2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

3-20-2008 

# Au gu s t in v . Atty Ge n U SA
P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 06-4744

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin
. C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du

. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" Au gus t in v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1344. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1344H onor abl e Loui s H

. Pol l ak, Seni orD i s t r i ctJ udge of the * U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ct C our tforthe East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. P RE CE DE NT I AL

UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N o. 06- 4744

L UC KS ON AUG US T I N, Pet i t i oner

v. ATTO RN EY G ENER AL O F TH E U N I TED STA TES, R es pondent

Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof the U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof J us t i ce B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( B I A N o. A 44- 595- 689) Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e : H o n . H e n ryS . D o g in

A r gued J anuary31, 2008 B E F O R E : R E N D E L L a n d C H A G A R E S , C i r cui tJudges ,

a n d P OL L AK, D is tr i ct Judge *2 ( Fi l ed: M ar ch 20, 2008) E ngyA bdel kader( A r gued) L egal Ser vi ces of N ew J er s ey 100 M etr opl ex D r i ve, Sui t e 402 E di s on, N J 08818 C ouns el f orP et i t i oner Pet erD

. K ei s l er D o u g las E

. G insb u rg J ohn D

. W i l l i ams ( A r gued) U

. S. D epart m entof J us t i ce P. O

. B ox 878, B en Fr ankl i n St at i on W as hi ngt on, D

. C

. 20044 C ouns el f orR es pondent

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

P O L L A K , D is tr i ct

Judge. L ucks on A ugus t i n pet i t i ons for r evi ew of an or der of the B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls (“ B IA ” ) c o n c lu d in g th a t h e is rem o v ab le an d ineligible f o r ca n ce ll ati o n o f re m o v al. W e a re c a lle d u p o n to d e c id e w h e th e r th e B IA e rre d in re f u sin g to im p u te to p e tit io n e r h is f a th e r’s y e a rs o f

c o n tin u o u s re sid e n c e in or dert o m eett he s even- y earr equi r ementforcanc el la t i on of re m o v a l.T he I

- 261 i ndi cat es t hat , al t hough D H S w i t hdr ew the cha r ge 1 t h a tp e t i t i o n e r h a d b e e n c o n v i c t e d o f a n a g g r a v a t e d f e l o n y , DHS d id n o t w ith d ra w th e a lle g a tio n s s u p p o rt in g th a t c h a rg e . 3 I. Pet i t i onerL ucks on A ugus t i n, born on A ugus t24, 1981, i s a nat i ve and ci t i zen of H ai t i

. H e w as admi t t ed t o t he U ni t ed St at es as a l aw ful perm anentr es i dent( “LP R ”) on February24, 1 9 9 5 , a t th e a g e o f

th ir te e n . T he D epart m entof H o m el and Secur i t y( “D H S”) comm ence d r emoval pr ocee di ngs againstpet i t i onerw i t h a not i ce t o appea rdat ed N ovember7, 200 5 , char gi ng hi m as r e m o v a b l e f

o rh a v i n g b e e n c o n v i c t e d o f a n a g g r a v a t e d f

e l o n y. See 8 U

. S. C

. § 1227( a) ( 2) ( A ) ( i i i )

. T h e not i ce a l l eged that pet i t i onerhad bee n convi ct ed of el udi ng pol i ce i n N ew J er s ey and had been sent enced t o thr ee y ears i m pri sonm ent on A ug ust 1 9 , 2 0 0 5

. O n M a rc h 3 0 , 2 0 0 6 , D H S fil ed an I-26 1 fo rm w ith d ra w in g th e a g g ra v a ted f e lo n yc h a rg e a n d re p lac in g it w ith char ges th a tpet i t i onerw as r emovabl e on tw o ot hergr ounds : that he had be en convi ct ed of tw o cr i m es i nvol vi ng m or al turpi tude, and thathe had be en convi ct ed of unl aw ful pos s es s i on of a f ir e a rm . See 8 U .S .C . § § 2 2 7 (a )(2 )(A )(ii), (a )(2 )(C ). In su p p o rt, D H S m ade a ddi t i onal al l egat i ons thatpet i t i onerhad bee n convi ct ed i n N ew J er s eySuper i orC our ton D ece m ber10, 2001, of r ece i vi ng s t ol en pr oper t yand, on D ec em ber23, 2003, of unl aw ful pos s es s i on of a ha ndgun. 14 A t a h e a rin g b e f

o re a n im m ig ra tio n ju d g e (“ IJ” ) o n A p ril 13, 2006, pet i t ion er, r epr es ent ed bycouns el , admi t t ed the g o v e rn m e n t’ s a lle g a tio n s . A s evi dence of pet i t i oner ’ s convi ct i ons , the governm ent i ni t i al l ys ubm i t t ed the j udgm ent s of convi ct i on forthe w eapon and e ludi ng pol i ce c har ges , buts ubm i t t ed onl yt he cr i m i nal compl ai ntfort he re cei vi ng s t ol en pr oper t ychar ge. U pon t he I J ’ s obj ect i on t hat he needed t he j udgm ent of convi ct i on forthe r ece i vi ng s t ol en pr opert ychar ge, th e g o v e rn m e n t su b m itt e d in addi t i on pet i t i oner ’ s N ew J er s ey r ap shee t l i s t i ng al l of hi s N ew J er s eyconvi ct i ons . T he r ap s heeti ndi cat es thatpet i t i onerw as arr es t ed for r ece i vi ng s t ol en prope r t y on M ar ch 25, 2000, found gui l t yon D ece m ber10, 2001, s ent ence d on M ar ch 26, 2002, and re s e n te n c e d o n A p ri l 2 5 , 2 0 0 3

