## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 12

- 2143 M I LIJ A Z IVK O V IC, P etitio ner, v. E R I C H. H OLDER, J R ., A tto rneyGenera l ofthe U ni ted S tat es, R es pond ent
.

Pe tition fo r Review o f anOrd er of the Bo ard of Immigration App eals

. No . A 017 099 761
A RG UE D S EP TE MBE R 26, 2012

— D ECI DE D J UL Y 31, 2013

BeforeE ASTER

BROOK , Ch ie f Ju d ge, and W OODand W ILLIAMS

, C ircu it Judges. W OO D , Cir cu i tJudg e . Mi l ij a Zi vk o vi c, a S erbi anwho has be en i n the U ni ted S tat es si nce 19 66, has pe tit i oned f orr evi ew o fan o rdero f t he Boar d ofI m m i gr ati on A pp eal s o rd er i ng hi m r em ove d fr om the U ni ted S tat es. The Board f ound that Zi vko vi c was r em ovabl e be cause he had com m i tte d thre e a ggr avat ed fe l oni es and that2 N o. 12

- 2143 he was not el i gibl e forth e sp eci alr el i efpro vi ded by Se cti on 2 12( c) o fthe I m m i gr ati on a nd N ati onality Act (IN A ), 8 U .S.C
. § 1 18 2(c ). B efo re th is c ou rt, Ziv ko vic ar gu es t h at none o fthe thre e fel ony convi cti ons on w hich the B oard rel ied ca n su p p ort i ts rem oval order. Even i fo ne o r m or e was pro perly c ounted, he c onti nues, the Boa rd er re d w hen i t r ej ecte d his el i gibi l i ty f or Se c tio n 21 2(c ) relie f. F i n a l l y, h e c om p lain s t h at th e Im m igr at ion Ju d ge (I J ) sh ou ld n oth av e c on su lte d ce rt ain convi cti on r eco rds that had be en sub m itte d fo r pu rpos es o fhi s bo nd pr o ce edi ngwhenthe IJ was c o ns i der i ng hi s i m m i g r at i o n pe ti ti o n. Resol uti on o fZi vko vic’s peti ti on m i ght ha ve b ee n st ra igh tfo rw ar d , bu t f o r th e fa c t t h at tw o of h is c o n v i c t i o n s a r e 3 5 + y e a r s o l d , a n d th e i mmi g r a t i o n l a ws h av e n otre m a i n e d st at ic o ve r th at tim e. Z ivk ov ic re al i zes thathe m ust knock out al l thr ee ofthe agg ra vate d fel oni es bef or e his a rgum ent about Se cti on 2 12( c) m ake s an y d iffer en c e, be c au se a c on vic tio n o n o n e a lon e w ou ld be e nough to guar antee near - autom ati c r em ova l

. S ee Im m igrati on an d N ationality A ct § 237(a)(2)( A )( ii i) , 8 U. S
. C. § 1 22 7( a) ( 2) ( A)( i i i )
. B uthe b el i ev es tha t he ca n d o s o . O u r a s s e s s me n t o f h i s a r g u me n t r e q u i r es us to d elv e d ee p ly in to th e h ist or y of t h e g ov er n in g p ro vis i o ns o f the i mm i g r a t i o n l a ws , a nd i n a ddi t i on t o con sid e r w ha t level of deferen ce w e ow e to the B oard ’s eff or t t o dise ntangl e bot h the m eani ng o ftho se sta tutes an d Co ng r es s’ s i nt ent ov er the y ea r s to make v ar i o us changes r etr oac ti ve. W e co ncl ud e that the st atute s ar e ambi g uo us and that the tw in pre su m pti o ns again st r etr oac ti vi ty and i m pli ed re peal r equi re us t oN o. 12

- 2143 3 gr ant Zi vko vi c’ s peti ti on a nd to r em and fo r furtherpro ceedi ngs.

I Ziv kov i c was ad m i tte d to the Unite d Sta tes as a l aw ful perm anent r esi dent i n 196 6. Ten ye ar s l ate r, o n O c t o b e r 2 5 , 1 9 7 6 , h e p l e a d e d g u i l t y t o th e I l l i n o i s c r i me o fb ur g l ar y, no w co di fi ed at7 20 I LCS 5/ 19

- 1, a nd r ec ei ve d a se nt ence o ft wo t o s i x y ea r s. I n 1 97 8, f o l l o wi ng a j ury trial, he was co nvi cted o fat tem pted rape, se e 720 I LC S 5/ 8- 4 ( curr ent l aw defi ni ng cri m e o fat tem pt); 72 0 I LC S 5/ 11- 1. 20 ( curr ent l aw defi ni ng cr i m i nal se xual as sa u lt), an d w a s s en te n c ed to 4 to 12 ye ar s in pr i so n. Ye ar s l ater, on Nov embe r 1 6, 2 01 0, he was c o nvi cted under 7 20 I LC S 5/ 19- 4( a)(2) f orcr i m i nal tr espass to a r esi dence w i th a perso n pres ent; f or thatcr i m e, he r e c e i v e d a thr e e - y e a r s e nt e nc e o fi mpr i s o nme nt
. On the s am e day, he was co nvi cted o fa gg ra vate d batte ry, w here the agg ra vating f acto r w as the v i cti m ’ s a ge ( ove r 60 yea rs ) , and re cei ved a fi ve- yea r sente nce. I n 200 4 Zi vko vi c r ecei ve d a N oti ce t o A pp earfro m the Depart m ent o f H om eland Se curi ty ( DH S)
. The N oti ce c ha r g e d tha t he wa s r e mov a b l e o n s e v e r a l g r o un ds : f i rs t, pu rs ua n t t o 8 U.S
. C. § 1 227( a) ( 2) ( A ) ( i i i ) , as an a l i en w ho ha s b e e n c o nv i c t e d o fa n a g g r a v a t e d fe l o nyas defined i n 8 U. S
. C. § 1 10 1( a) ( 43 ) ( G) ; s ec o nd, f o r the at te m p t o r c on sp ira c y t o c om m it a cr im e d efin ed in 8 U.S
. C. § 1 101( a) ( 43)(A ) ( m urder, r ape, o r sexualabuse of a m inor); and third , un d er 8 U
. S. C
. § 12 2 7(a)( 2)(A )( ii ), as a n al i en wh o has be en co nvi cted o ftwo cr i m es4 N o. 12

- 2143 in vo lvin g m or al t u rp itu d e n otaris in g ou t o f a sin gle i nc i de nt
. DHS t e mpo r a r i l y c l o s e d hi s c a s e i n 2 0 05 to aw ait th e c on c l u s ion of cr im in al p ro c ee d in gs in Illin ois sta te cour t. OnF e b r ua r y 2 2 , 2 0 1 1 , wi th the sta t e c a s e r e s o l v e d, DH S r es to r ed Zi vk ovi c’ s i m m i g r at i o n c as e to the c al en d ar. Thi s t i m e DH S charg ed that Ziv kov i c’ s 2 010 re sid en tia l tre sp as s c on vic tio n w as als o a b a sis for h is re m ovabi l i ty because i t qual i fi ed a s a “cr i m e o fvi ol ence” und erthe I N A ; DH S continued to as ser t th at hi s 1 976 an d 1978 con victions for the ag g r a v a t ed felonies of bu rg l a r y a n d a t t e mp t e d r a p e s u p p o r t e d h i s r e mo v a l

. On N ove m ber17, 20 11, the IJ determ in ed thatr esi denti al tr espass i s a cr i m e o fvi ol ence because , l i ke burgl ar y, i t invol ves a s ubstanti alr i sk that physi calfo rc e m ay be use d. The IJ al so co n cl ud ed that Ziv kov i c‘ s 1 976 and 1978 convi cti ons counted as ag gr avat ed fel onies be ca us e th eya r e so de fi ne d i n the I l l eg alI m m i g r an t Ref or m and I m m i gr ant Res pons ibili ty A ct o f19 96 ( I I RI RA). I n r ea ch i ngthi s co nc l us i on, th e IJ r el i ed o n a d ecis i on o fthe BIA hol ding that the I m m i gr ati on Act of 1990 m ad e “an y ali en w ho h a s been conv icted of a cri m e defi ned as a n a ggr avat ed fel ony, and w ho was pla ced i n deporta tio n proc eedi ngs o n orafterM ar ch 1, 1991 , [ ] deport abl e r ega rdl ess o fwh en the convi cti on occur re d .” M at t e rof

Le t t m an , 22 I
. & N
. Dec. 36 5, 36 6 (BIA 1998) ( e n b anc )
. The IJ fou nd thatZi vko vi c was not el i gibl e fordi scr eti onar y wai vero fr em ova l bec ause he we n t to t ri alr atherthan ple adinggui l ty to the 1 978 cri m e, and thus he cannot dem onst ra te that re l i ance o n di s c r e t i o na r y wa i v e r f r o m r e mov a l c ha ng e d hi s r esponse to thos e cr i m i nal char ges .N o. 12

- 2143 5 On app eal, the BIA affirm ed the IJ ’ s dete rm i nati ons. A lth ou gh ato ne poi nt al ong the way, DH S had argued th a tZ i v k o v i c w a s a l s o r e mo v a b l e b e c a u s e h e h a d c o mmi t t e d two c r i mes o fmo r a l tur pi t ud e , s e e 8 U. S
. C. § 1 227( a) ( 2) ( A ) ( i i ) , the IJ di d not s peci fi cal ly add re ss th at char g e i n h i s wri tt ende ci si o n. The Bo ar d a l so f o und i tu n n e c e s s a r y t o a d d r e s s t h a tp o i n t ; i te x p l i c i t l y c o mmen t e d tha t itwas n o tr e a c hingthe mo r a l tur pi t ud e g r o und a nd i ns te ad was a ffi r m i ng so l ely b ec au se o fthe agg ra vate d fe l oni es and i nel i gibi l i ty f orS ecti on 2 12( c) reli ef.

II B ecau se th e stan d a r d of review that govern s Zivkov ic’s pet i tion i s ce nt r alt o thi s ca se , we be g i n b y r ev i ewing the g ove rni ng princ i ple s. To the exte nt thathi s peti ti on ra i ses questi ons ofl aw , o ur r evi ew i s g ener al l y deno vo . A lva rad o -Fo nseca v. Ho lder, 631 F.3d 385 , 389 (7th C ir. 2011 )
. N eve rthel ess , we use the qual i fi er“g ener al l y” be ca us e th e BI A i s ane xpe r t ag en cy . I n I.N .S. v. A g u i rreAgui rre, the Suprem e Cour t hel d that when a co urt of ap p eals confron ts qu estions i m p li cat in g the Boa rd ’s “co nstructi on o fthe sta tute w hi ch i t a dm i ni ste rs ”

— here , th e I NA

— “the cour t s houl d .

. . appl[ y] the pri nci ple s o f defer en ce de sc r ibe d i n Che vron U
. S. A. Inc . v. N a tural Res our ces D e

f e ns eCounc i l, Inc., 46 7 U .S. 83 7, 84 2 (1 98 4).” 526 U
. S. 415, 424 (1999 ). Th i s do e s no t mea n, ho we v e r, that Che vron appli es to ev er y issue th ata r i se s i n a n i m m i g r at i o n c as e, f o r the si m pl e r ea so n tha t so m e que st i o ns o fl aw d o n o t depe nd6 N o. 12

- 2143

on a gencyexper ti se f orthei r re sol u tio n. The fi rs t pr el i m i na r y que st i o n we m us t add re ss i s whethe r the que st i o n b efo r e us

— w hat c ounts as a “c rim e o fvi ol e nc e ” f o r pu r po s e s o f I NA § 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 3 ) ( F ) , 8 U
. S
. C. § 1 101( a) ( 43) ( F)

— i s o n e f o r wh i c h C hevron defer ence is re q u ire d . (Fo r c on ve n ien c e, inth e re m ain d er of th is o pi ni o n we o m i t th e par al l elc i ta ti o ns t o the I N A and use o nl y the ci tat i on f ound in Tit l e 8. ) Se cti on 1 101( a) ( 43) ( F) say s that “ a cr i m e o fvi ol ence ( as de f ined i n s e ct i on 16 of Tit l e18 , but not i ncl ud i ng a pu re l y pol itic alo ffense) f o r whi chthe t er m of im pr i so nm en t [ i s] a t l ea sto ne yea r. ” Id. ( em phasi s a dd ed). S ecti on 1 6 o fTi tl e 1 8, wh i ch add re sse s Cri m es and C ri m i nal Pro ced u re, i s o ne o f the “ gener alp ro vi si ons” col l ecte d i n Chap ter1 of the Code. N o one thi nks that the Boa rd of I m m i gr ati on Appeal s ha s th e au th o r i tyt o s etthe b o unda r i es o fthe ter m “cr i m e of vi ol ence” f orev er y c ri m i nal pro secuti on i n the U ni ted S tat es; the gr eat m ajori ty ofthes e ca ses are en tirel y un related to im m igrati on l aw . N or is t h e re any hi nt thatCongr ess i ntended the Boa rd to cr aft a parti cul ar i zed defi ni ti on o fthi s g ener alst atute f oruse excl usi vel y in i m m i gr ati on pro ceedi ngs. I nstea d, Congre ss el ecte d to re fer the Board t o the g ener aldefi ni ti on o f “cr i m e o fvi ol ence” w hen thatbec om es i m po rt an t fo r i m m i gr ati on purpose s. In these ci rcum sta nces, o ne cannot saythatthe B oar d exerc i ses any del ega ted power to i nter pret the g ove rni ng st atute

— 18 U
. S. C. § 1 6

— an d th us Che vron defe re nce does notapplyto thatas pect o f the Board’ s re aso ni ng. S ee Flore s v. A shcroft, 35 0 F
. 3d 666, 671 (7th C ir. 2003). T h e s e c o n d p r e l i min a r y qu e s t i o n i s w h e th e r w e o we Che vron d efe r en ce t o the Bo ar d’ s dec i si o n abo uttheN o. 12

