui t t o

have addr essed t he ar gument s pet i t i oner r ai ses her e i s t hat t he

post - depar t ur e bar ei t her conf l i ct s wi t h t he mot i on t o r eopen

stat ut e, or cannot be j ust i f i ed as a j ur i sdi ct i onal l i mi t at i on.

C. The Chevron Analysis

Agai nst t hat backdr op, we now addr ess whether t he post -

depar t ur e bar i s a val i d exer ci se of t he di scr et i on conf er r ed upon

t he agency by t he i mmi gr at i on st at ut e. Resol ut i on of t hi s quest i on

r equi r es t hat we appl y t he f r amewor k set f or t h i n Chevron, U. S. A. ,

-10-


11/26

I nc. v. Nat ur al Resour ces Def ense Counci l , I nc. , 467 U. S. 837

( 1984) . The Chevron i nqui r y pr oceeds i n t wo st eps. Fi r st , we l ook

t o t he st at ut e t o ascer t ai n whet her "Congr ess has di r ect l y spoken

t o t he pr eci se quest i on at i ssue. " I d. at 842. I f t he st at ut e i s

cl ear i n i t s meani ng, we must "gi ve ef f ect t o t he unambi guousl y

expr essed i nt ent of Congr ess. " I d. at 842- 43.

The anal ysi s begi ns wi t h t he st at ut e' s l anguage. " I n

det er mi ni ng whet her a st at ut e exhi bi t s Chevron- t ype ambi gui t y, . .

. cour t s l ook at bot h t he most nat ur al r eadi ng of t he l anguage and

t he consi st ency of t he ' i nt er pr et i ve cl ues' Congr ess pr ovi ded. "

Succar v. Ashcr of t , 394 F. 3d 8, 22 ( 1st Ci r . 2005) ( quot i ng Gen.

Dynami cs Land Sys. , I nc. v. Cl i ne, 540 U. S. 581, 586 ( 2004) ) . We

may al so l ook t o l egi sl at i ve hi st or y "t o see i f any ' ser i ous

quest i on . . . even about pur el y t ext ual ambi gui t y' i s l ef t . " I d.

at 23 ( quot i ng Gen. Dynami cs Land Sys. , 540 U. S. at 600) .

Second, "[ i ] f , af t er appl yi ng t hese i nt er pr et i ve r ul es,

we concl ude t hat t he st at ut e i s ambi guous, " we move t o t he next

st ep of t he anal ysi s. Saysana v. Gi l l en, 590 F. 3d 7, 13 ( 1st Ci r .

2009) . I mpor t ant l y, we t ake t hi s st ep onl y "when t he devi ces of

j udi ci al const r uct i on have been t r i ed and f ound t o yi el d no cl ear

sense of congr essi onal i nt ent . " Gen. Dynami cs Land Sys. , 540 U. S.

at 600. At Chevron' s second st ep, t he i nqui r y f ocuses on "whet her

t he agency' s answer i s based on a per mi ssi bl e const r uct i on of t he

st at ut e. " Chevron, 467 U. S. at 843. I f so, we "def er t o an

-11-


12/26

agency' s i nt er pr et i ve r egul at i on unl ess i t i s ' ar bi t r ar y,

capr i ci ous, or mani f est l y cont r ar y t o t he st at ut e. ' " Saysana, 590

F. 3d at 13 ( quot i ng Chevron, 467 U. S. at 844) .

Per ez Sant ana cont ends t hat t he pl ai n l anguage of t he

mot i on t o r eopen st at ut e f or ecl oses the agency f r om addi ng a

geogr aphi c l i mi t at i on t o hi s abi l i t y to seek reopeni ng of hi s

pr oceedi ngs. The gover nment r epl i es t hat t he l ack of an expr ess

geogr aphi c rest r ai nt shoul d be const r ued as si l ence about t he

l ocat i on of t he nonci t i zen at t i me of f i l i ng. Thi s si l ence, t he

gover nment says, r esul t s i n a st at ut or y "gap" or ambi gui t y t hat t he

gover nment i s per mi t t ed t o f i l l wi t h t he post - depar t ur e bar .