. A t a he aring o n M ay1 1 , 2 0 0 6 , the IJ, at p e ti ti o n er’s ur gi ng, gr ant ed pet i t i oner ’ s couns el ’ s m ot i on t o w i t hdr aw fr om t he ca s e. Pet i t i onert hen ar gued thathe w as el i gi bl e for canc el l at i on of r emoval des pit e havi ng comm i t t ed a c r i m e of m o ra l tu rp itu d e in 2 0 0 0 , b e c a u se h e d id n o t b e c o m e re m o v a b le unt i l bei ng convi ct ed of the gun cha r ge i n 2003 orhis s econd cr i me i n v o l v i n g mor a l tu rp i tu d e i n 2 0 0 5 — mor e t h a n s even y e a rs a f te r h is a d m is s io n a s a n L P R

. Cf

. 8 U

. S. C

. § 1229b( a) ( 2) ( pr ovi di ng t hatan LP R i s el i gi bl e fo r ca ncel l at i on of r emoval onl yaft ers even y ear s of cont i nuous r es i dence and fi ve y ear s as an LP R )

. T he gover nm ent r es ponded t hatthe comm i s s i on of a s i ngl e cr i m e i nvol vi ng m or al turpi tude “ st ops the cl ock” a c c ru in g tim e to w a rd th e c o n tin u o u s re sid e n c yre q u ire m e n t, r egar dl es s of the exi s t ence of a s econd c r i m e i nvol vi ng m or al tu rp itu d e re n d e ri n g th e a li e n re m o v a b le

. See 8 U. S

. C.N o ti n g that p e titio n e r h ad n o t r aised this argu m en t bef o re 2 th e IJ, th e B IA e lec ted to c o n sid e r it f o r th e f irst tim e o n a p p e a l. 5 § 1229 b( d) ( 1)

. T he I J pr et erm i tt ed pet i t i oner ’ s appl i cat i on for c a n c e llatio n o f

re m o v a l. A ta s ubs equent hear i ng on pet i t i oner ’ s appl i cat i on for r el i ef under t he C onvent i on A gai ns t T or tur e ( “C A T ”) o n June 16, 2006, t he IJ hear d pet i t i oner ’ s t es t i m onyr egar di ng hi s fea r of r etur ni ng t o H ai t i and re cei ved count r y r epor t s i n s uppor tof pet i t i oner ’ s appl i cat i on forC A T r el i ef. Pet i t i onert es t i fi ed that bot h of hi s par ent s w er e U

. S. ci t i zens , hi s m otherhavi ng m oved t o t he U ni t ed St at es i n 1982 and hi s father i n 1989. H e t es t i fi ed t ha thi s fa t he r , pr i or t o ob t a i ni ng c i t i z e ns hi p, ha d b e e n a n LPR s t ar t i ng i n 1989. H e fur t her t es t i fi ed t hat hi s par ent s s pons or ed h im f o r L P R sta tu s, a n d th a t h e o b ta in e d L P R sta tu s u p o n h is admi s s i on t o t he U ni t ed St at es on February24, 1995. I n an or al deci s i on, t he I J found pet i t i oner ’ s t es t i m onycr edi bl e, butdeni ed h is C A T c la im

. O n a p p e a l to th e B IA , p e tit io n e r, re p re se n ted b yc o u n se l, r ai sed var i ous ar gum ent s , i ncl udi ng thos e he r ai s es agai n on appea l : ( 1) t hatt he I J err ed in fin d i ng hi m i nel i gi bl e for c a n c e llatio n o f

re m o v a l b e c a u se a m in o r a lien c a n c o u n t h is par ent s ’ y ear s as an LP R t ow ar d t he s t atut e’ s s even- y ear r es i dencyr equi r ement , and ( 2) that pet i t i oner ’ s convi ct i on for 2 r e c e i v i n g s t o l e n p r o p e r t y( wh i c h c u to f f h i s a c c ru a l o f

t i me t o w a rd the seven-y ear r equ i rem ent) do es not quali fyas a “convi ct i on” fort he purpos e of r emoval beca us e pet i t i onerw as s e n t e n c e d u n d e ra p r e - t r i a l d i v e r s i o n p r o g r a m. O n O ct ober13, 2 0 0 6 , th e B IA a f

f ir m e d th e IJ in a f

o u r- p a g e o p in io n .A l t hough t he governm en t h as n o t r ai s ed thi s j ur i s di ct i onal 3 i s s ue, w e of c our s e have a dut yt o i nqui r e i nt o t he bas i s forour o w n ju ri s d ic tio n . S e e A da p t o f P h ila d e lp h ia v . P h ila d e lp h ia H ous . A uth. , 4 3 3 F