- 2143 7

re tr oac ti vi ty ofa new l y a dd ed provision ofthe i m m i gr ati on l aw s. A t fi rs t g l ance, thi s m i ght a pp earto be a cl ose r questi on: afteral l, r etr oac ti vi ty ( orthe l ack of r et r o ac ti vi ty ) i s ce nt r alt o the de te r m in at i o n o fthe c on te n t of the l aw atany gi ven t i m e. But i n thi s ca se w e h av e t h e b e n e fit of a Su p re m e C ou rtd ec isio n th at is di r ectl y o n po i nt
. I n I.N .S. v. St. Cyr, 53 3 U.S
. 28 9 (20 01 ), th e C ou rt ad d re ss ed th e qu es tio n w h e t h e r ce rt ain am endm ents to the I N A sho uld be appli ed re tr oac ti vel y. The re spondent, Enri co St. Cyr, pl eaded gui l ty to a c on trol l ed-s ubstance offe n se ; he en te re d h is p lea j ust be f or e the effecti ve date o fthe A nti ter ro ri sm and Effecti ve D ea th Penal ty A ct o f19 96 ( A ED PA ) , 11 0 St at. 12 14, wh i ch w as quick l y a m ended by I I RI RA , 11 0 St at
. 3 00 9- 54 6. The s pec i fi c que st i o n b efo r e th e Cou rt w as wh etherthe provi si ons ofA ED PA and I I RI RA el i m inati ng waiv er s o fdeport ati on under I N A § 212(c ) appl i ed r et r o ac ti ve l y to a per so n i n S t. Cyr ’ s p osit i o n. I m po r ta nt l y f o r pr es en t pur po se s, the I m m i g r at i o n a nd N atur al i zati on S er vi ce ( DH S’ s pre d eces sor ) had tak en the pos itio n that the new pro vi si ons w er e r etr oac ti ve and thus thatS t. Cyr w as i nel i gible fo r the 2 12( c) waiver. Am o ngo th erthi ng s, the a g en cya r g ue d tha t th e Co ur ts ho ul d e xt e nd Che vron de ferenc e t o “th e B I A ’s i nter preta ti on o fI I RI RA as apply i ng to al l deport ati on proce edi ngs ini ti ate d afterI I RI RA ’ s e ffecti ve date [ as St. C yr’s w as]. ” 533 U
. S. at 320 n .45. Th e Sup rem e C ou rt dism i sse d that a rgum ent with the f ol l owing com m ent: W e o nl y de fer, ho wev er, t o a gencyi nt er pr et at i o ns ofst atute s that, app lying the nor m al“t oo l s o f st at u to ry co n st ru c tio n,” ar e a m b igu ou s. [ Che vron,8 N o. 12

- 2143 46 7 U .S.] at 8 43 , n.9 ; INS v
. Ca r do za-Fonse ca , [ 480 U
. S. 42 1, 4 47

- 48 ( 19 87 ) ]
. Be ca us e a s ta tu te tha t i s ambi g uo us w i th r espectto r etr oac ti ve appli cat ion i s co nstr ued und ero ur pre cedent t o b e unam bi guousl y pr ospecti v e, Landgraf [ v. U SI Fi lm Produ cts , 51 1 U.S
. 24 4, 26 4 (1994)], there is, f or Che vron p u rp os es , n o a m b igu ity in such a sta tute f oran a gencyto r eso l ve. 5 3 3 U .S. at 3 20 n .45
. Lan dgraf r eco gni zed thatCongr ess h as th e po w er to m ak e a st at u te re tr oa c tiv e, b u t it str ess ed t h at “a r equi re m ent that Congr ess fi rs t m ake i ts i ntenti on cl ear hel ps ensure that Congre ss i tse lf has deter m i ned that the benefi ts of re tr oac ti vi ty outw ei gh the pot enti al f or disr up ti on o r unfai rnes s. ” 5 11 U
. S. at26 8. I n V a rtelas v . H o l d e r, 1 32 S
. Ct
. 1 47 9 ( 20 12 ) , the Suprem e Cour t w as a gai n confro nted w i th the questi on w hethera provi si on o fthe i m m i gr ati on l aw s o perat ed re tr oac ti vel y. I t was a q u es ti on, as the Court note d, “not addr essed b y Co ng r es s: As t o a l awfulpe r m an en t re si dent convi cted of a cri m e bef or e the effecti ve d at e of I I RI RA, whi chr eg i m e g o ve r ns , the o ne i n for ce a t th e ti m e of the convi cti on, or II R I RA ?” Id. a t 14 83
. Not i ng that Congre ss did “notexpre ssl y pr escr ibe the te m pora l r e a c h o fthe I I RI RA p ro v i s i o n i n qu e s t i o n, 8 U. S
. C. § 1 101( a) ( 13) , ” i d. at14 87, the Court turned di re ctl y t o Landgraf, wi th no m en ti on of Che vron , t o a ns werthe que st i o n. I t o bserv ed th atthe r es tr ainta dded byI I RI RA r an k ed as a “ ne w di sabi l i ty” f o r l awfulpe r m an en t re sid en t a lien s, rej ec tin g t h e d iss en t’s arg u m en t t h at th is w as not the c ase bec ause the l egi sl atur e h ad at tached n o d i s a b i lity to p as t c on d u c t. Id. at 1487-88. I t the n reiter-N o. 12

- 2143 9 ate d that “ [ t] he o perative p re sum pti on . . . i s that C ongr ess i ntends i ts l aw s t o gov er n pros pecti vel y o n ly.” Id. a t 14 91
. As in St
. Cyr, th e a lien h ad in a ll li ke lih oo d relie d on th e la w th at ex ist ed a t t h e t im e o f h is ple a of gui l ty ( bef or e I I RI RA )
. This i nd ependent assess

m ent r esul ted i n a fi nd i ng o fno re tr oac ti vi ty. I nt er es ting l y, the g o ve r nm en t’ s br i efi n Var t e l as conceded th at the Se cond Cir cui t “ re vi ew s the r etr oac tiv e app l i cati on o fst atute s deno vo , witho ut Ch e v r on d e fe r e n c e . ” B r i e ff o r th e R e s p o n d e n ta t* 9 [ 2 0 0 9 WL 7498 491] , V

a r tela s v. Ho lder, 620 F.3d 108 ( 2d Cir. 2009). The Se cond Cir cui t r ei te rated thi s r ule i n i ts Var t e l as opi ni on, st ati ng tha t i t “co nsi der[ s] the i ssue ofr etr oac ti vi ty deno vo , wi th o utg i vingde fer en ce t o the o pi ni o n o fthe BIA, as the quest i on . . . d oe s n ot conce rn the so rto f st at u to ry ga p th at C on gr es s h a s d es ign at ed th e B IA to fi ll, nor a m atter in w hich th e B I A ha s p articu lar ex p erti se. ” 6 20 F. 3d at 117- 18 ( i nter nal quotat i on m ar ks om i tte d)

. Al th o ug h th e d i ss en tingJ us ti ce s i n Var t e l as disagr ee d on the m er i ts, theydi d not quest i on th e m aj ority’ s us e of Lan dgraf as the gov ernin g s t a nd ard f oranal yzi ng the r etr oac ti vi ty questi on. To th e co ntra ry, the di s s e nts a i d tha t“ the Co ur ti s c o r r e c ttha tthi s c a se is go ve rn ed by ou r lon gs ta n d in g in t e r p re tiv e p rin c ip le that, i n the abse nce o fa contr ar y ind i cati on, a sta tute w ill no t b e c on st ru e d to h av e re tr oa c tiv e a p p lica tio n,” ci ti ng L a ndgra

f. Se e V a rtelas, 132 S. Ct. at14 92- 93 ( diss enting op inion of Scalia, J
. ). U n like ou r d iss en tin g c olle ag u e, w e s ee n ot h in g in th e Cou r t’ s r ece ntde ci si o n in Fe de r al Com m uni ca t i ons10 N o. 12

- 2143 C o m m ission v. A rling to n, 133 S. C t. 1863 ( 2013 ), th at u nd erm in es th is a n aly sis
. Arl i ngt on rea ffirm s t h e g en er al p rin c ip le t h at a c ou rtm u s t d efe r to an ag en c y’s rea so n ab le i nter preta ti on o f the sco pe of i ts own autho ri ty, r ega rdl ess ofwh etherthat i ssue concerns the ag ency’ s j uri sdic ti on o r an y ot h er int e r p r e t at ion of its en ab lin g s ta tu te
. Id. at18 68 ( “N o m att erhow i t i s fra m ed, th e q u est i on a co urt f aces w he n con fronted w ith an agen cy’s interp retation of a st at u te it ad m in ist er s is alw ay s, sim p ly, w hethe r the agency ha s stay ed w ith in th e bou nd s of its statu to ry a uth o rity.” ) ( Em pha si s i n o r i g i na l )
. Nothi ngi n Arl i ngt on i nstr ucts cour ts to ski p the fi rs t s tep o fthe Che vron proce ss

— that i s, the a ss es sm en t whether ther e i s a ny am bi gui ty to be ad d ressed after ap p lyi ng th e ord inary tools of s t a t ut ory const ructi on. I ftho se too l s o fst atuto ryco nstr ucti on po i ntc lea r l y t o a fi ndi ngo fno r et r o ac ti vi ty, tha t i s th e end ofi t: th e ag en cy’ s v i ew s nev erco m e into pla y. B e c a u s e th e S u p r e me C o u r ti t s e l fh a s p r o v i d e d a n u n a mb i g u o u s l e g a l r u l e f o r r e t r o a c t i v i t y que s t i o n s , a n d we have no i ssue bef ore us perta i ni ng to the boundari es of the a gency ’ s a uthor i ty, we concl ud e that Arl i ngt on does not dri ve our anal ysi s her e. W e c o nc l ud e tha tthi s i s n o ta s i t ua t i o n i n whi ch any a m bi gui ty ( w hi ch i fpre sent w oul d tr i gge r defe re nce to th e agen cy) rem ains after ap p lyi ng th e ordina ry to ols of st at u to ry co n st ru c tio n . St
. Cyr te l l s us th at Con

gr ess i s the m ast erher e, and i t e sse nti ally el i m i nates am b igu ity f ro m the picture by cl ass i fyi ng al l st atute s a s pros pecti ve except those thatCongr ess has cl ear l y desi gnated as r etr oac ti ve. Our si ste r ci rcui ts have com e t o the s am e co ncl usi on. S ee M a rtinez v. I.N .S., 523 F.3 d 365,N o. 12

- 2143 11 37 2-7 3 (2d C ir. 20 08 ); C a m ins v . Go nz a les, 50 0 F
. 3d 872, 88 0 (9t h C ir. 20 07 ); Hem v. M a urer, 45 8 F
. 3d 1185 , 11 89 ( 10th C ir. 20 06 ); D inn a ll v. G o nz a les, 4 21 F.3d 24 7, 251 (3d Cir. 20 05 ); Sa rm iento C isnero s v. U .S. A tt’yG en., 381 F. 3d 1277, 12 80 ( 1 1 th C ir. 20 04 ); A re valo v. Ashcroft, 34 4 F
. 3d 1, 9- 10 (1s t C ir. 20 03 ); Oje da-Ter razas v. Ashcroft, 29 0 F. 3d 292, 30 0 n .53 (5t h C ir. 20 02 ); B ejja ni v . I .N .S., 271 F. 3d 670, 67 9- 80 (6t h C ir. 20 01 ), abrogated on othe r grounds by Fe rna nd ezV a rga s v. G o nz a les , 548 U .S. 30 (20 06 ); Vel as q uez -G a b r i e l v. Croc e t t i, 26 3 F
. 3d 10 2, 1 06 n. 2 ( 4th Ci r . 2 00 1)
. The questi on wh etherZi vkovic ’ s cr i m e qual i fi ed und er S ec ti o n 1 10 1( a) ( 43) ( F ) a s a “c r i m e o fv i o l en ce , ” an d the qu e s t i o ns whethera nd t o wh a te xt e ntc e r t a i n a men dm en ts to the i m m igrati on law s ap p ly retroact ively, are a l l i s s u e s o fl a w t h a tth i s c o u r tmu s tr e v i e w deno vo, w ithou t the use of Che vron d efe re n c e.

III We tu r n n o w t o a d e t a i l ed l o o ka tth e g o v e r n i n gl a w, w hi ch ha s c ha ng e d o v e r the y e a r s . Th e I NA i t s e l fwas passed i n 195 2 ( A ct of J une 27, 1952 , c. 477, Ti tl e I, § 101, 66 S ta t. 16 6) ; i t ha s be en amende d m an y ti m es sinc e the n. The fi rs t s uch am endm ent that we m ust co n sider appeared i n the A nti

- Drug A buse Act of19 88, Pub. L. N o. 100- 690, 10 2 S tat
. 41 81. S ecti on 7 342 ofthatst atute adde d the t er m “ ag g r av at ed fel ony ” to the de fi ni ti o ns f o und in 8 U. S
. C. § 1 10 1( a) thr o ug h the f o l l o wi ng ne w par ag r aph : ( 43 ) The te r m “a g g r av at ed fel o ny ” m ea ns m ur der, a ny drug tr affi cki ng cr i m e a s defi ned i n sec ti on 9 42( c) ( 2) o f12 N o. 12

- 2143 ti tl e 18 , Uni te d S ta te s Code , o r a ny ill ic i t tr affi ck i ng in an y fire ar m s o r d es tr u c tiv e d ev ice s a s d efin ed in sect i on 9 21 ofs u c h ti tl e, o r any a tte m pt orco nspir acy to c o m m i t an y s ucha ct, c o m m i tt ed wi th i n the U ni ted S tat es. Se cti on 7 343 ofthe A nti

- Drug A b u se A ct s et out rul es f orthe re tenti on in c u st ody o fal i ens who had com m i tte d ag gr av at ed felon ies an d sp ec ified th at th ey w er e in elig ible f orvo l untarydepartur e. S ecti on 7 344 re ad as f ol l ows: ( a) I N G E NE R AL
. — S e c t i o n 2 4 1 ( a ) ( 4 ) ( 8 U. S
. C. 1251 ( a) ( 4) ) i s a m ended

— (2) [ si c ] byi nser ti ng aft erthe sem i col on the f ol l owing: “o r ( B) is co nv i ct ed o fa n a g g r av at ed fel o ny a t an y ti m e a fterentr y; ”. ( b) APPLI CA BI LI TY.

