Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-01970/USCOURTS-ca8-03-01970-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ben Bandanza
Respondent
Bureau of Citizenship & Immigration Services
Respondent
Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Respondent
Department of Homeland Security
Respondent
Gerard Heinauer
Respondent
Fernando Lopez-Flores
Petitioner

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

________________

No. 03-1970

________________

Fernando Lopez-Flores,

Petitioner,

v.

Department of Homeland Security;

Bureau of Immigration and

Customs Enforcement; Bureau of

Citizenship & Immigration

Services; Gerard Heinauer, District

Director; Ben Bandanza, Assistant

District Director of Detention and

Deportation,

Respondents.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Petition for Review of an Order

of the Bureau of Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement.

________________

 Submitted: March 12, 2004 

 Filed: October 28, 2004 (Corrected: 10/29/04)

________________

Before WOLLMAN, FAGG, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges. 

________________

HANSEN, Circuit Judge.

Fernando Lopez-Flores petitions this court for review of an order entered by

the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (BICE), reinstating his prior

Appellate Case: 03-1970 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/28/2004 Entry ID: 1827340 
1

For the sake of uniformity, we will cite to the INA section numbers throughout

with an initial cross-reference to their very different section numbers in Title 8 of the

United States Code.

2

order of deportation and ordering his removal under § 241(a)(5) of the Immigration

and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5), enacted as part of the Illegal

Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), Pub. L. No.

104-208, 110 Stat. 3009-546 (1996).1

 We have jurisdiction to review the

reinstatement of a prior deportation order pursuant to § 242 of the INA, 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252 (2000). For the reasons stated below, we grant the petition for review and

vacate the reinstatement of the deportation order.

I. Background

Lopez-Flores, a citizen of Mexico, illegally entered the United States without

inspection in August of 1992. In December of 1992, the Immigration and

Naturalization Service (INS) found him to be a deportable alien and issued an order

allowing Lopez-Flores to depart voluntarily prior to March 7, 1993. Lopez-Flores did

not depart prior to that date. In April of 1994, the INS entered an order of

deportation, and on May 3, 1994, Lopez-Flores departed the United States. 

On April 3, 1995, less than one year later, Lopez-Flores illegally reentered the

United States. In December of 1995, Lopez-Flores and his sponsoring employer filed

an application for work authorization – Alien Employment Certification – with the

Department of Labor. It was not until February 5, 2001, over five years after the

initial application, that the Department of Labor approved the Alien Employment

Certification. While the application was pending, Congress enacted § 241(a)(5) of

the INA, which became effective on April 1, 1997. In June of 2001, Lopez-Flores's

employer filed a Petition for Alien Worker – Form 140. In July of 2001, the INS

approved the Petition for Alien Worker, but noted that "[t]he evidence indicates that

Appellate Case: 03-1970 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/28/2004 Entry ID: 1827340 
2

Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 212.2, an alien who is otherwise inadmissible under

§ 212, for failing to seek permission to reenter the United States after a prior

deportation, may file Form I-212 for nunc pro tunc permission to reenter in

conjunction with an application for adjustment of status. The approval of Form I-212

retroactively cancels the disqualifying effect of the prior deportation. 

3

Effective March 1, 2003, the Immigration and Naturalization Service ceased

to exist, and its interior enforcement functions were transferred to the Department of

Homeland Security, Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (BICE). See

Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-296, § 441, 116 Stat. 2135, 2178

(2002).

3

[Lopez-Flores] is not eligible to file an adjustment of status application."

(Petitioner’s App. at 20.)

In January of 2002, based on the approval of his employment-based immigrant

petition, Lopez-Flores filed an application to adjust status to legal permanent

resident – Form 485 – representing that he had never been ordered removed from the

United States. On February 27, 2003, the INS denied the application, noting that

Lopez-Flores was ineligible for an adjustment of status under § 212 of the INA, 8

U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(C), because he was an alien who was previously unlawfully

present in the United States for more than one year and who had subsequently

reentered the United States illegally. Lopez-Flores filed a timely notice of appeal

with the Administrative Appeals Unit of the INS arguing that he was wrongfully

denied the opportunity to file a Form I-2122

 in conjunction with his Form 485. (Ad.