. 3 d 3 5 3 , 3 6 1 n . 1 0 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 6 ). 6 II. W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e l e g a l q u e s t i o n r a i s e d by p e t i t i o n e rr e g a r d i n g h i s e l i g i b i l i t yf o rc a n c e l l a t i o n o f

r emoval p u r s u a n tt o Co n g r e s s ’ s g r a n to f j u r i s d i c t i o n i n 8 U. S

. C. § 1 2 5 2 (a ). W e do not , how ever , have j ur i s di ct i on t o co n side r w hethert he B I A err ed i n fi ndi ng pet i t i onerr emovabl e on the bas i s of hi s convi ct i on for r ece i vi ng s t ol en pr oper t y , beca us e the ques t i on i s m oot
. T he IJ hel d and B I A aff i r m ed thatpet i t i oner w as al s o r emovabl e as char ged w i t h havi ng been convi ct ed of a fi r earm offe ns e. B eca us e pet i t i oner d o es notchal l enge that grou nd of r emoval , hi s or derof r emoval w i l l s t and w i t hout re g a rd to w h e th e r th e sto len p ro p e rtyc o n v ictio n p ro p e rly q u a lifie s a s a g ro u n d o f re m o v a l. 3
W e re v iew leg a l q u e stio n s de novo , b u t“ d efe r t o t he B IA ’s r e a so n a b le i n te r p re tatio n s o f sta tu tes it i s c h a rg e d w ith admi ni s t er i ng. ” Si lva- R engi f o v. A t t ’ y G en. , 47 3 F. 3d 58, 63 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( ci t i ng IN S v. A gu i rre-A gu i rre , 526 U

. S. 415, 424 (1 9 9 9 ); C h e v ro n U.S .A ., In c . v. N a tu ra l R e s. D e

f. C o u n c il , I

nc. , 4 6 7 U .S . 8 3 7 , 8 4 2 -4 3 (1 9 8 4 ))

.7 III . T h e q u e stio n b e f

o re th e c o u rt is w h e th e r th e B IA e rre d in r efus i ng t o i m put e t o an al i en w ho ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es as a m in o r th e a lien ’s p a re n t’s y e a rs o f c o n tin u o u s re sid e n c e in or der t o m eett he s even- y earr equi r ementforcanc el l at i on of re m o v a l. T he I m m i gr at i on and N at i onal i t yA ct( “I N A ”) , as amended byt he I l l egal I m m igrati on R eform and I m m i gr ant R es pons i bi l i t y A ctof 19 9 6 ( “I I R I R A ”) , Pub L

. N o. 104- 208, D i v. C , 1 1 0 S t at
. 3009- 546, pr ovi des that , forperm anent r es i dent s , “[t ] he A t t or neyG ener al m ay ca ncel r emoval i n the cas e of a n al i en w ho i s i nadmi s s i bl e ordepor t abl e fr om t he U ni t ed St at es i f the al i en”: ( 1) has been a n al i en l aw ful l yadmi t t ed forperm anent res i den ce fo r notl ess than 5 y ears , (2) h as re side d in the U n ite d S ta tes co n ti n u o u slyfo r 7 y ear s aft erhavi ng been a dm i t t ed i n anys t atus , and ( 3 ) h a s n o tb e e n c o n v i c t e d o f a n y a g g r a v a t e d f

e l o n y. 8 U

. S. C

. § 1229b( a)

. U ndert he IN A , “‘ admi s s i on’ and

‘ admi t t ed’ m ean, w i t h r es pect t o an al i en, t he l aw ful entr yof the al i en i nt o t he U ni t ed S t at es aft eri ns pect i on and author i zat i on by an i m m igrat i on offi cer . ” Id

. § 1101( a) ( 13)

. T he I N A defi nes “r es i dence ” as “the pl ace of gene r al abode; t he pl ace of gene r al a b o d e o f a p e rso n m e a n s h is pr in c ip a l, ac tu a l d w e lli n g p lac e in fa ct , w i t houtr egar d t o i nt ent
. ” Id

. § 1 10 1(a) (33). T he st atu te8 fur therpr ovi des t hatan al i en’ s per i od of cont i nuous r es i dence forthe purpos e of m eet i ng t he re s i dencyr equi r ementends upon t he i s s uance of a not i ce t o appea r or upon t he comm i s s i on of a c ri m e th a t w o u l d r e n d e r t h e a lie n in a d m is s ib le

. Id

. § 1 2 2 9 b (d)(1 ). T he B I A ’ s i nt erpretati on of the I N A i n an opi ni on di s m i s s i ng an al i en’ s appe al i s ent i t l ed t o C hevr on defe r ence . See Sun W

en C hen v. A t t ’

y G en. , 4 9 1 F

. 3 d 1 0 0 , 1 0 6 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 7 ). U n d er C hevr on , i n r evi ew i ng an age ncy ’ s cons t ruct i on o f a sta tu te a d m in iste re d b yth e a g e n c y , th e c o u rt “ a sk [ s] f irst ‘if th e sta tu te is sile n t o r a m b ig u o u s w ith re sp e c t to th e sp e c if ic issue ’ of law in the ca se,” u sing “‘ tr a d iti o n al t o o ls of statu tory cons t ruct i on’ t o det erm i ne w hether ‘ C ongr es s had an i nt ent i on on t he pr eci s e quest i on ati s s ue. ’ ” Id