— The am endm ents m ade by su bs ec ti o n (a) “ 8 U. S
. C. 1 25 1 no te ” sh al l a ppl y t o a ny al i en wh o has be en convi cted, o n orafterthe date o f the e nactm ent o fthi s Act, o fan a ggr avat ed fel ony. ( Se cti on 1 251 w as l ate r tr ansfer re d t o 8 U
. S. C. § 1227, wh i ch i s no w the s ec ti o n o fthe l aw de sc r ibi ngwhi cha l i en s ar e “ deportabl e. ”) I t i s worth noting i n passi ng t h at Ziv kov i c di d not beco m e d epor tabl e as ofN ove m ber18, 1988 (the effecti ve date ofthe Anti

- Dr ugAbus e Act) b as ed o n h i s 19 74 a nd 1976 o ffenses . That i s s o fortwo i nd ependent re aso ns. Fi rs t i s the age of the offenses : both convi cti ons pre- dated th e “d ate o f t h e e n actm en t” of that A ct, and they w ere ther ef or e excl ud ed by Se cti on 7 344( B). S eco nd , hi s cr i m es o fb u r g l a r y a n d a t t e mpt e d r a p e d i d n o tf a l l wi th i n theN o. 12

- 2143 13 defini ti on o f“a ggr avated felo ny” pr ovi ded byS ecti on 7342 o fthe A nti

- Drug A buse Act. I n 1 99 0, Co ng r es s pas se d a no th erl aw a m en di ngthe I N A ; i t ca l l ed thi s s i m ply t h e I m m i gr ati on Act of19 90, Pub. L
. N o. 10 1- 649, 10 4 S tat
. 49 78. A m ong m any o ther thi ng s , the 1 9 9 0 Act ( a s we s ha l l c a l l i t, i n a n e ff or t t o m i ni m i ze confusi ng ac ro nym s) chang ed the defini ti on of“a ggr avat ed fel ony” and re vi se d t he gr ounds f or deporta ti on. It bro adened the defi ni ti on o f“a ggr avat ed fel ony” i n a var i etyo fways. S ecti on 5 01( a) o fthe 1990 Act se ts o utthe c ha ng es t o the de fi ni ti o n: ( a ) I N GENER AL.

— Para gr aph (43) o fse cti on 1 01( a) ( 8 U.S
. C. 1101 ( a) ) i s a m ended

— * * * ( 2) by i nser ti ng “a ny i l l i ci t t ra ffi cki ng i n any contr ol l ed substan c e (as defined i n sec ti on 1 02 ofthe Contro l l ed Subst ances A ct) , i ncl ud i ng” a fter“m urder, ”, ( 3) b y i ns er tinga fte r “ su cht i tl e, ” th e f o l l o wi ng : “ an y offense d es cribed i n sec ti on 1 956 ofti tl e 1 8, U ni ted S ta te s Code ( r el at i ngt o mone y l au nde r i ng ) , o r a ny cri m e o fvi ol ence ( as defined i n sec ti on 1 6 o fti tl e 1 8, U ni ted S tat es Code, noti ncl ud i ng a pu re l y pol i ti cal o ffen se ) f o r wh ich th e te r m o fi m pr i so nm en t i mp o s e d ( r e g a r d l e s s o fa n y s u s p e n s i o n o fs u c h i mpri sonm ent) i s a t l eas t 5 ye ar s, ”, ( 4) byst ri ki ng “c om m i tte d w i thi n the U ni ted S tat es” , (5) by ad d ing at th e end the follow in g : “ Suc h term appl i es t o o ffen se s des cr ibe d i n the pr ev i o us14 N o. 12

- 2143 sente nc e w h etheri n vi ol ati on o fFe deralo r St ate l aw. ”, a nd ( 6) byi nser ti ng be f or e the p er i od of the sente nce added by p ar agr aph ( 5) the f ol l owing: “a nd al so appli es to offenses descr ibed i n the previ ous s entence i n vi ol ati o n o ff o r ei g n l aw f o r whi chthe t er m o fi m pr i so nm ent was co m ple ted withi n the previ ous 1 5 y ear s”. Se cti on 5 01(b) speci fi ed the effecti ve date o fthes e changes , st ati ng tha t [t]h e a m en d m e n ts m ad e b y s u b se c tio n (a) sh all a p p ly to o ffen se s co m m i tt ed o n or afte r the da te o fthe enactm en t ofthi s Act, exce pt thatthe am endm ents m ad e b y p ar ag ra p h s (2) a n d (5) of s u b se c tio n (a) sh all be e ffecti ve as i fi ncl ud ed i n the enactm ent ofse cti on 7342 o fthe A nti–Drug Abu se A ct o f19 88. I nt e r e s t i ng l y, a l tho ugh the c o nt r o l l e d s ub s t a nc e a men dm ents an d t h e cl ar i fi cati on with re spect to sta te- l aw offen ses relate bac k t o the A nt i- D rug A bu se A ct, subp art (3) of the 19 90 A ct, wh i ch adds cri m es ofvi ol ence to th e defi ni ti o n, a ppl i es o nl y fr o m the date o fe na ct m en t ( N ove m ber29 , 19 90) o fthe new st atute
. Se cti on 6 02( a) o ft he 19 90 A ct a m ended the l aw ( then 8 U
. S. C. § 1251 , now § 1227 ) to re sta te the cri m i nal o ffe n s e s th a t p r o v i d e d g r o u n d s f o r d e p o r t a t i o n . As am en d ed , Se c tio n 1 25 1(a ) ( 2) ( A ) ( i i i ) pro vi ded that “[ a] ny al i en wh o i s co nvi cted o fan a gg ra vate d fe l ony at any tim e afterentr y i s depor tabl e. ” S ecti on 6 02( c) ( w hi ch i s ce ntra l to o ur a nal ysi s be l ow) s ets f or th a ra ther opaque se t o fr ule s f oreffecti ve dates:N o. 12

- 2143 15 ( c ) S AV I NG S P R O V I S I O N.

— N o twi th st an di ngthe amendment s m ade by th i s se ct i o n, an y al ien who was de p or tabl e be ca us e o fa c o nv i ct i o n (be f o r e th e date o fthe enactm ent of thi s Act) ofan o ffense re fer re d to i n paragra ph (1 5) , ( 16) , ( 17) , o r ( 18) o f sect i on 2 41( a) o f the I m m i gr ati on a nd N ati onal i ty A ct, as i n effe ct b ef or e the date ofthe enactm ent o f thi s Act [ a s er i es ofo ffenses rel ate d to al i en r egi str ati on and warti m e cri m es] , shal l be consi dere d to re m ai n so d ep or ta b le. E x c ept as o ther w i se speci fi cal l y pr ovi ded i n su ch se cti on a nd subse cti on ( d), the provi sion s of such sect i on, as am ended by th is s ec tio n, sh all a p p l y to all alie n s d es c rib ed in su bs ec ti o n ( a) the r eo fno twi th st and in gtha t ( 1) a ny such al i en ent er ed the U ni ted S tat es bef or e the date ofthe enactm ent o fthi s Act, o r ( 2) the fac ts , by r easo n o f whi ch an al i en i s des cr ibe d i n su chsub sec ti o n, occur re d bef or e the date ofthe enactm ent o fthi s Act. Eve n tho ug h the l as t ei g htl i ne s o fthi s “s av i ng s pr o vi si o n” m i ght b e r ead to m ake the changes r etr oac tive, the new defini ti on o f“a ggr avat ed fel ony” appli ed onl y pr ospecti vel y, acc or ding to Se cti on 501(d) o fthe 1990 A ct. Thus, the 1 990 A ct di d not a uthor i ze Ziv kov i c’ s depor tati on base d on hi s 1 976 and 1 97 8 offenses , since they di d not cou nt as aggrava ted felonies tha nk s to Section 501 (d). The ne xtmate r i alc ha ng es tha t Con gress m ade t o the t r e a t men to fa g g r a v a t e d fe l o ni e s a pp e a r i n I I RI RA, P ub

. L. N o . 1 04, Div
. C, 11 0 S ta t. 3 00 9- 54 6 ( S ept
. 3 0, 1 99 6)
. I I RI RA d id se ve ra l th in gs rele va n t t o Z ivk ov ic’s ca se . Fir s t, i t e xp a nd e d the de fi ni t i o n o f“ a g g r a v a t e d fe l o ny ” t o i nc l ud e16 N o. 12

- 2143

ra pe and burgl ar y punis habl e b y m or e than one yea r i m pr i so nm en t. S ec o nd

— and thi s i s the l anguage o n w hi ch the diss en t pr i m ar i l y r est s

— i t incl ud es tw o sta tem ents that bearo n re tr oac ti vi ty. The fi rs t o ne sa ys: T h e a m en d m e n t s m ad e b y t h is s ec tio n sh all a p p ly to actio n tak en o n orafterthe date o fenact m ent o f thi s Ac tr e g a r dl e s s o fwh e n the c o nv i c t i o n o c c ur r e d. The second appe ar s i n the ha ng i ngpa r ag r apha t th e en d ofS ecti on 1 101( a) ( 43) , and say s: N o twi th st a n d inga ny o th erpr o vi si o n o fl aw ( i nc l udi ng any e ffecti ve date) , the te rm [ag gr avat ed fel ony] appli es re gar dle ss of w hether a convi cti on was ente re d bef or e, o n, o r afterS eptem b er 30, 19 96 [ i.e. , the date of IIR IR A ’s e n ac tm en t]. I I RI RA al so re pea led S ecti on 2 12( c) o fthe I N A , wh i ch had gi ven the A tt orney Generaldi scr eti on t o w ai ve re mov a l o fa l i e ns wh o h a d r e s i de d in the U. S
. f o r a tl e a st se ve n y ea r s. I n St. Cyr, the S upr eme Co ur t he l d tha t th e re p ea l of Sec tio n 21 2(c ) op er at ed on ly p ro sp ec tiv ely

. W e a dd re ss the e ffect ofI I RI RA o n the ea rl i erst atute s in m or e d et ai l b e l ow , as w e c on sid er Z ivk ov ic’s sp ec ific ar gu m en ts . In sh or t, h ow ev er , Z ivk ov ic c an av oid re m ova l o nl y i fhe e i thercan dem onst rate t h at none of the three co nvi cti ons on wh i ch DH S re l i ed can s er ve as the b asi s o fi ts re m ova l o rd er, o r, f ai l i ng tha t, he c an seek reli ef from rem oval un d er Section 212 (c).N o. 12

- 2143 17 IV W e be gi n by cl ear i ng away t w o iss ues that a pp ear re l ati ve ly str ai ghtf or w ar d to us: Zi vko vi c’ s e l i gibi l i ty f orS ecti on 2 12( c) r el i ef, a n d the use o fhi s 2 010 convi cti on f orcr i m i nal tr espass to a re si dence a s a basi s f or hi s r emova l a s ana g g r av at ed fel o n. W e th entur n t o the m or e di ffi cul t q uesti on, co m m on t o the 1 976 and 1978 c on vic tio n s, w h et h er th ey ca n su p p or t t h e B oa rd ’ s d ec isi o n.

A
. S ecti on 2 12( c) W e ta k e up this p oi ntfi r sts i m pl y t o e m pha si ze the i m p or tance ofthe l ega l effect ofZi vko vi c’ s three cr i m es. Because he i s not eligibl e forS ecti on 2 12( c) r el i efunder th i s ci r cui t’ s law, hi s ca se tur ns e xc l us i ve l y o n the propertr eat m ent o ftho se cri m es. Altho ug h the S upr eme Co ur t f o und in St
. Cyrthat I I RI RA ’ s r epealo fS ecti on 2 12( c) r elief w as not re tr oac tive, its op inion w as not un qu ali fi ed

. I ns tead , th e C o u rt dist i ngui shed the si tuati on o f“p eopl e who ente re d in to ple a a gr eem ents w i th the expecta ti on that they w ou ld b e eligib le” for t h at relie f. St. Cyr, 53 3 U .S. at 3 21 . I t note d that pl ea agr eem en ts “invol ve a q ui d p r o q uo between a cri m in al defe nd ant a nd the gov er nm ent. ” Id. W e h a v e u nd e r s t o o d St. Cyr to re quir e a dem onst ra ti on that the defendant affi rm at ivel y abandoned ri ghts or admi tt ed g ui l t i n reli ance o n a c ha nc e o fo bt aini ng Se cti on 2 12( c) r el i ef

. S ee Kho dja v. Ho lder, 666 F. 3d 415, 42 0 (7t h Ci r. 20 11) ( applying St
. Cyrto petitioner w ho af-18 N o. 12