1. The Statutory Text

Looki ng f i r st t o t he st at ut or y t ext , t he mot i on t o r eopen

st at ut e st at es t hat " [ a] n al i en may f i l e one mot i on t o r eopen

pr oceedi ngs. " 8 U. S. C. 1229a( c) ( 7) ( A) . The i mmi gr at i on st at ut e

i n t ur n def i nes "al i en" as "any per son not a ci t i zen or nat i onal of

t he Uni t ed St at es. " 8 U. S. C. 1101( a) ( 3) . Thus, t he pr ovi si on

unambi guousl y conf er s upon "an al i en" t he aut hor i t y and t he r i ght

t o f i l e a mot i on t o reopen, i n l anguage that admi t s of no

except i ons. See Dada, 554 U. S. 1, 15 ( 2008) ( " [ T] he st at ut or y t ext

i s pl ai n i nsof ar as i t guar ant ees t o each al i en t he r i ght t o f i l e

' one mot i on t o reopen pr oceedi ngs under t hi s sect i on. ' " ( quot i ng 8

U. S. C. 1229a( c) ( 7) ( A) ) ) . The r el evant l anguage nowher e

-12-


13/26

pr escr i bes, or even suggest s, a geogr aphi c r est r i ct i on on an "al i en

[ who] may f i l e" t he mot i on. 4

The st at ut e does descr i be ot her l i mi t at i ons and

r equi r ement s on t he r i ght t o f i l e a mot i on t o r eopen, i ncl udi ng

numer i c l i mi t at i ons, 8 U. S. C. 1229a( c) ( 7) ( A) , evi dent i ar y

r equi r ement s, i d. 1229a( c) ( 7) ( B) , and t i me deadl i nes, i d.

1229a( c) ( 7) ( C) ( i ) . Once agai n, t hese par t i cul ar except i ons do not

cont ai n r est r i ct i ons based on geogr aphy or t he l ocat i on of t he

nonci t i zen at t he t i me of f i l i ng. The absence of such a

l i mi t at i on, despi t e t he expl i ci t enumer at i on of ot her s, ser ves as

a st r ong i ndi cat i on t hat Congr ess i mposed t he r est r i ct i ons t hat i t

deemed i mport ant and decl i ned t o i mpose other s. Cf . Uni t ed St ates

v. J ohnson, 529 U. S. 53, 58 ( 2000) ( "When Congr ess provi des

except i ons i n a st at ut e, i t does not f ol l ow t hat cour t s have

aut hor i t y t o creat e ot her s. The pr oper i nf er ence . . . i s that

4 The gover nment posi t s t hat r el yi ng on t he words "an al i en"woul d per mi t al l sor t s of nonci t i zens t o f i l e mot i ons t o r eopen"wi t hout r egar d t o any ot her ci r cumst ance or condi t i on, " such as"al i ens who pr evai l i n i mmi gr at i on pr oceedi ngs, al i ens who havenever been i n i mmi gr at i on pr oceedi ngs, and al i ens who have nevereven been i n t he Uni t ed St ates. " Thi s at t empt t o conj ur e a paradeof hor r i bl es i s a chi mer a. For one, t he mot i on t o r eopen st at ut ei s i ncl uded i n a set of pr ovi si ons t hat pr escr i be t he pr ocedur al

r equi r ement s of r emoval pr oceedi ngs. See 8 U. S. C. 1229a( a) - ( b) .When r ead i n cont ext , t he r eopeni ng st at ut e cl ear l y ref er s t ononci t i zens who ar e or have been the subj ect of such pr oceedi ngs,not r andomnonci t i zens. We al so quest i on why nonci t i zens who havewon t hei r pr oceedi ngs, or t hose who have never been subj ect t or emoval i n t he f i r st pl ace, woul d have an i nt er est i n f i l i ngmot i ons t o r eopen.

-13-


14/26

Congr ess consi der ed t he i ssue of except i ons and, i n t he end,

l i mi t ed t he st at ut e t o t he ones set f or t h. ") .

Mor eover , t he speci al r ul e f or bat t er ed spouses does

cont ai n an expl i ci t geogr aphi c l i mi t at i on. That subsect i on, among

ot her r equi r ement s, expr essl y r equi r es t hat " t he al i en i s

physi cal l y pr esent i n t he Uni t ed St at es at t he t i me of f i l i ng t he

mot i on. " 8 U. S. C. 1229a( c) ( 7) ( C) ( i v) ( I V) . Thi s pr ovi si on shows

t hat Congress knew how t o i mpose a geogr aphi c r est r i ct i on when i t

want ed t o, and f ur t her suggest s t hat t he st at ut e' s gener al

pr ovi si ons do not cont ai n such a l i mi t at i on. See Li n, 681 F. 3d at

1240 ( " [ W] e can dr aw t he negat i ve i nf erence t hat ' Congr ess knew how

t o i ncl ude a r equi r ement of physi cal pr esence when i t wi shed t o do

so, ' and i nt ent i onal l y chose not t o r equi r e such pr esence f or a

mot i on t o reopen, except i n t he speci f i ed ci r cumst ances. " ( quot i ng

Wi l l i am, 499 F. 3d at 333) ) .