. ( quot i ng C h e v r o n U.S .A ., In c . v . N a tu ra l R e s. D e

f. C o u n c il , I

nc. , 4 6 7 U .S . 8 3 7 , 8 4 3 & n .9 (19 8 4 )). If C o n g ress’s inten ti o n is no t evid en t, the c o u rt
“ m o v e [ s] to th e se c o n d ste p , w h e re ‘th e q u e stio n f o r th e c o u rt is w h e th e r th e a g e n c y ’s a n sw e r is b a se d o n a p e rm iss ib le cons t ruct i on of the s t atut e. ’ W hen C ongr es s has l efta gap i n a sta tu te, im p licitly lea v in g th e a d m in iste rin g a g e n c yre sp o n sib le f o rf i l l i n g t h a tg a p , ‘ a c o u r tma yn o ts u b s t i t u t e i t s o wn c o n s tr u c tio n o f

a sta tu to ryp ro v isio n f o r a re a so n a b le interpr et at i on m ade byt he admi ni s t r at orof an a gency . ’ ” Id

. ( quot i ng C hevr on , 4 6 7 U .S . a t 8 3 4 -4 4 & n .9 ). A ccor di ng t o pet i t i oner ’ s t es t i m ony , w hi ch w as uncontr adi ct ed and w hi ch the I J acc ept ed, pet i t i onerw as admi t t ed t o t he U ni t ed St at es as an L P R in 1 9 95, atthe age of th irtee n . In im m ig ra tin g to th e U n ited S tate s, h e jo in e d h is p a re n ts; h is f

a th e r h a d o b tain e d L P R sta tu s in 1 9 8 9 , a n d b o th h is9 p are n ts w ere ev en tually natur al i zed a s U

. S

. cit izen s. P eti ti o n er’s comm i s s i on of a c r i m e i nvol vi ng m or al turpi tude i n 2000 cutoff hi s acc rual of y ear s of cont i nuous r es i dence forthe purpos e of becomi ng el i gi bl e forcanc el l at i o n o f re m oval

. Pet i t i oner con t end s that, becau se he w as a m i no r w hen he w as fi rs t admi t t ed t o the U ni t ed St at es i n 1995, hi s father ’ s pr ece di ng y ear s of cont i nuous r es i dence , comm enci ng i n 1989, s houl d be i m put ed t o him fort he purpos e of meet i ng the s even- y ear re q u ir e m e n t. T he B I A hel d t hatpet i ti o n er w as notel i gi bl e for canc el l at i on of r emoval beca us e, under t he IN A ’ s defi ni t i ons of “r es i dence ” and “ admi t t ed, ” pet i t i onerhad notr es i ded i n t he countr yfort he r equi s i t e s even y ear s fol l ow i ng admi s s i on. T he B I A decl i ned t o i m put e pet i t i oner ’ s father ’ s y ear s of r es i dence t o pet i t i onerbeca us e doi ng s o di d not acc or d w i t h “the cl ear s t atut or ydi ct at es of th e reside n cy req u ir em ent s for canc el l at i on. ” I n s o hol di ng, t he B I A r ej ect ed the r eas oni ng of C uevas - G as

parv. G onz al es , 4 3 0 F .3 d 1 0 1 3 (9 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ), in w hi ch a di vi ded pane l of the N i nth C i r cui thel d t hat , underthe canc el l at i on provi s i on, a par ent ’ s pr ece di ng y ear s of r es i dence i n the U nit ed S t at es ar e i m pu t ed to a m i no r chi l d fo r the p urpose o f m e e tin g th e se v e n -y e a r re sid e n c yre q u ire m e n t. T h e N in th C i r c u i t h e l d t h a t t h e BI A’ s d i s a l l o wi n g s u c h i mpu t a t i o n w as unr eas onabl e becaus e i t w as i ncons i s t ent w i t h t he fact s t hat“our i m m i gr at i on s t atut es and r egul at i ons ar e r epl et e w i t h pr ovi s i ons gi vi ng a hi gh pr i or i t yt o the r el at i on betw een pe r m anentr es i dent par ent s and thei r chi l dr en” and t hat “a par ent ’ s s t atus , i nt ent , or s t at e of mi nd i s i m put ed t o t he par ent ’ s unemanc ipat ed mi nor c h i l d i n ma n ya r e a s o f i mmi g r a t i o n l a w, i n c l u d i n g a s y l u m, gr ounds of i nadmi s s i bi l i t y , an d legal r es i dencys t atus . ” Id