- 2143 fi rm ati vel y abandoned h is right to pursue a j ud i ci al recom m en d ation again st d ep ortation). The Co ur t’ s l at er d ec i si o n in V a rtelas, how ever, cautio ned against pl aci ng to o m uch w ei ght o n actual r el i an ce . I n V

a rtelas, the Court had to rule on the r etr oa c t iv it y of a p rovisi on of I I R I R A l im iti ng the right of a p erm an en t residen t a li en w ho h ad been conv icted of a fel ony to tr av el outsi de the U ni ted S tat es and then re turn a s a m att er of ri ght. I t deci ded aga i nst r etr oac ti vi ty. The l o ss o fthe r i g htt o l ea ve the c o unt r y b r i efl y and then r etur n, i t co n c lu d ed , i m posed a new di sabi l i ty on thi s cl ass o fper son s. A s the Courtnot ed, “nei ther [ Varte l as’ s] s en tence , northe i m m i gr ati on l aw i n effect w h en he was co nvi cted and se ntenced, bl ock ed h im f ro m o ccasi onalvi sit s to h i s par ents i n Greec e. ” 1 32 S. Ct. at 14 87 . W h er e a fin d in g of re tr oa c tiv ity w ou ld sa d d le th e pet i ti o ne r wi thnew co ns eque nc es fr o m a n o l d c o nvi ctio n, the affecte d perso n need notal so dem onst ra te that h e re l i ed on the abs ence oftho se new co nsequences. This did notm ean, however, that r eli ance ha d to be dis r e g a r de d e nt i r e l y ; t o the c o nt r a r y, the Co ur to b s e r ved tha t“ [ w] hi l e the p r e s umpt i o n ag a i ns tr e t r o a c t i v e a pp lica tio n of st at u te s d oe s n otreq u ire a sh ow i n g of d et rim entalr el i ance, r eas onabl e r el i ance h as been note d am ong the ‘ f am i l i arco nsi derat i ons’ ani m ating t he pre

sum pti on. ” Id. at 1491 (qu otations and citations om itted ). Bas ed o n V

a rtelas, the Fi fth Cir cui t has con c l ud ed th ate ve n pe o pl e who ha ve r ej ec te d a pl ea a g r eement an d g o n e to tri al m ay take ad van tage of St
. Cyr ’ s r uling. C a rran z a -D e Sa lina s v. Ho lder, 7 0 0 F. 3d 768 (5th C ir. 2012).N o. 12

- 2143 19 The peti ti onerther e had d el aye d app eal i ng herco nvi ctio n so thatshe coul d buil d a r eco rd sho w i ng r ehabi l i tati on, and then the l aw change d t o el i m i nate Se cti on 21 2(c ) relie f. St
. Cyr ’ s g en er alh o l di ngabo utthe no nre tr oac ti vi ty of the re peal of Se cti on 212( c) , alo n g w i th peti ti oner ’ s dem onst ra ted “l i kel i hood o fr el i an c e o n pri orl aw , ” were enough t o c onvince the F i fth Ci rcui t t o hol d tha tthe p e t i t i o ne r wa s e nt i t l e d t o p ur s ue S e c t i on 21 2(c ) relie f. Id. at 773- 74. Zi vko vi c does n ot poi nt to a si m i l arr eco rd, and so we are i ncl i ned to save f orano ther d ay th e qu es tio n w h et h er w e sh ou ld re vis it t h e r ole th atr el i an ce ha s pl ay ed i n thi s co ur t’ s l aw . W e f o cus i nstea d on the poi nt thatwas centr alto Var t e l as

— the f act th atr etro ac ti ve a ppl i ca ti o n o fthe t r av elr es tr i ct i o ns w oul d ha v e i mpo s e d a s i g ni fi c a ntn e w l e g a l di s a b i l i t y o n the pet i ti onerenti re ly ap ar t fro m the conse quences o f a crim inalco nvi cti on o n a per son’ s e l i gibi l i ty f or re lief u n d er Sec tio n 2 1 2(c ). In Z ivk ov ic’s ca se , th e o n ly di sabi l i ti es o n the t ab l e ar e the c r i m i na l c o nv i ct i o ns th em se lve s, n ota rig h t t o t ra ve l, to w or k, o r t h e like . I t i s t rue that I I RI RA , byadding hi s o ffenses to the ra nks of“a ggr avat ed fel oni es, ” chang ed the conse q u ences f orrem ovabi l i ty, but w e do not und er sta nd thatto be the k i nd o faddit i onall ega l di sabi l i ty that Var t e l as w as add re ssi ng. To the exte nt thatrelia nce r em ai ns r el evant, we note as w el l thatther e i s no way thatZi vko vi c co uld have re l i ed on S ecti on 2 12( c) wh en ei therhi s 1 976 orhi s 1 978 cri m i nal cas es w er e a dju dica ted, f orthe si m ple r eas on that the l aw di d not pro vi de f orr em ova l bas ed on thos e fel oni es at al l

. Thus, unl i ke St . C yr, wh o preva i l ed20 N o. 12

- 2143 on a retroac tivity ch all e n g e b ecau se of the loss ofa chance to avo i d r em ova l base d o n an offense that h ad supp or ted r em ova l since 1 988 ( sal e o fa contr ol l ed substan ce), Z ivkovic prese nt s a case in w h ic h t h e un d erl y i ngo ffense s wer e no t ev eno n the a g g r av at ed fel o ny l i s t un t i l 1 8 a n d 2 0 y e a r s a ft e r h i s c o n v i c t i o n s f o r th e m. H e i s thus i n the str ange posi ti on o fse eking r el i ef und erS ection 21 2( c) bas ed on o ffenses thatdi d not bec o m e aggrava ted felonies un tilthe p assa ge of th e very statu te th at rep ealed Section 212 (c). W e c on c lu d e t h at Sec tio n 21 2(c ) relie f is n otav aila b le i n thi s unusual si tuati on . W e do so both beca use Zi vk o vi c d id noti nc ura ne w l eg aldi sabi l i tyi n the sense that Var t e l as used, nord i d he rel y o n the avai l abi l i ty o fS ec ti o n 2 12 ( c) r el i ef

. The Bo ar d thus c o r rect l y f o und that Ziv kov i c i s inel i gibl e a s a m at te r ofl aw f orr el i ef und erS ecti on 2 12( c)
. Thi s m eans th at h i s peti ti on f or re vi ew can be g ra nt ed o n ly i fnone ofthe thre e co nvi ctio n s o n w h ich th e B oa rd relie d co u ld su p p or t h is r emov ala s ana g g r av at ed fel o n.

B. The 20 10 Convi cti on: Resi denti alTre spass A s i t r eads t oday, the I N A pro vi des that“[a ] ny al i en wh o i s c o n v i c t e d o fan ag g r a v a t e d fe l o n y a ta n y t i me after ad m issi on is de p ortable.” 8 U
. S. C
. § 1227(a)(2) (A )( ii i)
. Tu r ningb a c kt o the de fi ni t i o ns se c t i o n o fthe Ac t, 8 U. S
. C. § 1 101, w e fi nd an e xtensi ve l i st ofcr i m es that Congre ss has i denti fi ed as agg ra vate d fe l onies
. Id. § 1 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 3 ) ( A) th ro u gh (U ). Th e o n ly o n e t h at ap p lies to Z ivk ov ic is subpart ( F) , wh i ch ( as w e a l re ady have not ed) i denti fi esN o. 12

- 2143 21 “a cr im e o f vio len c e (a s d efi n e d i n se c tio n 16 of T itle 18, but not i ncl ud i ng a pu re l y pol i ti calo ffen se) f or w h ich th e t e r m of im p ris on m en t [is ] atlea st on e y ea r.” Tit l e 1 8, se cti on 1 6, pro vi des that The ter m “cr i m e o fvi ol ence” m eans– ( a) an o ffense that has as an el em ent the use, at tem pted use, o r thre ate ned use o fphy sic al fo rce ag ai nst the per son orpro pertyo fano ther, o r ( b) any othe r offense that i s a felo ny and that, by i ts nature , i nvol ve s a subst anti alr i sk that physi cal f or ce a gai nst the per son orpro pertyo fano therm ay b e u se d in t h e c ou rs e o f co m m itt in g t h e o ffen se . 18 U .S.C. § 16. Thi s i s a f am i l i arte st: subpart( a) r el i es on th e f o r m ale l ement s o f th e o ffen se , whi l e su bpa r t ( b) tur ns on the exi ste nce o fa substa nti alr i sk ofphysi calf or ce. T h e Illino is fe lon y of r e s i d e n tia l tre sp as s fo u n d in 7 2 0 I LCS5 / 1 9

- 4 ( a ) ( 2 ) i s c o mm i t t e d
w h en , w i t h ou t a u th or ity , [th e p er so n ] kn ow in gly enter s the r esi dence ofano therand knows orhas r ea so n t o kn o w th a to n e o rmo r e p e r s o n s i s p r e s en t orhe o r she know i ngl y e nter s th e re si dence of anoth er a nd r em ai ns i n the re si dence afterhe o r sh e know s or has reason to know that on e or m ore perso ns i s pre sent. Id. Al l p a r t i e s ag re e tha tthi s c r i me do e s n o ti nc l ud e as an el em ent the atte m p ted o r thre ate ned use o f p hy sical force agains t the pers on or p rop ert y of an oth er. I t there f ore doe s no t qual i fy a s a cr i m e o fvi ol ence22 N o. 12

- 2143

u n d er 18 U .S.C . § 16 (a). T h e m o r e d ifficu lt q u es tio n is w he the r r e s i de nt i a l t r e s pa s s i s a c r i me i nv o l v i ng a substa nti alr i sk th at physi calf or ce wil l be used aga i nst th e pe r s o n o r pr o pe r t y o f a no the r f o r pu r po s e s o f18 U
. S. C
. § 16(b). I n cons tr uingS ecti on 1 6( b) i n an i m m i gr ati on ca se, the S up re m e Cour t has ta ken a cat ego ri calapproa ch. S ee Leocal v. A sh cr oft, 54 3 U .S. 1 (20 04 ). W e k n ow th is be ca us e th e unde rlyi ng f ac ts i n Le oc al l eft no doubt that physi calf or ce a ctual l y had be en used ag ainst an o th er : the pe ti ti one r the r e was c o nv i ct ed o fdr i ving und er the infl ue nc e o fa l co ho l, a nd the unde r l y i ng f a c t s s h o we d th a th e h a d c r a s h e d a n d c a u s e d s er i o us i nj u r y t o s o me o n e . T h e C o u r tc o n fi r me d th a tt he l an g ua g e o fS ec ti o n 1 6 “r equi r es us t o l o o kt o the el eme n t s a n d th e n a t u r e o fth e o ffe n s e o fc o n v i c t i o n, rath er than to the p articu lar facts relating to pe titi one r’s c r i me. ” Id. at7. S ee Jim enez -G o nz a lez v. M uk a sey, 54 8 F
. 3d 55 7, 5 61 ( 7th Ci r . 2 008). A p p ly i ngtha t te st, i t ex pla i ned that eve n though dri vi ng un der the i nfl uence o fa l co ho l i s phy si ca l l y d an g er o us , tha t i s no t en o ug h. Se cti on 1 6( b) does notenco m pass a l l negl i gent m i sconduct, nordoes i t co veral l o ffenses thatcreat e a substan tial risk that inj ury w ill r esu lt from the p erson ’s c o n d uct
. 5 4 3 U. S
. a t1 0
. A m ens rea hi g he r tha n “ th e m er ely a cc i den ta l o r ne g l i g en t c ond ucti nv o l ve d i n a D U I offen se ” is n ec es sa ry . Id. at1 1. “ [ R] ec k l es s di sr eg ard i n § 1 6( b) , ” the C ou rt expl ai ned, “r el ate s nott o the ge n er a l c on d u c t o r to th e p os sib ility th at h ar m w ill r es ul t f r o m a pe r so n’ s co nduc t, bu t to the r i sktha t th e use of physi calf or ce a gai nst a notherm i ght b e requiredN o. 12

- 2143 23 i n com m i tting a cri m e. ” Id. a t 1 0 (firs t e m p h as is in origi na l, secon d em p ha sis add ed ). The Court add ed that the phra se “cr i m e ofvi ol ence” sugge sts “a cat ego ryo f vi o l en t, a ct i ve c r i m es , ” an d c au ti one d a g ains t bl ur r i ng the di stincti on be tw een the “v i ol ent c ri m es Congre ss so ug htt o disti ng ui shf o r he i g ht en ed puni sh m en t an d othe r cri m es. ” Id. at 11. I n Ziv kov i c’ s ca se, the BIA bega n appr op ri ate l y b y applyin g Le oc al ’ s “c at eg o r i ca l a ppr o ac h. ” I n de te r m i ni ng that “r esi denti altres pass” i s a vio l ent c ri m e, i t a nal ogi zed th a t c r i me t o b ur g l a r y, whi c h the S up r e me Co ur t has r ec o g ni ze d as a “c l as si c” ex ampl e o f a cr i m e m eeting th e requ irem en ts of S ection 16(b). Id. a t 10
. The BI A al so re l i ed on thi s co urt’ s r uling tha t “r esi denti alentr y” i s a cri m e ofvi ol ence und erS ecti on 4 B1. 2 o fthe U
. S. S entenci ng Guidel i nes; thatse cti on ca l l s f orenhanced penal ti es for offen se s “inv o l v[ i ng ] c o nduc t th atpr es en ts a s er i o us pot e nt i al r i s k of

ph ys i ca l i nju ry t o a no the r . ” U. S
. S
. G. § 4 B1. 2( a) ( 2) ; se e U nited Sta tes v . G a rdn er, 39 7 F
. 3d 1021 , 10 23 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 5) ( emphas i s adde d)

. I n G a rdn er, the re l evantst atute sa i d that “ [ a] per son w ho know i ngl y o r i nt e nt i onal l y b re aks and ente rs the dw el l i ng o f anothe r perso n com m i ts re si denti alentr y, a Clas s D fel ony. ” Ind

. Code § 35- 43- 2- 1. 5 ( 1993 ). Id. at 1023
. That cr i m e, we concl ud ed, qual i fi es as a cr i m e o fvi ol ence un d e r S e c t i o n 4 B 1
. 2 o fth e G u i d e l i n e s a n d p e r ha ps eve n 18 U
. S. C. § 1 6( b) , o n w hic h t h e g ove rnm ent had re lied by an alo gy . Id. at 1023 -24 . I n t h e cou rse of b r e aki ng an d e nt er i ng, the r e i s a “seri o us r i sktha t ano cc upa nt co uld be injured

. ” Id. at 1024 ( em p ha sis add ed ).24 N o. 12

- 2143 G a rdn erd iffer s fro m th e p re se n t ca se , ho w ev er , in w ays thatthe BIA fa i l ed to r ec og ni ze. Fi rs t, the defini ti on of“cr i m e o fvi ol ence” u n d erS ecti on 4 B1. 2 o fthe sente nci ngg ui del i ne s i s si g ni fi ca nt l y di ffer en t fr o m the one f o und i n Se cti on 1 6( b)