The gover nment ' s ar guments amount t o not hi ng l ess t han a

r equest t o wr i t e wor ds i nt o t he st at ut e t hat ar e not t her e.

Essent i al l y, t he cont ent i on i s t hat we shoul d r evi se t he t ext of 8

U. S. C. 1229a( c) ( 7) ( A) t o say t hat " [ a] n al i en may f i l e one mot i on

t o reopen pr oceedi ngs under t hi s sect i on, except i ng ot her

l i mi t at i ons t hat t he At t or ney Gener al may pr escr i be. " The

consequence of t he gover nment ' s ar gument s i s not l i mi t ed t o t he

post - depart ur e bar . Under i t s t heor y, t he gover nment possesses t he

di scret i on t o i mpose ot her subst ant i ve l i mi t at i ons on a

-14-


15/26

nonci t i zen' s r i ght t o f i l e a mot i on t o r eopen t hat l ack any

f oundat i on i n t he st at ut or y l anguage. We decl i ne t o adopt such a

const r uct i on.

2. The Regulation's History as the Source of theStatute's Ambiguity

The gover nment ' s pr i mar y def ense of t he r egul at i on does

not f ocus on t he st at ut or y t ext . I nst ead, t he gover nment

const r uct s a nar r at i ve of t he post - depar t ur e bar ' s l ong hi st or y and

cont ends t hat , when r ead i n l i ght of t hi s hi st or y, t he mot i on t o

r eopen st at ut e i s mer el y si l ent , and t hus ambi guous, as t o

geogr aphi c r est r i ct i ons. 5

a. The History of the Motion to Reopen Proceeding

and the Post-Departure Bar

The proceedi ng we now know as t he mot i on t o r eopen

appear ed as a f or mof r el i ef i n ear l y t went i et h cent ur y cases. See,

e. g. , Ex Par t e Chan Shee, 236 F. 579 ( N. D. Cal . 1916) . I n 1941, t he

At t or ney Gener al ( t hr ough t he I mmi gr at i on and Nat ur al i zat i on

Ser vi ce) , i ncl uded i t i n t he f eder al r egul at i ons. See New

Regul at i ons Gover ni ng t he Ar r est and Depor t at i on of Al i ens, 6 Fed.

Reg. 68, 71- 72 ( J an. 4, 1941) . A mot i on t o r eopen was t r eat ed " ' as

5 The gover nment ci t es l anguage f r om Pena- Mur i el t hat

char act er i zed Congr ess as " r emai n[ i ng] si l ent r egar di ng t he l ong-st andi ng regul at or y bar i mposed by [ t he post - depar t ur er egul at i on] . " 489 F. 3d at 442. As we st at ed ear l i er i n t heopi ni on, however , "[ t ] he par t i es poi nt [ ed] t o no st at ut or y l anguaget hat expl i ci t l y addr esses t he i ssue" i n Pena- Mur i el . I d. at 441.Any comment as t o Congressi onal "si l ence" we made i n our pr i oropi ni on was addr essed onl y t o t he argument s bef ore us at t he t i me.

-15-


16/26

a mat t er f or t he exer ci se of [ t he gover nment ' s] di scret i on, ' " and

" j udi ci al i nt er f er ence was deemed unwarr ant ed. " Dada, 554 U. S. at

12- 13 (quot i ng Wong Shong Been v. Proct or , 79 F. 2d 881, 883 (9t h

Ci r . 1935) ) . For a l ong t i me, nei t her t he st at ut e nor t he At t or ney

Gener al ' s r egul at i ons pr escri bed t i me l i mi t s on t he f i l i ng of t he

mot i on. I d. at 13.

I n 1990, Congr ess became concerned t hat nonci t i zens were

abusi ng t he pr ocedur e by f i l i ng mot i on af t er mot i on i n or der t o

pr ol ong t hei r t i me i n t he Uni t ed St at es. I d. The l egi sl at ur e

t her ef or e di r ect ed t he At t or ney Gener al t o i ssue r egul at i ons

l i mi t i ng t he t i me per i od f or t he f i l i ng of mot i ons t o r eopen, as

wel l as r est r i ct i ons on t he number of mot i ons t hat coul d be f i l ed.

I d. Al t hough t he At t or ney Gener al i nvest i gat ed t he i ssue and f ound

l i t t l e evi dence of abuse, t he Depar t ment of J ust i ce i ssued a

r egul at i on i mposi ng new t i me l i mi t s and r est r i ct i ons on f i l i ngs.