. atT he C ueva s- G aspa r co u rtalso co n side red w h ethe r II R IR A ’s 4 l egi s l at i ve hi s t or y s uppor t ed t he B I A ’ s i nt erpr et at i on. Fi ndi ng n o ex p lana ti o n in the legislat iv e h ist o ryfo r II R IR A ’s i nt r oduct i on of the s even- y ear“r es i dence ” r equi r ement , t he cour t s pecul at ed t hat C ongr es s i nt ended t o r es ol ve a co n fl i ct betw een the B I A and the courts of appea l s overw hethert he s e v e n y e a r s o f

“ d o mi c i l e ” r e q u i r e d u n d e rt h e f o r me r I NA § 2 12 ( c) repea l e d b yI I RI RA ha d t o f ol l ow at t a i nmen tof

LPR s t a tus , or w he t he r i t w a s s uf fi c i e nts i mpl yt o h a ve a t t a i ne d LPR s t atus ats om e poi nt; the canc el l at i on of r emoval pr ovi s i on r e s ol ve s t hi s qu e s t i on bye xp r e s s l yr e qu i r i ng fi ve y e a r s of LPR s ta tu s a n d s e v e n y e a rs o f c o n tin u o u s re s id e n c e . C ueva s - Gas par , 4 3 0 F .3 d a t 1 0 2 7 -2 8

. 10 1024 ( i n terna l quot at i on m arks om i t t ed)

. J udge Fernandez 4 di ssent ed, fi ndi ng t hatthe ca ncel l at i on of r emoval pr ovi s i on “coul d notbe more cl ear ” i n r equi r i ng s even y ear s o f actual re sid e n c e , an d th a t, “ [ e ]v e n if o n e c o u ld a rg u e th a t th e sta tu te is a m b ig u o u s, th e B IA ’s in terp re tatio n is q u ite re a so n a b le, a n d to t hatw e mustdefe r . ” Id . a t 1 0 3 2

. Si nce di s m issi ng pet i t i oner ’ s appea l i n the i ns t antcas e, t he B I A has agai n r epudi at ed the hol di ng i n C uevas - G as par . In I n r e Escobar , 24 I

. & N

. D ec. 231 ( B I A 2007) , t he pet i t i oner had arr i ved as a y oung chi l d w i t h herm otheri n the ea r l y1980s and w as admi t t ed t o L PR s t atus i n 2003; her m otherbeca m e an L P R e a rl ie r, i n 1 9 9 2

. S e e id

. at231. A tthe t i m e of he rr emoval pr ocee di ngs i n 2006, E s cobar had not acc rued t he fi ve y ear s of L P R s ta tu s re q u ir e d f

o r c a n c e lla tio n o f

re m o v a l. See 8 U. S

. C. § 1 2 2 9 b (a )(1 ). D e sp ite the f a c t th a t th e c a se a ro se in th e N in th C i r cui t , w her e C ueva s- G aspa r r equi r es the B I A t o im p u t e aA s w e di s cus s fur t her b elow , i m put at i on underthe form er 5 I N A § 212( c) hi nged on t he am bi guous t erm “domi ci l e” i n that pr ovi s i on, a t erm r epl ace d by“re s i dence ” i n t he curr ent canc ell ati on of r emoval pr ovi s i on. T he governm enthas not cont ended be fore u s t hatC ongr es s i n I I R I R A el i m i nat ed the w o rd “ d o m icile ” in f

a v o r o f “ re sid e n c e ” in o rd e r to e lim in a te i m put at i o n , and I I R I R A ’ s l egi s l at i ve hi s t orydoes notpr ovi de 11 m i noral i en’ s par ent ’ s y ear s of r es i dence t o t he mi noral i en for t he purpos e of meet i ng t he r es i dencyr equi r ementfor ca n ce ll ati o n o f rem o v al, the B IA ref u sed to i m p u te E s c o b ar’s m ot her ’ s y ear s of L PR s t atus t o E s cobar i n or der t o m eet the fi ve- y earL PR s t atus r equi r ement : “[I ] m put i ng a par ent ’ s s t atus a n d re sid e n c e to a llo w a c h ild to m e e t th e re q u ire m e n ts o f b o th s ect i ons 240A ( 1) a n d (2) of t he A ctw oul d es s ent i al l ydes t r oy t he di s t i n ct t es t s m andat ed byC ongr es s w hen i tamended the sta tu te to re p lac e th e f o r m e r se c tio n 2 1 2 (c ) w a iv e r w ith c a n c e llatio n o f re m o v a l.” 2 4 I. & N . D e c . at 2 3 4 -3 5 ; se e a lso id

. a t2 3 5 ( s t a t i n g t h a tt h e BI A wou l d n o tf o l l o w C uevas - G as

par o u tsi d e the N inth C ir cu it ). T h e IN A a s a m e n d e d b yIIR IR A d o e s n o t ex p re ss ly addr es s t he ques t i on w hether par ent s ’ y ear s of r es i dence m aybe i m put ed t o t hei rm i norchi l dren forthe purpos e of meet i ng t he s even- y earr equ ir em entforcanc el l at i on of r emoval