. The gui del i nes r equi re o nl y a “ p ot e nt i al ris k of p h ys ic al inju ry, ” whil e S ecti on 1 6( b) r equi re s a
“ subs tanti al ris k t h at p h ys ica l forc e ” m ay be use d. ( Em phasis ad d ed .) Th e le ve l of risk is th er efo re d iffer e n t. In add i ti on, a ri sk of“physi cali nj ury” (Secti on 4 B1. 2) i s no t the s am e a s the ri sk that the offender w i l l apply“physi cal f or ce” ( Se cti on 1 6( b) ) to the vi cti m . Physi cal force m ay or m ay n otres u lt in inju r y, d ep en d in g on h ow se ve re it is. C f. Jo hn son v. U nited Sta tes, 55 9 U.S
. 13 3, 14 0, 1 30 S . Ct. 1265 , 12 70- 71 (2 010) ( hol ding that the t er m “physi cal f or ce” i n 18 U
. S. C. § 924( e) ( 2) ( B)( i ) “m eans vi ol e nt f or ce

— that i s, f or ce cap abl e o fcausing physi calpai n or i nj ur y t o a no th erpe r so n” ) ( emphas i s i n o r i g i na l ). The Cou rt’s a na l y si s i n Le oc al i l l ustr ate s the di ffer ence be twe enthes e two s ta nda r ds. Dr i vingunde r the i nfl ue nc e pr es en ts a “ risko fphy si ca l i nj ur y, ” butthe C ou rtfou n d th at t h is w as n ott h e sa m e as th e in te n tio n al, active “use of p hy sical force” d escribed in Sectio n 1 6 (b ). I n G a rdn er, the c rim e o f“r esi denti alentr y” re quir ed k now ing o r i nt en ti o na l b r ea k i nga nd e nt er i ngthe d w ellin g of a n ot h er . G a r dn er, 3 97F
. 3d at1 02 3. Thi s k i nd ofbr eak i ng and entr y o ffense cl ose l y re sem bl es burgl ar y, and i t i s l ogi calto as sum e that there i s a sub st an tial ri sk that p hysi calf or ce a t l eas t a gai nst the pro pertyo f anothe r w i l l be used i n the com m i ssi on o fthe offense. W e r eco gni ze that si nce G a rdn er, the Su p r em e C ou rt has co ncl ud ed thatat tem pted burgl ar y qual i fi es as aN o. 12

- 2143 25 cri m e o fvi ol ence und er t he A rm ed Caree r Cri m i nal A ct ( A CC A ) , 18 U
. S. C. § 92 4( e)
. S ee Ja m es v. U nited Sta tes, 55 0 U .S. 19 2 (2 00 7). Ino u r v iew , ho w ev er , Ja m es does not und er m i ne Le oc al ’ s ho l ding; i nd eed, t h e m aj or i ty did not eve n ci te Leo ca l. Ja m es i nv o l ve d ACCA , whi chl i k e th e gu id eli nes defi nes a cr i m e o fvi ol ence as an o ffense “i nvol v[ i ng] co nd uct that pr ese nts a se ri ous pot ential r i sk o f phy si ca l i nj ur y to an o th er . ” § 92 4( e) ( 2) ( B ). The st an dar d unde r ACCA thus di ffer s m at er i al l y fr o m the one und er18 U
. S. C. § 1 6( b) : the l att err equi re s ac t i veu se ofphysi calf or ce, wh i l e the fo rm erl oo ks onl y for pot e nt i al r i sk ofphysi cali nj ury. T h e re sid en tia l tre sp ass cri m e th at Z ivk ov ic com m i tte d requi re s o nl y e ntryo r re m ai ni ng i n a ho use, w ith th e k n ow led ge th at an ot h er p er s o n i s p re se n t; it sa y s no th i ngabo ut“ br ea k i ng ” o r a ny o th erf o r ce . I t th us i s qui te di ffer en t f r o m th e cr i m es i n G a rdn er a nd Ja m es, w here the offenses nece ssa ri l y invol ved the i ntenti onal vi ol ati on o fthe w i l l o fthe property o w ner. I n contr ast, th e I l l i no i s st atut e th atZi vk o vi c vi o l at ed sa y s th at th e en tr y (or rem ai n i n g ) m u st be “w ith ou t a u th or ity ”; it does not saythatthe perso n had to know tha t th e en tr y ( oracto fr em ai ni ng) was unauthori zed. A per son coul d com m i t r esi denti altr espass bywalk in g thro ugh a neigh b or ’s o pen doorunder the m i sta ken b el i efthat she i s ho sting an open h ou se , a party, o r a g ar age sa l e. P eoplev. D avis , 96 8 N .E
. 2d 682, 68 5- 86 ( I l l

. A pp . Ct. 20 12) ( h old i ng tha t the “without a uthor i ty” el em ent o fS ecti on 19- 4( a) ( 2) need notbe knowing)

. I m port antl y, I l l i noi s has a cr i m e o f“ho m e invasi on” that i s m or e seri ous than r e s i d e n t i a l t r e s p a s s b u tl e s s s e r i o u s th a n b u r g l a r y . “ Ho me26 N o. 12

- 2143 i nvasi on” i s r esi denti alt respass plus ei therphysi cal i nj ury, use off or ce, o r thre ats to use for c e. 72 0 I LC S 5/ 19- 6( a) ( 4)
. Thi s cr i m e, wh i ch d oes co ntem pla te the use off or ce, i s cl ose r to the Ind i ana cr i m e o fr esi denti al en tr y a t i ss ue i n G a rdn er or to the gen eric cri m e o f bu rglary
. W e co ncl ud e that the BI A er re d by char act e r i z i n gth e I l l i no i s r e s i d e n t i a l t r e s p a s s c r i me a s a “ c r i me of v iole n c e” for p u rp os es of th e a gg ra v a t e d felon y p ro vis i o n o fth e I NA.

C. The 1 97 6 an d 1 97 8 Con vi ct i o ns The r e i s no que st i o n th at Zi vk o vi c’ s old co nv i ct i o ns m eetthe curr ent defi ni ti on ofa “cr i m e ofvi ol ence” und er 1 8 U
. S
. C. § 1 6 , a nd thu s u nd e r the I NA, 8 U. S
. C. § 1 101( a)(43 )(F)
. The 19 76 convi cti on was f orburg l ar y, an d the 1 97 8 co nv i ct i o n w as f o r a tt empte d r ape , a nd Zi vk ovi c r ec ei ve d s ubs ta nt i als en te nc es f o r e ac h o ne (tw o to si x years an d four to tw elve years). T he issue h ere i s retro ac ti vi ty : do es the ne t effec t o fthe c ha ng es i n the I N A that w e described i n Part I I I of thi s opi ni on a ll ow th e B oa rd to r ely o n th os e c on vic tio n s t o s u p p or t re m ov al? O u r d iss en tin g c olle ag u e b e l iev es th at th is is a sim p le que st i o n t o a ns wer . He po i nt s to the l an g ua g e i n the h a n g i n gp a r a g r a p h t o 8 U. S
. C
. § 1 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 3 ) , wh i c h a s we note d above pro vi des that“[ n]o tw i thsta nd i ng anyo ther p ro vis ion of law (inc lu d in g a n y e ffec tiv e d at e), the term [aggravat ed felo ny ] ap p li es regard less ofw he th er a con viction w as en tered before, on, or after [I I R I R A ’s effe c tiv e d at e].” (E m p h as i s a d d ed .) W e a gr ee w ith h imN o. 12

- 2143 27 th a tth i s c l e a r l y ma k e s th e n e w de f i niti on appli cabl e t o al l pr i o r c o n v i c t i o n s . B u ti ti s o n e th i n gt o d e fi ne co nduc t as a n a g g ravate d fel o ny, a nd a di st i nc t th i ng to c o nc l ude tha t th e se ct i o ns o f th e s ta tu te pr es cr ibi ng g r o un ds f o r r e mov a l h a v e a l s o b e e n a men de d. W e a re n ot t he fi rs t t o m ake thi s obser vati on. Both th e S upr eme Co ur t an d the BI A ha ve c o ns i st en tly di st i ngui shed bet w een defi ni ti ons and consequences

. S ee 8 C .F.R . § 31 6.1 0(b )(1) ; St. Cyr; a nd M atte r of A-A -, 20 I
. & N . D ec. 492 ( BIA 1997)
. Reco gni zi ng tha t di stincti on here does notdeprive e i therthe am ended d efi ni ti on o f “ag gr avat ed fel ony” o r the hang i ng par agra ph off or ce. To the c o nt r ar y, the r e ar e m an y i m m i g r at i o n c o nsequences fro m being an agg ra vate d fe l on o therthan r emov ab i l i ty, a nd no o ne ha s ar g ue d tha t I I RI RA d o e s n o ta p p l y w i th fu l l f o r c e t o mo s t o fth e m. F o r e x a mpl e, s o m eon e defi ne d a s ana g g r av at ed fel o n pur su an t to I I RI RA i s inel i gibl e forany disc re ti onar y wai vero f re m ova l ( ei therthe cancel l ati on o fr em ova l o ther w i se p ossible for legal p erm an en t reside nt s o r a discret ionary w ai vero fi nadm i ssibi l i ty f ortho se gui l ty ofa cri m e o f m o r altur pi tu de) ; he i s i ne l i g ibl e f o ra ny di sc r et i o nary i m m i gr ati on benefi t that r equi re s a sho w i ng o fgo od m o r alc ha r ac te r, s uchas s ee k i ngU. S
. c i ti ze ns hi p; he m ay not see k a syl um o r w i thhol ding ofr em ova l bas ed on th e t h r e a t o f p er se c u tio n in t h e c ou n tr y of re m ov al; i f re m ove d o n othe r gr ounds, an agg ra vate d fe l on m ay not re en terthe countr y l ega l l y without a speci al w ai ver ; and an ag gr avat ed felo n i s inel i gibl e for vol untary departur e. S ee gener al l y I M M I G R A T I ON28 N o. 12

- 2143 P O LICY C ENTE R, A gg rav a ted Feloni e s : An Overview , ht t p: //www. i mm i g r a t i o np o l i c y . o r g/ j us t
- f a c t s / a g g r a v a t e dfelo n ies -ov er vie w (las t v isit ed Ju ly 2 6 , 2 0 13 ). Th e p oin t is that each c onse quence m ust be ev al ua te d i nd ependentl y, to see i fCongr ess i ntended to i m portthe new defin ition ( r e a c h i n ga l l a g g r a v a t e d fe l o n i e s , n o ma t t e r w h e n c o mm i tte d) into that part ofthe sta tute. The Board has ta ken the posi ti on th at t h e 1990 A ct cre ate d a co m prehensi ve new st atuto ryfra m ew or k, whi chc o ns o l i dat ed th e g r o unds f o r de po r tati o n a nd re peal ed by i m plic ati on a var i etyo fea rl i ersca tte re d st at u to ry p ro vis ion s, in c lu d in g Se c tio n 73 44 (b ) of th e A n tiDrug A buse Act of19 88. S ee M at t e rof Le t t m an, 2 2 I
. & N. D ec. 365 (BIA 1998) ( e n b anc )
. I n Le t t m an , a m aj or i ty of the Boa rd perm itt ed use o fa pre- 1988 co nvi cti on f or m ur der( a cr i m e defi ne d a s ana g g r av at ed fel o ny i n the A nt i- D r u g A bu se A ct of 1988) to sup p ort the alien’s r emov al. I t di d s o de spi te the f ac t th atthe Anti

- Dr ug A bu se A ct, w hich had ad d ed f o r th e fi rst tim e the term “ag gr avat ed fel ony, ” a l so hi ghl i ghted th e prospect i ve na tu re of t his ch an ge in Section 734 4(b). Th e B oard re l i ed on the l anguage pro vi ding th at the a m endm ents
“ s ha l l a pp l y t o a ny a l i e n who ha s b e e n convi c t e d, on o r afterthe date o fthe enactm ent o fthi s Act, o fan a gg r a v a t e d fe l o ny . ” T hr e e me mbe r s o fthe Bo a r d d i s s e nt e d. I nitiall y, th e E levent h C ir c u it r uled that the B oard ha d e r r ed i n Lettm a n, se e 16 8 F
. 3d 46 3 ( 11 thCi r . 1 99 9) , b ut u p on reco nsi derat i on the co urt deci ded to gi ve Che vron defe re nce t o the Boa rd’ s underst anding ofthe effecti ve date o fthe changes m ad e b y th e 1 990 A ct. 20 7 F
. 3d 1368 ,N o. 12

- 2143 29 1370 ( 11th Cir
. 20 00)
. The co urt did so i n re l i ance o n I.N .S. v. A gu irre-A gu irre, 526 U
. S. 415 ( 1999 ) , wh i ch ha d com m an d ed suc h d eferenc e to the B oa r d ’s i nt erpreta ti on o fthe ter m “s er i ous no npo liticalcr i m e” f or pu rp os es of8 U
. S. C. § 1 253( h)( 2) ( C). But the Ele venth Cir cuit fai l ed to not e that the questi on o fr etr oac ti vi ty bef or e iti s qui te differ ent fro m the questi on how to i nt e r pr e ta p a r t i c ul a r p hr a s e u ni qu e t o the i mm i g r a t i on l aw s. W e hav e a l re ady expl ai ned w h y we do notbel i eve , in l ight of St
. Cyra nd V a r t ela s, that Che vron defe re nce ap p l i e s t o re tr oa c tiv ity d et er m in at ion s, ev en th ou gh it does apply to run- of