I d. ( ci t i ng Execut i ve Of f i ce f or I mmi gr at i on Revi ew; Mot i ons and

Appeal s i n I mmi gr at i on Proceedi ngs, 61 Fed. Reg. 18900, 18901,

18905 ( 1996) ) . Thi s new r egul at i on i mposed a ni net y- day t i me

l i mi t , and r est r i cted nonci t i zens t o t he f i l i ng of a si ngl e mot i on.

I d.

I n 1996, Congr ess passed I I RI RA, whi ch al t ered numerous

aspect s of t he i mmi gr at i on st atut e. One of t hese changes was t he

codi f i cat i on of t he mot i on t o r eopen st at ut e. I d. at 14. I n doi ng

so, "Congress adopted t he r ecommendat i ons of t he DOJ wi t h r espect

-16-


17/26

t o numer i cal and t i me l i mi t s, " i d. , and cl ar i f i ed t he pr ocedur e' s

evi dent i ar y r equi r ement s, see 8 U. S. C. 1229a( c) ( 7) ( B) . The

amendment t o t he st at ut e di d not si mi l ar l y adopt t he post - depar t ur e

bar .

I n l i ght of t he hi st or y of Congr ess' s i nt er vent i ons i n

t hi s f i el d, t he gover nment cont ends t hat t he "emphasi s" of I I RI RA' s

codi f i cat i on of t he mot i on t o reopen st at ut e was t he t i me and

number l i mi t at i ons enacted by t he At t orney Gener al vi a t he 1990

r egul at i ons. Accor di ng t o t hi s l i ne of r easoni ng, t he st at ut e i s

mer el y "si l ent " r egar di ng t he appl i cabi l i t y of t he post - depar t ur e

bar , per mi t t i ng t he execut i ve br anch t o "f i l l t he gap" by

pr escri bi ng geogr aphi c l i mi t at i ons on "a[ n] al i en[ ' s] " st at ut or y

r i ght t o f i l e a mot i on t o r eopen. I n ot her wor ds, t he gover nment

says t hat adopt i ng pet i t i oner ' s argument woul d r equi r e us t o f i nd

t hat t he post - depar t ur e bar was " i mpl i edl y r epeal ed" by I I RI RA,

not wi t hst andi ng t he l ong hi st or y of t he r egul at i on and t he l ack of

any expr ess st at ut or y r epeal .

b. Analysis

The gover nment ' s i nt er pret i ve appr oach i s a pecul i ar way

t o const r ue a st at ut e. We have r epeatedl y observed t hat t he

Chevr on anal ysi s begi ns wi t h t he st at ut e' s wor ds. See, e. g. ,

Saysana, 590 F. 3d at 13; Succar , 394 F. 3d at 22- 23. St ar t i ng

i nst ead wi t h an exposi t i on of t he l egi sl at i ve and r egul at or y

hi st or y i s i nappr opr i at e i n t hi s case. Al t hough hi st or y can

-17-


18/26

i l l umi nate ambi guous l anguage i n some ci r cumst ances, r el yi ng so

heavi l y on ext r a- st at ut or y sour ces t o r ead si l ence or ambi gui t y

i nt o seemi ngl y cl ear t ext r uns count er t o wel l - set t l ed modes of

i nt er pr et at i on.

The gover nment ' s proposed met hodol ogy al so car r i es

cer t ai n danger s. As t he Thi r d Ci r cui t has poi nt ed out , t hi s met hod

"manuf act ur es an ambi gui t y f r om Congr ess' f ai l ur e t o speci f i cal l y

f or ecl ose each except i on t hat coul d possi bl y be conj ur ed or

i magi ned. That appr oach woul d cr eate an ' ambi gui t y' i n al most al l

st at ut es, necessi t at i ng def er ence t o near l y al l agency

det er mi nat i ons. " Pr est ol Espi nal , 653 F. 3d at 220.

Mor eover , t he government woul d pl ace upon Congress, when

enact i ng a new st atut e agai nst a backgr ound regul atory scheme, t he

bur den of addr essi ng each and ever y r egul at i on that exi st ed bef or e

and expr essl y st at i ng whet her i t sur vi ves t he change i n t he

st at ut e. That ar gument i s unt enabl e. As t he Tent h Ci r cui t

expl ai ned, "[ t ] o r equi r e an expr ess r epeal of a di scret i onar y

r egul at i on i n t hi s cont ext woul d upend t he f undament al pr i nci pl e

t hat r egul at i ons shoul d i nt er pr et st at ut es and not t he ot her way

around. " Cont r er as- Bocanegr a v. Hol der , 678 F. 3d 811, 818 ( 10t h

Ci r . 2012) . I nst ead, "when f aced wi t h [ ] a l egi sl at i ve over haul ,

-18-


19/26

agenci es shoul d r ecal i br at e t hei r r egul at i ons t o ensur e they

mai nt ai n a st at ut or y basi s. " 6 I d.