. T he canc el l at i on of r emoval pr ovi s i on nei t herpr ovi des fors uch im p u tatio n n o r d isa llo w s it. F u rth e rm o re , w e h a v e b e e n u n a b le t o fi nd i n I I R I R A ’ s l eg isl at i ve hi s t oryanyi ndi cat i on of C o n g re ss ’s in ten tio n re g a rd in g im p u ta tio n — w h ich , p rio r to I I RI RA ’ s e n a c t me n t , s o me c o u r t s h a d r e a d i n t o t h e f o r me rI NA § 2 1 2 ( c ) , a r e l i e f

p r o v i s i o n r e p e a l e d b yI I RI RA

. See C ueva s- 5su p p o rt f o r su c h a n in f

e re n c e . A c c o rd in g ly , w e d e c lin e to speculat e al on g those l i nes. 12 G as par , 4 3 0 F

. 3 d a t1 0 2 2

- 2 4 & n. 7 ( d e s c r i b i n g p r e - I I RI RA cas es )

. I n s hort , i n C hevr on ter m s, “ th e sta tu te is sile n t . . . w ith r es pectt o t he s peci fi c i s s ue. ” C hevr on , 467 U

. S. at843. A ccor di ngl y , w e move t o C hevr on ’s sec o n d step , w h ere w e m us taff

i r m t he B I A ’ s i nt erpr et at i on as perm i s s i bl e. T he B I A decl i ned t o i m put e pet i t i oner ’ s father ’ s y ear s of r es i dence t o pet i t i onerbeca us e doi ng s o w oul d vi ol at e the s t atut e’ s cl ear r equi r ement s for canc el l at i on of re m oval

. T he s t atut e r equi r es se v e n y e a rs o f

c o n tin u o u s “ re si d e n c e ,” a n d “ re sid e n c e ” is d e f in e d a s a p e rso n ’s “ p rin c ip a l, a c tu a l d w e lli n g p lac e in f a c t, w ith o u t re g a rd to in ten t.” 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 1 ( a ) (3 3 ). It is undi s put ed thatpet i t i onerd i d not“ac tual [l y ] dw el l [] ” i n the U ni t ed St at es fors even c ont i nuous y ear s b ef or e he c om m i t t ed t he cr i m e i nvol vi ng m or al turpitude thatcutoff hi s per i od of cont i nuous r es i dence. T h e B I A ’ s deni al of ca ncel l at i on of r emoval on t hi s gr ound

— and i t s r efus al t o i m put e t o pet i t i oner his fat her’s y ears of resi den ce — i s perm i ssi ble because i ti s a s t r a i g h t f o rw a r d a p p l i c a t i o n o f

th e s t a tu t e ’ s r e q u i r e m e n t s . We cannotfi nd t he B I A unr eas onabl e forfai l i ng t o rea d into the statu te an ex ce p ti o n see m ing lyat o d d s w ith the s tatu te’s requi rem ents
. W e are not convinced b y peti t i on er’ s content i on s, echoi ng t he N i nt h C i r cui t ’ s opi ni on i n C uevas - G as par , t hatt he B I A ’ s i n t e rp r et at i on i s unr eas onabl e bec aus e i tconfl i ct s w i t h ( 1) t he hi gh pr i or i t y t he IN A otherw i s e pl ace s on r el at i ons betw een L PR par ent s and t hei r m i nor chi l dr en; ( 2) t he B I A ’s pr i orSee, e. g. , H

. R ep. 10 4 -4 6 9 , P a rt I, at10 8 (199 6) ( H ou se 6 J udi ci aryC om m it te e r epor tdeemi ng a hi gh pr i or i t yuni t i ng “nucl ear ” fa m i l i es of spous es and m i nor chi l dr en, pos s i bl y atthe ex p en se o f lett ing in f

ew er a d u lt“e x tend ed fa m il y ” m em b ers). 13 i nt erpr et at i on of t he i m m i gr at i on l aw s and r egul at ion s as al l ow i ng fori m put at i on of par en ts’ s t atus es t o t hei rm i nor chi l dr en; and ( 3) t he pr ovi s i on’ s purpos e of pr ovi di ng r el i ef f or al i ens w ho have de vel oped cl os e t i es t o t he U ni t ed St at es . N or ar e w e per su ad ed t o gr antt he pet i t i on on t he s t r ength of our r eas oni ng i n Mo r e lv . I

NS , 9 0 F .3 d 8 3 3 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 6 ), vacated on o ther gr ounds , 1 4 4 F

. 3 d 2 4 8 ( 3 d Ci r . 1 9 9 8 ) , wh e r e we ad d resse d im p u tat ion u n d er the fo rm er IN A § 2 1 2 (c). Fi r st, al t hough w e agr ee thatt he B I A ’ s i nt erpr et at i on does notfur t hert he goal of m ai nt ainin g t he r el at i ons hi ps betw een L PR par ent s and t hei r m i nor chi l dr en, and al t hough t he l egi s l at i ve hi s t or yof I I R I R A does r efl ectC ongr es s ’ s cont i nui ng acknow l edgmentof thatgener al goal , w e cannot on t he basi s of 6 that g en era l po li cyg o al alon e f ind u n rea so n ab le th e B IA ’s unw i l l i ngnes s t o r ea d int o the s t atut e an e xcept i on t o the r e qu i r e ment s fo rc a nc e l l a t i on of r e mova l fo rmi no r s w ho s e LPR par ent s pr ece ded them i n i m m i gr at i ng t o t he U ni t ed St at es . T he requi rem ents for cancell at i on of rem ov al are clear