- the- m i l l questi ons ofint erpreta
ti o n tha t ar e uni que t o the i m m i g r at i o n s ta tu te s an d th u s w ith in th e B oa rd ’s e x p er tis e, su c h as th e o n e in A gu irre-A gu irre. T he absen ce of Che vron defer en c e d oes notm ean that we mu st di sr eg ar d the El ev en thCi r cui t’ s unde r l y i ng reas o ns f o r upho l di ngthe r es ul t i n Lettm a n; i tme an s o nl y tha t we e va l ua te the Bo ar d’ s po si ti o n in Le t t m an w ith an op en m in d , bea rin g in m in d th e m o re flex ible p rinciples of Sk idm o re v. Sw ift & C o ., 32 3 U. S
. 1 34 ( 1944 ), a nd U nited Sta tes v. M ead C o rp., 53 3 U .S. 21 8 (2 00 1). In re vi ew i ng the Boar d, the El eve nth Cir cui t be gan with the pr oposi ti on that the 19 90 A ct re d es i gnate d the ag

gr avat ed fel ony gr ound bu t d i d not e xpressl y e i ther en ac t o r r e- en ac t an y c o r r espo ndi ngda te r es tr i ct i o n. The onl y hel p w i th r espectto dates c om es f ro m Se ct i o n 6 02 ( c) o fthe 1 99 0 Act, s etf o r thabo ve . Unf o r tu
n at ely , th e sec on d se n te n c e of th at p ro vis ion is p ra c tic ally i nd eci pherabl e:30 N o. 12

- 2143 Exce pt as o th er wi se s pec i fi ca l l y pr o vide d i n such s e ct i on an d sub sect ion (d), th e prov isi ons of such s e ct i on , as a m en d ed by th is s ec tio n, sh all a p p ly to al l al i ens desc ribed i n subsec ti on ( a) thereofnot
w i thsta nd i ng ei therthat t he al i en ent er ed the U ni ted S ta te s b e f o r e th e 1 9 9 0 Ac tt o o ke ffe c to r th a tt he gr ou n d s f ordeport ati on o ccurr ed bef or e the date of the e nactm ent o fthi s Act. (E m phasi s add ed. ) The Board re cogni zed that it is di ffi cul t atb es t to kno w w ha t Con g r es s was t al k i ng ab ou t w h en it sa id “s u c h s ec tio n ” t w ice . D oe s th is pas sa g e apply t o the a g g r av at ed fel o ny g r ou nd in the f or m thati t o rig inal l y had i n 198 8

— dat e r es tr i ct i o n a nd al l ? I fs o , tha t par ti cul arg r o un d (w hi chwas ne w to the l a w in 1 9 8 8 ) wo u l d r e ma i n p r o sp e c t i v e a s o f1 9 8 8
. ( No o n e i s a r g ui n gf o r a n y e a r l i e r s t a r t i n gp o i n t, a n d s o we disr ega rd thatposs ibi l i ty. ) Or doe s “ such se cti on” m ean the 1 988 agg ra vate d fe l ony gr ound w i thout the date restriction? In tha t case, the d ate restriction on the u nd erlyin g a c ts w ou ld d isa p p ea r an d th e 1 99 0 A c t w ou ld be fully r etr oac tiv e on thi s point. Thi s i s, as the Ele venth Ci r cui t r ec o g ni ze d, pur elya que st i o n o fs tatuto r y c o nst r uct i o n. As th e Su pr eme Co ur t he l d i n M ul ca hey v . C a ta la n o t t e, 3 53 U. S
. 6 92 ( 19 57 ) , Co ng r es s ha s th e autho r i t y t o p a s s a l a w r e qu i r i ngde po r t a t i o n r e g a r dl e ss ofwh en the supporting f acts to ok pla ce. The questi on i s o nl y whatdi d i t do i n the s eto fst atut es we ar e co nsi deri ng. The Ele venth Ci rcui t w as p er suaded by s eve ra l o f th e r ea so ns tha t th e BI A offer ed w he n i t ch o se theN o. 12

- 2143 31

se co nd o ftho se i nt er pr et at i o ns

— that i s, fu llr etr oac ti vi ty
. I t th o ug httha t ful l r et r o ac ti vi tyb et te r r efl ec te d Co ngr ess ’ s desi re in 1990 t o si m pli fy the i m m i gr ati on l aw s, because thi s r eadi ng el i m i nated the need to checkea rl i er v e r s i o ns . I n a ddi t i o n, the El e v e nth Ci r c ui th a d a l re ady a d o pt e d th i s r e a d i n ga s i tr e l a t e d t o th e f o r me r fi r e a r ms g r o und fo r de po r tat i o n ( whi cha ppea r s i n a di ffer en t part ofthe A nti

- Drug A buse Act)

. S ee Lo pez-A m a r o v. INS , 25 F. 3d 986 ( 11th Cir
. 19 94) ; se e a l so Le wis v. IN S, 19 4 F. 3d 539, 54 5- 46 (4 th C i r. 19 99) ( al so defe rr i ng to the Boa rd’ s Le t t m an d ec isio n ). Th e E lev en th C irc u it r ej ec te d Le tt m an ’ s ar g um en t th atthe fi r ea r m s g r o und w as m ate ri al l y differ ent b ecause i t was am ended substa nti vel y in the 1990 A ct, wh i l e the ag gr avat ed fel o ny g r o und was c ar r i ed f o r ward u nc ha ng ed an d wa s me r e l y r e - c o di fi e d. I n Be l l v. Re no, 2 18 F
. 3d 86 ( 2d Ci r . 2 00 0) , the S ec o nd Cir cui t t oo k a di ffer ent a pp ro ach to Le t t m an . I t f o und that Che vron de fe r e nc e t o the Bo ar d’ s v i e w wa s n o ta pp ro pri ate , wri ti ng tha t the Boar d’s i nter preta ti on was “not susta i nable b ecause i t r uns af oulo fthe l ongsta nd i ng pre sum pti on a gai nst the r etr oa c ti ve appli catio n ofam bi guous sta tutor y pr ovi si ons. ” Id. a t9 3 ( c i ti ng La ndgraf , 511 U
. S. at 265)
. The cour t poi nted out that in Le t t m an the Board had notcond ucted a re tr oac ti vi ty an alysis un d er Lan dgraf

. H ad i t d o ne s o , the c o ur ts a i d, “i t would have bee n com pel l ed to co ncl ud e that § 60 2( c) cannot be const rued to applyto co nvi cti ons that pre- date the [ A nti

- Drug A buse Act] , ” s i nce both the m aj or i ty an d the di ss en t i n Le t t m an ac kn ow led ge th at th e p ro visio n i s a m b igu ou s. Id . at 9 4. T h e Se c on d C irc u it32 N o. 12

- 2143 tu r ne d i ns te ad to the effec ti ve da te pr o vi si o n o fthe 1990 A ct, Se cti on 602( d), w hi ch sta tes that the a m ended defini ti on o f“a ggr avat ed fel ony” sho uld appl y o nl y t o depo r ta ti o n pr o ce eding s i ni ti at ed afte r M ar ch1 , 1 99 1. The c ou rtu n d er st oo d th at lan gu ag e t o m ea n th at it sh ou ld apply the depor tat i on co nsequences to any a gg ra vate d fel on no m at te r w hen the quali fyi ng fel ony w as com m i tte d, so l ong as the pr oce edi ng i tse l fwas in itia te d aft er M ar c h 1, 19 91
. Id. at94

- 96. I n Led ezm a -G a licia v . H o lder, 636 F.3d 105 9 (9th C ir. 2010 ) , the N i nth Cir cui t r ej ecte d the appro aches ofbo th th e E lev en th C irc u it a n d th e Se c on d C i r c u it. T h er e, p et iti o ne r Le dez m a- G ali ci a was a l awful pe r m an en t re si d ent a l i en. H e was co nvi cted i n Se ptem ber19 88 of sod om y, f or sexual l y ass aul ti ng a m i nor . That cri m e is no w de fi ne d a s a n a g gr a v a t e d fe l o nyb y 8 U. S
. C. § 11 01 ( a) ( 43 ) ( A), a nd thus ( put tingr et r o ac ti vi tyt o o ne s i de ) i tcurr en t l y i s a g r o un d fo r r e mov a l u nd e r 8 U. S
. C. § 1 22 7(a )(2) (A ) ( i i i). B u t a t t h e t im e L ed ez m a-G alic ia w as convi cted o fhi s s tat e cr i m e, he c oul d not hav e been re m ove d fo r that orany othe r agg ra vate d fel ony, bec ause thi s was be f or e Novem ber18 , 19 88, wh en th e An ti

- Drug A buse Act added the cate gor y o f“a ggr av a t e d fe l o n y ” t o th e I NA. The N i nth Circ u it focuse d on two cent ra l questi ons:
“ F i rs t, d i d § 6 0 2 o fthe 1 9 9 0 [ Act ] p r e s e r v e o r o v e r r i de [ th e Anti

- Dr ugAbus e Act] § 7 34 4(b) , the [ Anti

- Dr ug Abuse A ct’ s] t empor all i m i ta ti o n o n a g g r av at ed fel o ny deporta ti ons? Se cond, i f [ the A nti

- Drug A buse A ct] § 7 344(b) sur vi ved the [ 1990 A ct] , di d I I RI RA i n 199 6N o. 12

- 2143 33 el i m i nate i ts tem pora l lim itati on?” 636 F. 3d at 1066
. Like u s, the Ninth Ci rcui t r eco gni zed that Che vron de ference does not apply t o the quest i on wh ethera sta tute sh ou ld be ap p li ed retroactively. T u r n ing to the B oard ’s L e t t m an d ec i si o n, the Ni nth Ci r cui t co nc l ude d tha t th e Board “t oo k a fund am ental l y wrong turn in i ts anal ysi s” w hen i t deci ded to co ncentr ate o n the “except” cl ause of th e 1 9 9 0 A c t, Se c tio n 60 2(c ). Id. at10 68. I n the N i nth Ci r cui t’ s vi ew, whethe r the “ ex ce pt” c l au se r efer r ed to the pre- 1990 A ct o r post- 1990 A ct v er si on o fI N A S ecti on 2 41( a) w as ofno i m port ance. That i s be cause Se cti on 7 344( b ) (part ofthe A nti

- Drug A b u se A c t of19 88) was neverparto f Se cti on 2 41 to begin w i th; o nl y S ecti on 7 344( a ) am ended Se cti on 2 41. That m ea n t, the c ourtr eas oned, thatS ecti on 7344 (b ) “ w as al w ays an e nti re l y fre e- sta nd i ng te m pora l l i m i tat i on pro vi si on. ” Id

. at10 69. Because Se cti on 7 344(b) w as neverp ar t o f24 1, i t was unaffecte d by S ecti on 602( c) ’ s r efer ences to “su c h se cti on. ” F i nal l y, the N i nth Ci r cui t co nc l ude d tha t no th i ngi n the 1990 Act( o r a ny othe r l egi sl ati on) has r epeal ed Se cti on 7 344(b) , ei ther e xp l i c i t l y o r b y i mpl i c a ti on. I nd e e d, the c o ur tf o un d, r e pe a l o fS ecti on 7 3 4 4 ( b ) wo ul d h a v e p r o du c e d o dd re su lts

. Id. a t 10 72
. L ike the Anti

- Dr ugAbus e Act, the 1990 A ct t re ate d the de f i ni t i on o fag gr avat ed fel ony as som ethi ng di stinct fro m the agg ra vate d-fel ony groun d f ord epor tat i on. Thi s m ade se nse, bec ause othe rwis e w h y w ou ld Sec tio n 50 1 o f th e 1 99 0 A c t h av e s ep ar at ely sp ec ified t h e t e m p or al re ac h of th e n ew d efin itio n s? If Se cti on 7 344(b) had bee n i m plie d ly re peal ed by the 1 990 A ct, the provi si on i n the 1990 A ct i tse l fspeci fyi ng tha t cer tai n oft h e am endm ents i n Se cti on 5 01( a) would be34 N o. 12

- 2143 effecti ve f ro m the date of t h e 1988 A nti

- Drug A buse A c t w ou ld h av e b ee n p oin tle ss . Id. at 10 73
. The cou rt was a l so i nfl ue nc ed i n i ts de ci si o n b ythe pr es um pti o ns aga i nst r etr oac ti vi ty and i m pli ed re peal s. I I RI RA di d no t affec t th e Bo ar d’ s dec i si o n in Le t t m an, be ca us e th o se pr o ce eding s be g anwel l b efo r e th e st atut e’ s 19 96 da te o fe na ct m en t. I n Ledezm a-G alici a , how eve r, the N i nth Cir cui t had to co nsi der i ts i m pact, bec au se it w as II R I R A that ad d ed “sex ua l a b u s e of a m i no r ” to the l i stofag g r av at ed fel o ni es i n the I N A. I I RI RA als o m ad e it s a m en d ed d ef i n i t i on ap p lica b le t o a ll al i ens, r ega rdl ess o fthei r date o fconvi cti on. A s i t had do ne e ar l i er, the c o ur t r ej ec te d the a r g um en t th atthe defi ni ti o n a ut o m at i ca l l y di ct at ed th e i m m i g r at i o n c o nse q u en ces. I nstea d, the c ourtf ound itnece ssa ryto loo k a t t h e p ar tic u lar co n se q u en c e (re m o v a l ) a n d se e if i t s houl d be a pp l i ed re tr oac ti vel y. The co urt concl ud ed that Led ezm a- Gali ci a was notrem ov able by re aso n of b ein g a n ag gr av a t e d felon , bec au se th e re m ov al p ro visi o n o fthe s ta tu te do es no t appl yt o c o nv icti o ns that occur re d pri orto N ove m ber18 , 19 88. J udg e Byb ee di ss en te d fr o m the maj o r i ty ’ s o p inio n, but hi s o pe ningl i ne ma k e s a t e l l i ngp o i nt
. He wr o t e:
“ T h e r e i s n o p o l i t e w a y t o s a y th i s : T he s t a t u t o r y s c h e me w e a re r equi re d to parse i n thi s ca se i s a m ess . I t i s a m odel o f a m bi gui ty and m i sdir ecti on. ” 6 36 F. 3d at 1080
. T ha t said, he w ou ld h ave d eferred to the B I A ’s un d ersta nd i ng o fthe i nter acti ons am ong al l of t hese sta tutes an d wo u l d h a v e d e n i e d th e p e t i t i o n f o r r e v i e w. But Jud ge Bybee’ s s tat em ent i l l ustr ate s the exac t pr obl emN o. 12