R. at 120.) Lopez-Flores had no opportunity to pursue this appeal because on April

10, 2003, the BICE3

 served him with a notice of intent to reinstate his prior

deportation order pursuant to § 241(a)(5). Lopez-Flores filed a petition for review

and a motion for a stay of removal. This court denied the motion, and he was

deported on June 23, 2003. Relying on our decision in Alvarez-Portillo v. Ashcroft,

280 F.3d 858 (8th Cir. 2002), Lopez-Flores argues that § 241(a)(5) has an

impermissible retroactive effect when applied to disallow aliens like himself, who

Appellate Case: 03-1970 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/28/2004 Entry ID: 1827340 
4

reentered the United States prior to the effective date of that amendment, from

seeking discretionary adjustment of status as a defense to the reinstatement of

deportation.

II. Discussion

In Alvarez-Portillo, we held that § 241(a)(5), under which an alien subject to

reinstatement may not apply for any relief "under this chapter" of the INA, could not

be applied retroactively to an alien who had illegally reentered the United States

prior to the enactment of the IIRIRA because that alien had a "reasonable

expectation" that he could apply for adjustment of status as a defense to removal.

Id. at 867. Under pre-IIRIRA administrative practice, aliens in deportation

proceedings were allowed to defend against removal by seeking and obtaining an

adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident. Alvarez-Portillo illegally

reentered the United States and married a United States citizen prior to the enactment

of § 241(a)(5). We noted that Alvarez-Portillo's marriage to a United States citizen

"would have made him a likely candidate for adjustment of status," id. at 862, and

that "[u]nder prior law, Alvarez-Portillo had a reasonable expectation he could either

file for a discretionary adjustment of status, or wait and seek the adjustment as a

defense to a later deportation proceeding," id. at 867. Because § 241(a)(5)

eliminated this potential defense, we concluded that § 241(a)(5) had an

impermissible retroactive effect on Alvarez-Portillo's reinstatement and removal

proceeding. 

Respondents seek to distinguish this case from Alvarez-Portillo on two bases.

First, Respondents argue that Lopez-Flores could not have had a "reasonable

expectation" of receiving an adjustment of status prior to the enactment of

§ 241(a)(5) because his application for work authorization had not yet been approved

and because his application for adjustment was based on his employment status

rather than his marriage to a United States citizen, as was the case in AlvarezAppellate Case: 03-1970 Page: 4 Date Filed: 10/28/2004 Entry ID: 1827340 
5

Portillo. Specifically, Respondents note that the process to receive an employmentbased visa is much more complicated and lengthy than the process to receive an

immediate relative visa. While we agree that this fact may have some effect on the

success of such a defense, it has no bearing on the reasonableness of Lopez-Flores's

expectation that the opportunity to pursue such a defense would be available to him

in later instituted deportation proceedings. Had Respondents shown that LopezFlores's application for adjustment of status was utterly without merit or that such

relief was unavailable to him as a matter of law prior to the enactment of § 241(a)(5),

we would conclude that any retroactive application of § 241(a)(5) was harmless

error. However, the fact that Lopez-Flores may have been a weaker candidate than

Alvarez-Portillo for discretionary adjustment of status does not change the fact that

he had a reasonable expectation that such a defense would be available to him to

assert in a subsequent deportation proceeding. Cf. Alvarez-Portillo, 280 F.3d at 867

("There is a clear difference . . . between facing possible deportation and facing

certain deportation.") (internal marks omitted).