. C on gress c o u ld h a v e p ro v id e d th a t L P R p a re n ts’ y e a rs o f re sid e n c e w o u ld be i m put ed t o t hei rm i norchi l dr en. B utC ongr es s has notdone s o. W ith reg ar d to the sec o n d arg u m en t, that “the B IA ’s ref u s a l to im p u te a p are n t’ s p erm an en t r esid en t st atus h ere confl i ct s w i t h t he B I A ’ s cons i s t entw i l l i ngnes s t o i m put e a14 par ent ’ s i nt ent , s t at e of mi nd, and s t atus t o a chi l d, ” C ueva sG as par , 4 3 0 F .3 d a t 1 0 2 6 , w e c a n n o t a g re e w ith th e N in th C i r cui tt hatt h e B I A ’ s i nt erpr et at i on of the ca ncel l at i on pr ovi s i on unr eas onabl yconfl i ct s w i t h t he B I A ’ s pr i ordeci s i ons o n im p u ta tio n . T h e th re e c a s e s c ite d b y t h e N i n th C ir c u it, s ee id

. , fo rm a li n e o f c ase s co n ce rnin g a sing le f ac t p att ern : W h ere a chi l d l eave s t he country an d hi s orherpar enthas abandone d perm anentr es i dence i n t he U ni t ed St at es , the par ent ’ s i nt ent i on t o abandon r es i den ce i n the U ni t ed St at es i s i m put ed t o the c h ild

. See M

at t erof H uang , 1 9 I. & N

. D ec . 7 4 9 , 7 5 0 n . 1 (B IA 1988) ( fol l ow i ng Mat t er of W i nkens , 15 I

. & N

. D ec. 451, 452 ( B I A 1975) ( “[The par ent s ’ ] abandonmentof thei rl aw ful perm anent r es i dent s t atus i s i m put ed t o t he re s pondent , w ho w as s ubj ectt o t hei rcus t odyand contr ol

. H e had ga ined l aw ful perm anentr es i dents t atus t hr ough them, and he l os ti tw hen they a b a n d o n e d th e ir re sid e n c e a n d to o k h im w ith th e m .” )); M at t er of Zam ora , 17 I

. & N

. D ec. 395, 396 ( B I A 1980) ( “W e hol d t hat th is v o lu n tar ya n d in ten d e d a b a n d o n m e n t b yth e m o th e r is i m put ed t o t he appl i cant, w ho w as an unemanci pat ed mi norat t he t i m e he w as s entback t o M exi co byhi s m other, a n d at the t i m e his m other aban do ned her law ful r esi den tst atus. ”). T hese cas es ar e noti n di r ectconfl i ctw i t h t he B I A ’ s i nt erpr et at i on of t he canc el l at i on s t atut e beca us e the det erm i nat i on i n t hes e ca s es tur ned i n par ton t he mi noral i en’ s i nt ent i on: Par tof the t es tfor w hether an al i en has abandone d hi s s t atus as an LP R i s w hether h e in tend ed to return to the U n it ed S tat es d u ri n g h is sojou rn a b ro a d

. S e e Ch a v ez - Ra mi r ezv . I NS , 7 9 2 F

. 2 d 9 3 2 , 9 3 7 (9th C ir

. 1 9 8 6 ). A cc o rdin g ly , a p are n t’ s inten ti o n to stayab roa d o r return t o t he U ni t ed St at es w as i m put ed t o t he m i norchi l d beca us e the c h ild w a s p re su m e d to b e u n d e r h is p a re n ts’ c o n tro l an d u n a b le to f o rm a m ea n ing fu l inten ti o n . B y co n tr ast, d eterm ining w h ereA l t ho ug h § 21 2(c) w as, byi t s t erm s, on l yapp l i cable in 7 e x c lu sio n p ro c e e d in g s fo r in a d m iss ib le a lien s, it w a s e v e n tu a lly co n s t ru e d t o c r e a t e d i s c r e t i o n a r yr e l i e f i n d e p o r t a t i on p ro c e e d in g s a s w e ll. See I N S v. S t. C

yr , 533 U

. S. 289, 295 (2 0 0 1 ). 15 a mi n o r “ r e s i d e s ” wi t h i n th e me a n i n g o f th e I NA — a d e t e r mi n a t i o n ma d e “ wi t h o u tr e g a r d t o i n t e n t , ” 8 U. S

. C. § 1 1 0 1 (a)(33 ) — p rese n ts no su ch q u esti o n reg ard ing a m ino r’s i nt ent i on. T hi r d, w e ca nnotfi nd the B I A ’ s i nt erpr et ati on unr eas onabl e forconfl i ct i ng w i t h t he amel i or at i ve purpos e of canc el l at i on of re m oval