To be sure, t he Supreme Cour t has somet i mes r equi r ed

cl earer st at ement s of Congr essi onal i nt ent dependi ng on t he

ci r cumst ances. To t hat end, t he gover nment r el i es heavi l y on

Commodi t y Fut ures Tr adi ng Commi ss i on v. Schor , 478 U. S. 833 ( 1986) ,

f or t he pr oposi t i on t hat "when Congr ess r evi si t s a st at ut e gi vi ng

r i se t o a l ongst andi ng admi ni st r at i ve i nt er pr et at i on wi t hout

per t i nent change, congr essi onal f ai l ur e t o r evi se or r epeal t he

agency' s i nt er pr et at i on i s per suasi ve evi dence t hat t he

i nt er pr et at i on i s t he one i nt ended by Congr ess. " I d. at 846

( ci t at i on omi t t ed) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .

Leavi ng asi de any concerns we may have about t he r each of

t hi s l anguage, t he pr i nci pl e ar t i cul at ed i n Schor does not appl y t o

t hi s case. Unt i l Congr ess codi f i ed t he mot i on t o r eopen, t he

pr oceedi ng was a r egul at or y creat i on, r at her t han a st at ut or y one.

I n codi f yi ng t he r i ght , t he l egi sl at ur e "t r ansf or m[ ed] t he mot i on

t o r eopen f r oma regul at or y pr ocedur e t o a st at ut or y f or mof r el i ef

avai l abl e t o t he al i en. " Dada, 554 U. S. at 14. Thi s

6 The government may be i n t he process of r econsi der i ng i t s

posi t i on, however . I n r esponse t o a pet i t i on f or r ul emaki ng, t heAt t or ney Gener al has announced "pl ans t o i ni t i at e a separ at er ul emaki ng pr oceedi ng t o addr ess t he regul atory pr ovi si on known ast he ' depar t ur e bar . ' " 77 Fed. Reg. 59567, 59568 ( Sept . 28, 2012) .The st at us of t hese proceedi ngs i s uncl ear and t hei r out come i suncer t ai n. Thus, nei t her t he par t i es nor ami ci asser t t hat t hesepr oceedi ngs moot t hi s pet i t i on.

-19-


20/26

t r ansf or mat i on t ook a si gni f i cant degr ee of di scr et i on out of t he

agency' s hands and vest ed a st at ut or y r i ght i n t he nonci t i zen. See

Coyt v. Hol der , 593 F. 3d 902, 906 ( 9t h Ci r . 2010) ( "Congr ess

amended t he I mmi gr at i on and Nat i onal i t y Act [ ] by, among ot her

t hi ngs, gr ant i ng al i ens subj ect t o a r emoval or der t he r i ght t o

f i l e one mot i on t o r eopen. ") ; cf . Pr ui dze, 632 F. 3d at 237- 38

( char act er i zi ng st at ut e as an "empower i ng, not a di vest i ng,

pr ovi si on, as i t gr ant s t he Boar d aut hor i t y t o ent er t ai n a mot i on

t o r eopen") . And Congr ess, by el evat i ng t he mot i on t o r eopen t o a

st at ut or y r i ght and car ef ul l y del i neat i ng i t s cont our s, i nst i t ut ed

a "per t i nent change" t o any regul at or y roadbl ock t o the exer ci se of

t hi s newl y- creat ed r i ght . Cf . Pr est ol Espi nal , 653 F. 3d at 222 n. 9

( "Congr ess' nuanced consi der at i on of whi ch l i mi t at i ons and

r egul at i ons t o codi f y of f er s st r onger evi dence of Congr ess' i nt ent

t han does Congr ess' al l eged ' si l ence' wi t h r espect t o t he

pr e- exi st i ng post - depar t ur e r egul at i on. ") . I n ot her wor ds, t he

st at ut or y changes ar e i nconsi st ent wi t h t he not i on t hat Congr ess

si mpl y i nt ended t o st ay si l ent r egar di ng so subst ant i al a

l i mi t at i on on t he mot i on t o reopen pr oceedi ng as t he post - depar t ur e

bar .