This brings us to the second distinguishing fact in this case. Unlike AlvarezPortillo, who merely intended or attempted to file an application for adjustment of

status, Lopez-Flores had already applied for, and was denied, an adjustment of status

prior to his reinstatement deportation proceeding. Thus, in this appeal, Lopez-Flores

essentially seeks relief that he has already received – an opportunity to be considered

for discretionary adjustment of status. Nevertheless, absent the effect of § 241(a)(5),

Lopez-Flores would have had the opportunity to renew his application for

adjustment of status in the context of a subsequent deportation proceeding. See 8

C.F.R. § 245.2(a)(5)(ii); Cardoso v. Reno, 216 F.3d 512, 518 (5th Cir. 2000)

(dismissing a direct appeal from the immigration judge's denial of an alien’s request

for adjustment of status, noting that she had to first exhaust her administrative

remedies by renewing her request upon the commencement of removal proceedings);

Randall v. Meese, 854 F.2d 472, 474-75 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (“Should the alien fail to

gain adjustment [in his initial application], he is entitled to a de novo review of his

Appellate Case: 03-1970 Page: 5 Date Filed: 10/28/2004 Entry ID: 1827340 
4

Although this administrative provision generally provides that an alien seeking

permission to reapply for admission must have resided outside of the United States

for five consecutive years after the date of removal, 8 C.F.R. § 212.2(a), the provision

goes on to state that "any alien who is seeking to enter the United States prior to the

completion of the requisite [five-year] absence, must apply for permission to apply

for readmission to the United States as provided under this part." Id. Thus, LopezFlores is not barred from applying for a waiver under this section. 

6

application in the context of deportation proceedings.”), cert. denied, 491 U.S. 904

(1989). In a deportation proceeding, the alien is accorded a plenary hearing; he has

the right to be represented by counsel, to introduce evidence, and to cross-examine

witnesses. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a; 8 C.F.R. § 1240.10. Thus, although Lopez-Flores's

initial application for adjustment of status was denied and he had no opportunity to

pursue his administrative appeal, absent the § 241(a)(5) provisions, he would have

had an opportunity to renew his application in the context of a subsequent

deportation proceeding. We conclude that he has the right to do so now.

Respondents argue that we need not remand to allow Lopez-Flores another

opportunity to pursue adjustment of status because Lopez-Flores is ineligible for that

relief as a matter of law under both the current and the prior versions of the statute.

Compare 8 U.S.C. §1182(a)(9)(C) (2000) (stating in relevant part that aliens who are

inadmissible based on their unlawful presence in the United States for more than one

year or their reentry after a prior order of deportation are ineligible to receive visas

and ineligible to be admitted to the United States unless they wait at least ten years

to reenter), with 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(B) (1994) (declaring aliens who have been

"arrested and deported" to be inadmissible, absent the consent of the Attorney

General, unless they wait at least five years to reenter). Even if these provisions do

apply to make Lopez-Flores ineligible for adjustment of status, the INA and its

accompanying regulations contain at least one waiver that serves to forgive a prior

deportation that would otherwise disqualify an applicant for adjustment of status.

Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 212.2(a),4

 an individual seeking an adjustment of status may

Appellate Case: 03-1970 Page: 6 Date Filed: 10/28/2004 Entry ID: 1827340 
5

Interestingly, it is through the § 212 waiver process that Alvarez-Portillo was

eligible to renew his adjustment of status application after we vacated the initial

reinstatement order in that case. (Br. for Petitioner at 19-20, Alvarez-Portillo v.

Ashcroft, 280 F.3d 858 (8th Cir. 2001) (No. 01-1430).)

7

petition the Attorney General to remove the prior deportation disqualifications

contained in 8 U.S.C. § 1182. In his administrative appeal from the denial of his

application to adjust status, Lopez-Flores argued that he was wrongfully prevented

from filing for a § 212 waiver.5

 Although Lopez-Flores is not automatically entitled

to this waiver, the possibility of receiving such discretionary relief demonstrates that

he is not absolutely ineligible for adjustment of status.

Because we recognize that this discretionary waiver may have allowed LopezFlores to escape from his apparent statutory ineligibility, and because an agency

should have the first opportunity to interpret and apply its own regulations,

especially those involving such a degree of discretion, we conclude that the most

appropriate resolution in this case is to allow Lopez-Flores to raise this defense in

a new deportation proceeding. We vacate the reinstatement of the prior deportation

order and remand for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-1970 Page: 7 Date Filed: 10/28/2004 Entry ID: 1827340