- 2143 35 that the St. Cyr Court i denti fi ed as precl ud i ng anysuch d efer ence i n l i ght o fthe Lan dgraf p r e s umpt i o n a g ai nst re tr oac ti vi ty

— w here the sta tute i s a dm i tte dly“a m odel of am biguity,” Con gr e s s has not m ad e the nec essary cl earst ate m ent o fr etr oac ti ve i ntent. W he re, t he n, does allof th is l eave Zivkovic? I f w e w ere t o f o l l o w Le dezm a- Gali ci a, the concl usi on would be that nei ther h is 1976 norhi s 1 978 convi cti on ( each o f w hi ch now fa l l s with in the defini ti on o f“a ggr avat ed fel ony” ) m ay f or m the predi cate f or re m ova l, because th e c o mmi s s i o n o f a n a g g r a v a t e d fe l o n y d i d no t b e c o me a g r o un d fo r r e mov al u nti l 19 8 8
. I f, o n the o the r h a nd , w e were to f ol l ow the El eve nth and F ou rth Cir cui ts ( whi chf o l l o wed the Bo ar d’ s r ea son i ngi n Le t t m an ) , the r e s ul two ul d b e t o s a y tha tS e c t i o n 6 0 2 ( c ) o fthe 1 9 90 A ct no t o nl y pl aced the de f i ni t i on o f ag g r avated fel o ny in a d i f f e re n t p ar t o f th e s ta tu te , bu t itals o c ry p tic ally wi ped away an y te m po r al l i m i ta ti o ns o n use ofsuch a co nvi cti on f orpurposes of rem ova l

. W er e we to f ol l ow the Se cond Cir cui t, w e w oul d per m i t t h e use of Z ivk ov ic’s t w o o l d felon ies n otbe c au se w e w ou ld be d e fe r r i ng t o the Bo a r d, b ut b e c a us e hi s r e mov a l pro ceedi ngs w er e ini ti ate d afterM ar ch 1, 19 91. Final l y, o urdi s s e nt i ngc o l l e a g ue p r o po s e s y e ta no the r a ppr o ac h, b y pas si ng the 1 99 0 Act as a m bi g uo us b ut i nstea d find i ng a cl earr u le f orr etr oac ti ve re m ovabi l i ty i n I I R I R A. I t appe ar s to b e co m m o n g r o und tha t ne i th erthe 19 90 Act no r an y o th ers ta tu te pa ss ed afte r the Anti

- Dr ug A bu se A ct of 1988 ha s ex p ressly rep ealed Section 7344(b),36 N o. 12

- 2143 the pr ovi si on s tat i ng tha t th e deporta ti on co nsequences ofthe new l y defin ed g ro up o fag gr avat ed fel oni es oper ate pro specti vel y as o fthe effecti ve date o fthe 1988 A ct. A fi nd i ng o fr etr oac ti vi ty w oul d thus need to r est o n i mpl i e d r e p e a l, a t o p i c o n w h i c h th e S u p r e me Cou r t pr o vi ded us efulg ui dan ce i n N at i onal As s oc i at i on of H o m e B uild ers v. D efend ers of Wild life, 551 U
. S. 644 (2007): W hi l e a l ate r enacte d sta tute ( such as the [ En dangere d Speci es A ct] ) can som eti m es oper ate to am end or eve n re peal an e ar l i erst atuto ry pro vi si on ( such as th e [Cle a n W ater A ct]), “rep eals by i m p li cation are no t fa vo r ed” a nd wi l lno t be pr es um ed unl es s th e “int en ti o n o f th e l eg i sl atur e to r epe al[ i s] c l ea r a nd m ani fest
. ” Wat tv. Al as ka , 45 1 U.S
. 25 9, 267 ( 1981 ) ( i nter nal quotat i on m ar ks om i tte d). W e w i l l noti nfe r a s ta tu to ry rep ea l un les s t h e la te r st at u te ‘ex p re ss ly co nt r adict[s] the o r i g i na l a ct ’ ” o r unl es s su cha c o nstr ucti on “ i s abso l utel y nec ess ar y . . . i n or der that [ th e] wor ds [ o f th e l at er st atut e] s ha l l ha ve a ny mean in g a t a ll. Id. at66 2 ( som e inter nal quotat i ons om i tte d). W e do not fi nd a ny i r r ec o nc i l ab l e co nfl i ct a m o ngthe Anti

- Dr ug A b u se A ct, the 1990 A ct, and I I RI RA , nordi d ei thero f th e l at ers ta tu te s co m pr eh en si ve l y r epl ac e th e unde r l y i ng I N A
. S ee R a dz a no w er v. To uc he R o ss & C o ., 42 6 U.S
. 14 8, 15 4 ( 1976 )
. I nstea d, w hat we fi nd i s the co nfusi on that Ju d ge B yb ee d es c rib ed

. Ou t o fthat m ess , we can extr act a num bero fo bser vati ons.N o. 12

- 2143 37

• Se cti on 7344(b) o fthe 1988 A nti

- Drug A buse Act ap p lies on ly to on e o f m an y c at eg or ies o f d ep or ta b le cri m i nal o ffen ses l i ste d i n the 1990 A ct, wh i ch se ts out thi rty g ro und s f ordeport ati on and f ourt een c at eg or ies of d ep or ta b le c rim in al off en se s.

• There i s no cl earsi gnalin the text ofthe 199 0 Act i ndi ca tingtha t i t i s repe al i ngS ec ti o n 7 34 4(b) o fthe 1988 st atute
.
• W he n S e c t i o n 7 3 4 4 ( b ) wa s e na c t e d, the I NA a l r e a dy c on ta in ed a p ro vis ion n ea rly id en tic al t o t h e o n e in the 1990 A ct

— th at is, one th at ap p li ed the IN A ’s g r o unds f o r de po r ta ti o n r eg ar dl es s o fwhenthe f ac t s o c c u r r e d

. T h i s me a n s th a tth e An t i

- Dr ug A bu se A c t w as creat ing an exc ep tion to an u nd ersto od r ule

.
• T he 1990 A ct ad d ed several new crim es to the de fi ni ti on o f“agg ravate d fe l ony. ” I t pr ovi ded that thre e o fthes e cr i m es w oul d be g ro und s f ordeport ati on only i fthe y wer e ba se d o n po st
- 19 90 Actc o nvic tio ns; the othe r tw o w oul d b e “effecti ve as if in c lu d ed ” in Sec tio n 73 42 of th e 1 98 8 A c t.

• IIRIR A als o d id n o m or e t h an to ex p an d th e d efin iti on o fag gr avat ed fel ony. The new gro und s i t pr ovi ded f ordeport ati on a re o fno im port ance t o Ziv kov i c’ s ca se. W e co ncl ud e that the st atute s a re w hol l y uncl earo n the point wh etherS ecti on 7 34 4 s urvi ves both the 1990 A ct a nd I I RI RA
. A s we have j ust pointed out, j ud ges addr es singthi s i ss ue ha ve t ak enf o urdi stinc t an d38 N o. 12

- 2143 often c ontr adic tor y a pp ro aches: ( 1) d efe rence t o Le t t m an ( Ele venth and F ourth Cir cui ts plus N i nth Cir cui t d issent) ; ( 2) no defe re nce t o L e t t m an, bu t r el i ance o n S ec ti o n 6 02 ( d) o fthe 1 99 0 Act ( S econd Ci r cui t) ; ( 3) the I I RI R A a me n d me n t s t o 8 U. S
. C
. § 1 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 3 ) ( d i s s e n t i ng j ud ge in thi s ca se) ; and ( 4) no re tr oac ti ve conse quences o f ex p an d ed d efin itio n for re m ov ab ility (N in th C irc u it m aj o r i ty )
. Thi s le ve l o fa m bi g ui tyc anno t o ve r co m e th e presum pti ons aga i nst i m pli ed re peal and r etr oac ti vi ty. As the S upr eme Co ur t r em ind ed us i n Var t e l as , bec ause “[ s] everal pr o vi si o ns o fthe Co ns ti tu ti o n . . . e m br ac e th e doctr i ne” a gai nst r etr oac tiv ity, we need a cl earst ate
m ent o fi ntent f ro m Congr ess befor e we w illta ke such an i m p ortan t ste p . 132 S. C t. at 1486
. Be cau se Z ivkovic’s a g g r a v a t e d fe l o nyc o nv i c t i o ns we re mo r e tha n a de c a de ol d bef or e the 19 88 sta tute too k e ffect, they c an n ot be used as a g ro und f orr em ova l ( al though they c an be us ed f or m an y othe r pu rp oses u nd er the sta tu te). Be fore cl o sing, we st at e the o bv i o us : we ar e o nl y c o ns tr ui ng th e law as i t now stan d s. C ong ress h a s b road pow ers i n thi s a re a, and i t m ay change the r ule s in th e futur e, ei ther p ro specti vel y o r, with the nece ssa rycl earst ate
m ent, r etr ospect i vel y.

V T h is lea ve s t w o l o o s e e n d s t o t ie u p , on e o f w h ich is re lat ive ly u n im p or t a n t an d th e o th er of w h ich is sig n ifica nt
. Zi vk o vi c ar g ue d th at th e IJ sh o ul d no t ha ve co nsi der ed ev i den ce fr o m hi s bo nd p ro ce eding s dur i ngN o. 12

- 2143 39 th e rem oval proc eed ings, becau se th e j ud ges are s up po s e d t o mai nt a i n s e pa r a t e r e c o r ds f o r the t w o types of c as es . W e f in d n o m er it in th is a rg u m en t. T h e IJ is q u i t e ab l e t o k e e p s e p a r a t e r e c o r d s w h i l e a tth e s a me tim e t aki ng i nto acco unt re l evantev i dence thatar i ses i n ei therpro ceedi ng. Zi vko vi c’ s co nvi cti on docum ents w oul d have be en adm i tte d i n a fl as h in e ac h seto fpro ceedi ngs i fthe gov er nm ent had i ntro du ced t hem se para tely. W e hav e no desi re to m ake the sy ste m ev en m or e ineffi ci ent than i t a l re ady i s. The other q u esti on r el ate s t o the pr operdi sposi ti on ofZi vko vi c’ s ca se. W e a re gr anti ng his peti ti on f or re vi ew , but that m eans onl y that the cas e wil l be r etur ne d t o the Bo ar d f o r fur th erpr o ce eding s. Ea r li er, the Boa rd had no o ccasi on t o consi der hi s r em ov ab i l i ty f o r mor altur pi tu de, b ut tha t g r o und r emai ns i n the re cor d, and the B oard m ay w i sh to r em and to an IJ f or further p ro c eed i ngs o n that oro therpoi nts that the go ver n m en t h as p ro p er ly p re se rv ed

. The peti ti on f orr evi ew i s G RANTE D and the case is r etur ne d t o the Bo ar d f o r fur th erpr o ce eding s co nsis te n t w ith th is op in ion
.40 N o. 12

- 2143 E A S T E RB R OO K, Chi e

f Judg e, d i sse nti ng. M y c ol l eagues h av e w rit te n a c om p lex op in ion in a sim p le c as e. Z ivk ov ic w an ts a w aiver ofi na d m issibil ity u nd er 8 U
. S. C
. §1182 (c). H e i s inel i gibl e i fev en o ne o fhi s co nvi cti ons i s a n “ag

gravat ed fe lo ny ” as d efi ne d i n 8 U
. S. C
. §1101 (a)( 43). Idi sr ega rd Zi vko vi c’ s co nvi cti on f orr esi denti altr esp as s. It is en ou gh if eit h er bu rg lar y or at te m p te d rap e is an “a gg ra va te d felon y.” Se cti on 1 101( a) ( 43) ( G) s ays thatburg l ar y i s a n agg ra vate d fe l ony if th e s entence was a y earo r m or e, as Z ivk ov ic’s w as . Sec tio n 11 01 (a)( 4 3 ) (A ) sa ys th at rap e is an ag gr avat ed felo ny, and §11 01( a) ( 43) ( U ) adds that “an att em pt orconspir acy to com m i t a n offense described i n thi s par agr aph” l i kewis e i s a n agg ra vate d fe l ony. ( “[ T]hi s par agr ap h ” re fer s t o al l o f( a) ( 43) : l ett er ed parts ofa sect i on a re “su bsec ti ons” and the num ber ed par ts o fs ubs ec ti o ns a re “ p ar ag r aph s. ” S ee Offi ce o fthe Legislati ve Counsel, U ni ted S tat es Se nate, Legi s l at i ve D r af t i ng M anual §1 12 ( 1997 )
. ) Thi s l eave s onl y the quest i on w hether§1 101( a) ( 43) appli es to con victi ons re nd er ed dur i ngthe 1 97 0s
. The a nsw er i s y es . The fi na l, ha ng i ng se nt en ce o f§ 11 01 ( a) ( 43 ) r ea ds: “ N o twi th st an di nga ny oth e r provision of l aw ( includ ing an y effective d ate), th e term [ agg ra vate d fe l ony] appli es re gar dle ss of w hetherthe convi cti on was ente re d bef or e, o n, o r after Se p te m b er 30 , 199 6.” A pl ai ner decl ar ati on o f r et roacti vi ty i s har d to i m agi ne

— an d the S upr eme Co ur t sa i d e xa ct l y thi s i n IN S v
. S t
. Cyr, 5 33 U
. S. 28 9, 29 5 & n.4 ( 2001 ) , wh en st ati ng tha t the de fi ni ti on o fag gr avat ed fel oni es i n §11 01( a) ( 43)N o. 12