Thi s i s al l t he mor e t r ue gi ven t he cl ar i t y of t he

st at ut or y l anguage. See i d. ( "' [ W] her e t he l aw i s pl ai n,

subsequent r eenact ment does not const i t ut e an adopt i on of t he

pr evi ous admi ni st r at i ve const r uct i on. ' " ( quot i ng Br own v. Gar dner ,

-20-


21/26

513 U. S. 115, 121 ( 1994) ) ) ; see al so Br own, 513 U. S. at 121

( "[ C] ongr essi onal si l ence l acks per suasi ve si gni f i cance,

par t i cul ar l y wher e admi ni st r at i ve r egul at i ons ar e i nconsi st ent wi t h

t he cont r ol l i ng st at ut e. " ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) ( i nt er nal quot at i on

mar ks omi t t ed) ) . Her e, Congr ess' s i nt ent i s mani f est , and we

decl i ne t o i nj ect ambi gui t y i nt o wor ds t hat do not al l ow i t .

I ndeed, t he f act s of Per ez Sant ana' s own case hi ghl i ght

t he f ol l y t hat r esul t s f r om t he gover nment ' s at t empt s t o conj ur e

ambi gui t y f r omt he st at ut e' s pl ai n meani ng and coher ent st r uct ur e.

As not ed, t he mot i on t o r eopen st at ut e al l ows t he f i l i ng of a

si ngl e mot i on t o r eopen wi t hi n ni net y days af t er t he f i nal or der of

r emoval . 8 U. S. C. 1229a( c) ( 7) ( C) . Not coi nci dent al l y, I I RI RA

added a pr ovi si on t hat " r equi r es t he At t or ney Gener al t o ef f ect uat e

physi cal r emoval of pet i t i oner s subj ect t o a f i nal or der of r emoval

wi t hi n ni net y days of t he or der . " Coyt , 593 F. 3d at 907 ( ci t i ng 8

U. S. C. 1231( a) ( 1) ( A) ) . The post - depar t ur e bar pl aces t hose

st at ut or y pr ovi si ons i n tensi on wi t h one anot her by demandi ng the

r emoval of nonci t i zens on or bef or e t he ni net y- day cl ock on t hei r

abi l i t y t o seek r eopeni ng has run. See Cont r er as- Bocanegr a, 678

F. 3d at 817 ( " I f we wer e to uphol d t he regul at i on, t he Depart ment

of Homel and Secur i t y woul d be per mi t t ed . . . t o uni l at er al l y cut

shor t t he congr essi onal l y mandat ed f i l i ng per i od i n al most ever y

-21-


22/26

case. " ) . I f t he post - depar t ur e r egul at i on no l onger bar s t he

consi der at i on of a mot i on t o reopen, t hi s t ensi on di sappear s. 7

As t he Supr eme Cour t has admoni shed, we shoul d not

"adopt [ ] a const r uct i on of [ t he st at ut e] whi ch woul d, wi t h r espect

t o an ent i r e cl ass of al i ens, compl et el y nul l i f y a pr ocedur e so

i nt r i nsi c a par t of t he l egi sl at i ve scheme. " Dada, 554 U. S. at 18-

19 ( second al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) ( quot i ng Cost el l o v. I NS, 376

U. S. 120 127- 28 ( 1964) ) . Her e, Per ez Sant ana' s or der of r emoval

became f i nal on Apr i l 16, 2012, when t he BI A di smi ssed hi s di r ect

appeal . Ther eaf t er , he di l i gent l y pur sued post - convi ct i on r el i ef

bef ore t he Massachuset t s cour t s. A mer e t wo days af t er obt ai ni ng

vacat ur of hi s pl ea, he sought r eopeni ng bef or e the BI A and

asser t ed t hat t he convi ct i on t hat ser ved as t he basi s of hi s

r emoval had been deemed unconst i t ut i onal . Thi s mot i on was f i l ed

ei ght y- ei ght days af t er hi s order of r emoval became f i nal , and t wo

days bef ore t he ni net y- day deadl i ne t o seek reopeni ng.

7 I n Pena- Mur i el , t he gover nment si mi l ar l y r el i ed on Schor t oar gue t hat Congr ess' s "si l ence" as r espect s t he post - depart ur e barshoul d be const r ued as i mpl i ci t endor sement of t he r egul at i on. 489F. 3d at 442- 43. We addr essed t hi s cont ent i on i n t he cour se ofanal yzi ng t he r easonabl eness of t he gover nment ' s i nt er pr et at i onunder t he second st ep of Chevr on. Whi l e acknowl edgi ng t hat Schor

pr ovi ded some suppor t f or t he agency' s exer ci se of di scr et i on, wecaut i oned t hat t he " [ t ] he gover nment ' s i nsi st ence t hat t heAt t orney Gener al ' s i nt er pr et at i on was t he one i nt ended by Congr essmay be overr eachi ng. " I d. at 443. Now t hat we have had a f ul loppor t uni t y t o vi ew t he r egul at i on i n l i ght of t he over al lst at ut or y scheme, we conf i r m t hat t he gover nment ' s st at ut or yargument was i ndeed i ncor r ect .