. A l t hough t he B I A ’ s rul i ng does deny reli ef to ce rt ain a lie n s , that alon e c an n o t r en d er the B IA ’s i nterpret at i on un reas on able. C on gress res t ri ct ed rel i ef t o those a lien s w h o h a d a c c ru e d se v e n y e a rs o f c o n tin u o u s re sid e n c e in a d d iti o n to f

iv e y e a rs o f

L P R sta tu s. T h e B IA ’s r e f u sa l to c re a te an ex cepti on si m plyheed s the st atute’ s pl ai n requir em ents
. Fi nal l y , w e fi nd t he l i ne of cas es addr es s i ng imput at i on u n d er the fo rm er IN A § 2 1 2 (c) inap p o sit e to the q u esti o n b ef o re us . B efor e I I R I R A ’ s enac t m ent , t he I N A pr ovi ded that the A t t or neyG ener al had di s cr et i on t o w ai ve deport at i on for p e rm a n e n t re sid e n ts w h o h a d “ a law f u l u n re lin q u ish e d d o m icile o f se v en co n sec u ti v e y ea rs” in th e U n it ed S tat es. IN A § 2 1 2 (c), 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 1 8 2 (c) (19 9 5 ) (r ep ea led 1 9 9 6 ). T h e term 7

“ d o m icile ” w a s n o t d e f

in e d in th e IN A . T h e S e c o n d a n d N in th C i r cui t s — and thi s C our t , i n a dec i s i on ther eaf t ervaca t ed — rul ed that“domi ci l e” s houl d be def i ned i n acc or dance w i t h t he c o m m o n law , u n d e r w h ich a c h ild ’s d o m icile is th o u g h t to16 f o ll o w th a t o f

th e c h ild ’s p a re n ts b e c a u se a “ d o m icilia ry ” is define d byt he i nt ent i on t o r eturn t o t he domi ci l e dur i ng any abs ence t her efr o m , and chi l dr en ar e pr es um ed i ncapa bl e of form i ng s uch an i nt ent i on. T her efor e, i tw as hel d, a mi nor a lien ’s yea r s o f

d o m icile in th e U n ited S tate s b e g a n w h e n h is par ent s es t abl i s hed thei rdom i ci l e her e, des pi t e the fa ctt hatt he m in o r a lie n d id n o t a rr iv e u n til la te r. See Mor el , 90 F. 3d at841; L e p e - Gu i tr o n v . I

NS , 1 6 F

. 3 d 1 0 2 1 , 1 0 2 5 (9th C ir

. 1 9 9 4 ); Ro s a r i o v . I

NS , 962 F. 2d 2 2 0 , 224 ( 2d C i r . 1992) ( ci t i ng Miss. B a n d o f C h o c ta w In d ia n s v . H o lyfie ld , 490 U

. S. 30, 48 ( 1989) (“ S in c e m o st m in o rs a re in c a p a b le o f f o rm in g th e re q u isite i nt entt o es t abl i s h a domi ci le, the i rdom i ci l e i s det erm i ned by th a t o f th e irp a re n ts .” ))

. U nl i ke the form er§ 212( c) , the curr entcanc el l at i on of r emoval pr ovi s i on does notcont ai n the t erm “domi ci l e, ” w hi ch w as the st atutorybasi s for i m pu t i ng a m inor al i en’s parent s’ y e a rs in th e U n ited S tate s to th e m in o r a lien in a c c o rd a n c e w ith t he comm on l aw . T o t he contr ary , t he curr ent ca n ce ll at i on p rov isi o n co n tai n s the w o rd “ re s iden ce , ” d ef ined as a n ali en ’s

“ p rin c ip a l, ac tu a l d w e lli n g p lac e in f a c t, w ith o u t r e g a r d to inten t. ” 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 1 0 1 (a)(33 ). U n d er th e fo rm er § 2 1 2 (c), pet i t i oner s benef

i t t ed fr om t he canon of s t atut oryi nt erpr et at i on that “w h ere C o n g ress b o rro w s term s o f a rtin w h ich a re accum u l at ed the l egal t r adi t i on and meani ng of ce ntur i es of pr act i ce, i t pr es um abl y know s and adopt s the cl us t erof i deas t hatw er e att ache d t o eac h bor r ow ed w or d” — i ncl udi ng, i n the cas e of “ dom i ci l e, ” t hat a chi l d’ s dom i ci l e w oul d fol l ow t hatof h is p a re n ts
. S e e V

a la n si v. A sh c ro

ft , 2 8 7 F

. 3 d 2 0 3 , 2 1 8 (3d C ir

. 2002) ( quot i ng Mor r is s et t e v. U ni t ed Stat es , 342 U

. S. 246, 263 ( 1952) )

. H ow ever , t he ca ncel l at i on of r emoval pr ovi s i on17 cont ai ns no s uch undef i ned t erm , and w e ca nnotfi nd unr ea so nabl e the B I A ’ s s t r ai ght forw ar d appl i cat i on of the c a n c e lla tio n o f

re m o v a l p ro v is io n ’s re q u ir e m e n ts
.

I V. F o r th e re aso n s g iv e n ab o v e, w e d o n o t fi n d the B IA ’s i nt erpr et at i on of th e canc el l at i on of r emoval pr ovi s i on u n r e a s o n a b l e . We wi l l t h e r e f o r e DE NY th e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.