- 2143 41

a p p l i e s “ wi th o u tr e g a r d t o h o w l o n ga g o th e y w e r e c o mm i tte d.” To dr i ve the point hom e, the Court re peated thi s obser vation , quot i ng fro m the hangi ng se ntence, 53 3 U. S
. a t 31 9 & n. 43 , a nd a ddi ng tha t th i s sh o ws tha t Con

gr ess kno w s ho w to m ake a change re tr oac ti ve. Id

. at32 0. M y c olle ag u es to d ay n on et h e l e ss h old th at, eve n if th e fu ll li st of “a gg ra va te d felon ies ” c o n s o lid at ed in §110 1( a) ( 43) appli es to pre- 1996 co nvi cti ons, tho se ol der convi cti ons do not car rythe sta tuto ril y pr escr ibed cons eq u en c es o fag gr avat ed fel oni es

— a nd thi s de s pit e c on tr ar y c on c lu sio n s o f th e re sp on sib le a ge n c y, M at t e rof Le t t e r m an , 22 I & N Dec. 36 5 ( 1998 ) ( en banc) , and thr ee othe r cour ts ofapp ea ls. B el l v. Re no , 218 F.3d 86 (2d Cir. 20 00 ); L e w i s v . INS , 194 F. 3d 539, 544– 46 (4th Cir. 19 99); Lettm a n v. Re no , 2 07F
. 3d 13 68 ( 11 thCi r . 2 00 0)
. To day ’s deci si on f ol l ows a di vi d ed paneli n the N i nth Cir cui t. Led ezm a -G a licia v . Ho lder, 63 6 F
. 3d 10 59 ( 9th Ci r . 2 01 0)
. But i t i s contr ar y to the l anguage of §110 1( a) ( 43) , the view of the S up r e me Co ur t, a nd the ho l di ng s o fthr ee othe r ci rcui ts. The m aj or i ty opin ion i s s o l ong and com ple x beca use i t tr i es t o s o r t o u t th e r e l a t i o n a mo n g th e 1 9 8 8 , 1 9 9 0 , a nd 19 96 Act s ( so m et i m es dub be d ADA A, I M M Act, a nd I I RI RA) byus i ngt o o l s o th erthan th e l an g ua g e o fthe st atut e now in for ce . I fwe wantt o kno w w he th erthe curr ent defi ni ti on o f “a ggr avat ed fel ony” appli es to pre19 96 co nv i ct i o ns ( an d th us pr e- 19 88 an d pr e- 1990 co nvi cti ons) we need not go bey ond th e hang i ng se ntence a tthe e nd o f§ 1 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 3 )
. No b a c k s t o r y i s n e e de d.42 N o. 12

- 2143 The presum pti on a gai nst re tr oac ti vi ty tel l s us how to de a l wi th a mbi g ui t y, b ut the ha ng i ng s e nt e nc e i s p e l l uc i d. St
. Cyrsa id a s m u c h

. T h e 1 98 8 a n d 19 90 A c ts su rv ive in part i n §11 01( a) ( 43) , but thei r effecti ve dates ar e hi sto ry ; th e ha ng i ngs en te nc e te l l s us ho w the da te o fc onv ict i o ns m at te rs to d ay . A s fo r “im p lied rep ea l”: th e 1 98 8 A c t s aid thatitwas no t r et r o active, and the 1 99 0 Act was a m bi g uo us abo utr et roactivi ty
. Nei th erwas “ r epe al ed” b y the s t a t e men ti n 1 9 9 6 tha tthe de fi ni t i o n a s a men ded is r etr oacti ve. The 19 88 sta tem ent “t h i s Act i s no t r etr oac ti ve” i s 10 0% co m pat ibl e wi ththe 1 99 6 dec l ar at i o n “ A h, b ut this A ctis retroactive.” N eith e r m od ifies the oth er. I t’s not as i fthe 1988 A ct s ai d: “A ny st atute enac ted l ate r w i l l notm ake thes e s ubstanti ve chan ge s apply to ol der conv i cti ons. ” Then the 19 96 A ct woul d have r epeal ed tha tp a r to fthe 1 9 8 8 Ac t
. Bu ttha t ’ s n o twh a th a pp e ne d. The re is n o “r epeal ” when a m or e r ecentCongr ess decl ar es that the c urr ent defin iti on a pp l i es w hethero r n otth e d at e m at te re d u n d er a p re d ec es so r st at u te . (Re c all th atthe ha ng i ngs en te nc e be g i ns : “ N o tw i th st an di ng anyo therpro vi si on o fl aw ( i ncl ud i ng any effecti v e d a t e ) ...” ( e mph a s i s a d d e d )
. ) S e c t i o n 7 3 4 4 ( b ) o ft he 1988 A ct, and §60 2 o fthe 19 90 A c t, te l l us the te m pora l re ach o ftho se A cts; theyar e no t par t of th e Un i ted St ate s Cod e an d do not contr olthe tem pora l r each o f §110 1(a)( 43) as am en d ed i n 19 96 an d l ater. T h e h an gin g s en te n c e o f §1 10 1(a )(43 ) d ec id es th is case . Once we c onclude thatthe 1996 A ct’ s chang es to §2 12 ( c) a pp l y t o Zi vk o vi c ( Ia g r ee wi thPa r t I V. A ofthe m aj or i ty’ s o pini on) , ev er ythi ng el se beco m es i rr el evant
.N o. 12

- 2143 43 M y c ol l eagues r each a di ffer en t c oncl usi on be cause they agr ee w ithLe dezm a-G alici a tha t, a l th o ug h the definit i ons i n §11 01( a) ( 43) applyto o l der c onvic tio ns, the co nsequen ces o ftho se defini ti ons ar e no t nec ess ar i l y r etr oac t i v e . I d on ’t g et it

— n or d id Ju d ge B yb ee , d iss en tin g in Ledezm a-G alici a . 6 3 6 F
. 3 d a t10 80–9 2
. Co ng r e s s h a s a ddr es se d thr o ug h § 11 01 ( a) ( 43 ) whi chc r i m i na l c o nv i ct i o ns count a s a ggr avat ed fel oni es. Otherpart s o fthe st atute speci fy the effects o fthatl abel

. I n the m ai n, an a l i en co n v i c t e d o fa n a g g r a v a t e d fe l o n y i s r e mo v a b l e a nd i n e l i g ib l e f o r d i s c r e t i o n a r y r e l i e f

. P a r t i c u l a r p a r t s o ft he I m m i gr ati on a nd N ati onal i ty A ct o utsi de §11 01(a) ( 43) m ay orm ay not b e re tr oacti ve, but not because o fanythi ng i n the 1988 and 199 0 Acts. The o nl y pa r t o fi m m i g r at i o n l aw pl au sibl y l i m i ting to day ’ s co ns eque nc es o fpr e- 19 96 c o nv i ct i ons thatc o unt as ag gr avat ed fel oni es und er§1 101( a) ( 43) would be §212 ( c) , 8 U
. S. C. §118 2( c) , the subj ect ofSt
. Cyr . B u t a ll th re e m em b e rs of th is p an el c on c lu d e t h at Z ivk ov ic

— wh o s e c o n v i c t i o n s f o r b u r g l a r y a n d a t t e mp t e d r a pe p re d at e t h e le gis lat ion au th or izin g w aiv er o f ina d m iss ibi l i ty f orsuch cr i m es, and w ho there f or e ca nnot hav e r el i ed on the pr e- 19 96 v er si o n o f§ 21 2( c) whenmaking ch o i ce s i n the c r i m i na l pr o sec ut i o ns

— do es no t g eta ny b e ne f i t fr o m St
. Cyr ’ s l i m i tat i on o n how §2 12( c) appli es to pr e- 19 96 c o nv i ct i o ns . S ee Pa r t I V
. A o ft he m aj o r i tyo pi ni o n. I f§ 11 01 ( a) ( 43 ) a ppl i es t o a l l pr e- 19 96 c o nv i cti o ns , a nd §212 (c ) t h us f or ecl ose s a waive r ofi nadm i ssibi l i ty, then w hat s tatute i s i t that withhol d s th e “co nsequences” o f44 N o. 12

- 2143 Zi vk o vi c’ s co nv i ct i o n? M y c o l l ea g ue s do no t sa y, a nd n eit h er d id Le dezm a-G alici a . O u r op in ion inA lva rad o -Fo nseca v. Ho lder, 63 1 F
. 3d 385 ( 7th Ci r . 2 01 1) , l eft o penthe po ss ibi l ity o fdi st i ng ui sh i ng d efin itio n s fro m co n s e q u en c es , w h ile h in tin g t h at it doubted the N i nth Cir cui t’ s hai r-spli tting. The panel in Alvarado -Fonse ca r efr aine d fr o m a de fi ni ti ve c o nc l usi on, how eve r, because the al i en had f ai l ed to rai se bef o r e the BI A a n a r g ume ntb a s e d o n thi s e l us i v e di stinc ti o n. T he reason to get th e B oard ’s view is th a t it s u n d ersta nd i ng o fthe re l ati on a m ong the 1 988, 19 90, and 199 6 A cts deser ves substa nti alweight in re sol vi ng di sputes about thei r i nter acti on. S ee Che vron U
. S. A. Inc . v. Nat ural Res our ces D e

f e ns eCounc i l, Inc ., 46 7 U .S. 83 7 (1 98 4), an d , e.g., H o lder v . M a rtinez G utierrez , 132 S. Ct
. 2011, 2 0 17 (2012); N egu sie v. Ho lder, 555 U .S. 51 1, 51 6– 17(20 0 9 ); IN S v
. A gu irre-A gu irre, 526 U
. S. 415, 424–26 ( 1999 )
. To res ol ve Ziv kov i c’ s a pp l i cati on fo r a waiv er, the Board had to deci de w hetherthe 1996 deci si on that § 1101 ( a)(43) ap p li es to allol d er c o n v ic t ions leaves an y room for a concl usi on that s om e a l i ens who have “ag grav at ed fel onies” (th u s d efi ne d ) on th eir record s non eth eless are spa r ed th e no r m alc o ns eque nc es . M y c o l l ea g ue s thin k that i ssue cl oudy and w re stl e w i th i t a t l ength. A m bi gui ty i n an ag ency’ s o rgani c st atute i s the co re o fChe vron ’s do m ain, a nd thi s i s tr ue e ve n i fthe disp ut e co nc erns the ag en c y’s au th or ity
. Ar l i n gt on v . F CC, 133 S. Ct
. 1863 (2013). Al th o u g h m y c o l l e a g u e s p o i n to u tth a tth e S u p r e me Court did notuse Che vron wh en r eso l vi ng r etr oac tivityN o. 12

- 2143 45 i ss ue s i n Var t e l as v. H o lder, 1 32 S. Ct. 14 79 ( 2012 ) , i t was not ask ed to do s o. I ssues notpre sente d by the par ti es ar e n otres olv ed

. Che vron was a rgue d i n St
. Cyra nd add re sse d i n a foo tnot e, 53 3 U.S
. a t 3 20 n. 45, wh i ch obser ves thatChe vron ma t t er s onl y wh e n o the r t o o l s do not provi de an a nsw er . That’ s Che vron ’s S te p O n e. St
. Cyr sa i d tha t th e r ul e r equi r i ngc l ea r l an g ua g e to war rant r et r o ac ti vi tywas s ucha t o o l, l eavi ngno g ap f o r the ag en c y t o fill. M y c olle ag u es co n c lu d e fro m th is that Che vron i s i rr el evantto al l questi ons relat ed to r etr oacti vi ty. Yet the hang i ng se nten c e of § 1101 ( a) ( 43) , wh i ch m ake s th e am ended d efi ni ti on r etr oac ti ve, suppli es whatwas mis singi n St
. Cyr

— a s the Co ur ti t s e l fo b s e r v e d, 533 U
. S. at29 5 & n.4, 31 9–20 & n. 43. On my c o l l ea g ue s’ unde r st an di ngtha t defini ti o ns an d co n se q u en c es m u st be a n aly ze d se p ar at ely , th er e is a knotty quest i on about the r el ati on a m ong the 1 988, 19 90 , a n d 19 96 A c ts
. St
. Cyrdoes notaddress thatsubj ect, whi chc o nc erns Che vron ’ s S t e p T wo

— an d f o r r ea so ns Ihave gi ven i s n ot w i thi n the sco pe ofthe presum pti on agains t retroactivit y . Th e agen cy’s view s the refore sh o ul d be respe ct ed, no t th r o wn i nt o the t r as h. U nani m ous panels o fthr ee cour ts ofappeal s, o ne j ud ge on the N i nth Circu it’s panel, and one j ud ge on th is ci rcui t’ s panelag re e with the Board e i therafter ind ep en d en t review or th r o ug h th e lens of Che vron ; a nd o fthe f o uro th erj udg es ( two o n the Ni nth Ci rcui t an d tw o on th is c i r c u it) n on e h as co n c lu d ed th at an sw er is too cl ear l y a gai ns t th e B oar d’s vi ew s t o adm i t o fdebate

. A s Jud ge B ybee pu t it: “so tw isted and com p lex are the pr ovi si ons at i ssue here that

— sh o r t o fs pi tt i ngi n a46 N o. 12

- 2143 bucket

— th e BI A co ul d ha ve concl ude d a l m o sta ny th i ng i n thi s case a nd b ee n r ea so nabl e. The r e i s no th i ng‘ pl ain’ abou t the se statu tes. I f Che vron m eans anythi ng, thi s i s a cl ass i c ca se f ordefer ring to the age ncy. ” 6 36 F. 3d at 1080 –81 (d issent ing op inion). A nd i f Che vron f a l l s out, we sti l l have M ea d-S k idm o redefer ence. S ee U ni t e d S t at e s v. M ead C o rp ., 53 3 U .S. 21 8 (2 00 1); S ki dmorev . S wi f t & Co
. , 32 3 U. S
. 1 3 4 ( 1 9 4 4 )
. Y e tmy c o l l e a g u e s g i v e the Boa r d ’ s v i e ws no w ei ght. I f( as Idoubt) ther e i s a di stincti on be tw een d efin iti o n s an d co n se q u en c es , th e B oa rd ’s v iew s s h ou ld p re va il.

7- 31- 13