-22-


23/26

I n ot her wor ds, Per ez Sant ana di d ever ythi ng r i ght he

assi duousl y sought and obt ai ned what r el i ef he coul d bef or e t he

st at e cour t s, and t i mel y r equest ed t hat hi s pr oceedi ngs be

r eopened. Unf or t unatel y, hi s di l i gence was render ed usel ess due t o

t he gover nment ' s exer ci se of i t s whol l y di scr et i onar y aut hor i t y t o

r emove hi m f r om t he Uni t ed St at es. Mor e f undament al l y, t hat

uni l at er al act i on pr ecl uded hi mf r omvi ndi cat i ng t he r i ght Congr ess

gr ant ed hi m. See Reyes- Tor r es, 645 F. 3d at 1077 ( observi ng t hat

pet i t i oner had been " f or ci bl y removed seven days af t er t he f i nal

or der of r emoval was ent er ed, " and r ej ect i ng cont ent i on t hat

gover nment "ha[ s] t he power t o uni l at er al l y reduce t he t i me i n

whi ch ReyesTor r es coul d have f i l ed hi s mot i on t o reopen f r om t he

st at ut or i l y mandat ed ni net y days t o seven days") .

Recogni zi ng t he pecul i ar i t y of i t s posi t i on, t he

gover nment suggest s t hat a nonci t i zen can appl y to the BI A f or a

st ay of r emoval , whi ch woul d t heor et i cal l y al l ow t he nonci t i zen

enough t i me t o seek r eopeni ng. Yet t he government char act er i zes

t he BI A' s abi l i t y t o gr ant or deny a st ay as di scret i onar y. I f

t hat i s t r ue, t hen condi t i oni ng a st at ut or y r i ght on t he

gover nment ' s gr ace may be a l ess i mpr oper devi at i on f r om t he

st at ut e, but i t i s an i mpr oper one nonet hel ess. See Cont r er as-

Bocanegr a, 678 F. 3d at 819 ( " [ W] e wi l l not condi t i on an absol ut e

st at ut or y r i ght on t he vagar i es of admi ni st r at i ve di scret i on. ") .

-23-


24/26

Once agai n, t he f act s of Per ez Sant ana' s case ar e

i l l ust r at i ve. Hopi ng t o st ave of f r emoval unt i l t he st at e cour t s

r esol ved hi s mot i on t o vacat e hi s cr i mi nal convi ct i on, he

unsuccessf ul l y asked DHS t o st ay i t s hand. 8 The t heor et i cal

possi bi l i t y of del ayi ng hi s removal was cer t ai nl y of l i t t l e ai d t o

Per ez Sant ana, who was summar i l y shi pped of f t o t he Domi ni can

Republ i c bef ore he coul d put hi s ar gument s bef ore t he BI A. Her e,

t oo, Per ez Sant ana di d what t he agency r ecommended and al l owed, t o

no avai l . These f act s under score t he er r or i n t he gover nment ' s

posi t i on, whi ch woul d pr ecl ude Per ez Sant ana f r om i nvoki ng an

"i nt r i nsi c [ ] par t of t he l egi sl at i ve scheme. " Dada, 554 U. S. at

19. 9

8 St ays of r emoval may be sought f r om t he I J s, t he BI A, orDHS. See 8 C. F. R. 1003. 2( f ) , 1003. 23( b) ( 1) ( v) .

9 Per ez Sant ana rai ses an al t er nat i ve ar gument , cl ai mi ng t hat

t he post - depar t ur e bar const i t ut es an i mper mi ssi bl e cont r act i on oft he agency' s j ur i sdi ct i on. Thi s ar gument f ocuses on Mat t er ofAr mendarez- Mendez, 24 I . & N. Dec. 646. There, t he BI A const r uedt he post - depar t ur e bar as a l i mi t at i on on t he j ur i sdi ct i onconf er r ed upon i t by t he At t orney Gener al and hel d t hat " [ r ] emovedal i ens have, by vi r t ue of t hei r depar t ur e, l i t er al l y passed beyondour ai d. " I d. at 656. Per ez Sant ana r esponds t hat t he agencycannot cont r act t he j ur i sdi ct i on conf er r ed upon i t by Congr ess,r el yi ng on Uni on Paci f i c Rai l r oad v. Boar d of Locomot i ve Engi neer s,558 U. S. 67, 81- 82 ( 2009) .

Wi t h our r esol ut i on of Per ez Sant ana' s st at ut or y ar gument ,t her e i s no need t o addr ess t he agency' s vi ew of i t s

"j ur i sdi ct i on. " But we shar e t he i nt ui t i on of sever al of oursi st er ci r cui t s that t he st at ut or y and so- cal l ed j ur i sdi cti onal" i nqui r i es may not be al t oget her separ at e. " Cont r er as- Bocanegr a,678 F. 3d at 816 ( ci t i ng Pr est ol Espi nal , 653 F. 3d at 218 n. 4) .Mor eover , t he Supr eme Cour t ' s r ecent opi ni on i n Ci t y of Ar l i ngt onv. F. C. C. , 133 S. Ct . 1863 ( 2013) cast s ser i ous doubt on whet herPer ez Sant ana' s ar gument s ar e t r ul y di st i ngui shabl e. See i d. at

-24-


25/26

I n sum, " [ t ] he government ' s argument i s undermi ned by t he

t ext and st r uct ur e of t he st at ut e as wel l as r el at ed pr ovi si ons" of

t he st at ut or y scheme. Tai ng v. Napol i t ano, 567 F. 3d 19, 26 ( 1st

Ci r . 2009) . Gi ven our concl usi on t hat t he pl ai n meani ng of t he

st at ut e cont r ol s, we need not addr ess t he reasonabl eness of t he

r egul at i on under t he second st ep of Chevron.

D. The Limitations of Today's Holding

The gover nment asks t hat i f we hol d t hat t he post -

depar t ur e bar conf l i ct s wi t h t he mot i on t o reopen st at ut e, we l i mi t

such a hol di ng t o per mi t onl y t i mel y, f i r st mot i ons t o r eopen f i l ed

by nonci t i zens who have depar t ed t he Uni t ed Stat es. The gover nment

obser ves t hat Per ez Sant ana' s ar gument s " depend on t he premi se t hat

[ 8 U. S. C. 1229a( c) ( 7) ] conf er s a st at ut or y r i ght t o seek

r eopeni ng, " and ar gues t hat "such a r i ght exi st s onl y i nsof ar as an

appl i cant compl i es wi t h t he st at ut e' s r equi r ement s f or f i l i ng a

mot i on t o r eopen. " Thus, t he gover nment suggest s, t he post -

depar t ur e bar r emai ns val i dl y appl i cabl e t o mot i ons f i l ed af t er

ni net y days, 8 U. S. C. 1229a( c) ( 7) ( C) ( i ) , or second or subsequent

mot i ons, i d. 1229a( c) ( 7) ( A) . Because such mot i ons f al l out si de

t he st at ut e, t he ar gument goes, t hey must be const r ued as an appeal

t o t he agency' s sua spont e and ext r a- st at ut or y abi l i t y to r eopen

pr oceedi ngs, whi ch i s whol l y a cr eat ur e of agency di scr et i on.

1868 ( "[ T] he di st i nct i on bet ween ' j ur i sdi ct i onal ' and' nonj ur i sdi ct i onal ' i nt er pr et at i ons i s a mi r age. ") .

-25-


26/26

Because t he gover nment ' s argument s have no ef f ect on t he

out come of t hi s case, we decl i ne t o addr ess t hemi n t hi s opi ni on. 10

Her e, t he par t i es do not di sput e t hat Per ez Sant ana f i l ed hi s

mot i on wi t hi n ni net y days, t hat t hi s i s hi s f i r st mot i on, and t hat

he seeks t o avai l hi msel f of hi s st at ut or y ri ght t o seek reopeni ng.

Accordi ngl y, Per ez Sant ana' s appeal may be r esol ved by our hol di ng

t hat t he post - depart ur e bar cannot be used t o abr ogate a

nonci t i zen' s st at ut or y r i ght t o f i l e a mot i on t o r eopen. We need

say no more at t hi s j unct ur e. 11

III.

For t he r easons st at ed, we gr ant t he pet i t i on f or r evi ew,

vacate t he order of t he BI A, and r emand f or f ur t her pr oceedi ngs

consi st ent wi t h t hi s opi ni on.

So ordered.

10 The gover nment r ai ses a si mi l ar ar gument i n t hi s appeal ' scompani on case, Bol i ei r o v. Hol der , No. 12- 1807, sl i p op. at 10- 11( 1st Ci r . Sept . 27, 2013) . We decl i ne t o addr ess i t i n t hatopi ni on as wel l , f or somewhat di f f er ent r easons.

11 We express no vi ew on Per ez Sant ana' s r el i ance on Li n v.Gonzal es, 473 F. 3d 979 ( 9t h Ci r . 2007) .

-26-

Date post:	02-Mar-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	scribd-government-docs
View:	219 times
Download:	0 times

Perez Santana v. Holder, 1st Cir. (2013)

Documents