Opinion ID: 772839
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Construction of the IIRIRA's Transitional Stop

Text: Time Rule 6 This case presents a question of statutory interpretation, which this court reviews de novo. Mustata v. United States Dep't of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017, 1019 (6th Cir. 1999). Principles of judicial deference to an agency's construction of a statute, however, limit the scope of our inquiry. In INS v. Aguirre-Aguirre, 526 U.S. 415, 424-25 (1999), the Supreme Court determined that the doctrine of Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (defining the circumstances under which courts must defer to an agency's construction of a statute), applies to the statutory scheme created by the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The Court recognized immigration matters as particularly appropriate for judicial deference because executive officials exercise especially sensitive political functions that implicate questions of foreign relations. Id. at 425. Even before the Supreme Court decided Aguirre-Aguirre, we applied principles of judicial deference under Chevron to interpretation of the INA. Hamama v. INS, 78 F.3d 233, 239 (6th Cir. 1996). Although Aguirre-Aguirre and Hamama both involved interpretation of a statutory definition not relevant here, they announced a rule of deference applicable to most if not all of the statutory scheme created by congressional delegation to the Attorney General and the BIA to administer and apply the immigration laws. Therefore, Chevron principles control our review of the statute at issue here. 7 The threshold inquiry under Chevron is whether Congress has directly spoken tothe precise question at issue. 467 U.S. at 842-43. If so, the agency and the courts must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress. Id. Courts may employ traditional tools of statutory construction in determining congressional intent under this threshold inquiry. Id. at 843 n.9. If the statute is ambiguous, however, the question for the court is whether the agency's answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute. Id. at 843. Under this secondary inquiry, the court need not conclude that the agency's construction was the only one it could have adopted or the reading a court would have reached. Id. at 843 n.11. If the agency's construction is permissible, it controls unless arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute. Id. at 844.
8 Prior to enactment of the IIRIRA, aliens facing deportation could apply for suspension of deportation if they satisfied three conditions. INA § 244(a)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1254(a)(1) (1994). One of these conditions required the applicant to demonstrate continuous physical presence in the United States for seven years. Id. Satisfying all three conditions, however, did not entitle an alien to suspension of deportation. Rather, the Attorney General in his discretion could grant the relief. Deportation proceedings began under the INA when the INS served an alien with an order to show cause. During the pendency of proceedings, aliens continued to accrue time toward the physical presence requirement. Therefore, aliens could become eligible for suspension of deportation during the course of administrative proceedings before the INS. 9 The IIRIRA amendments to the INA altered this framework. Congress replaced deportation with a procedure called removal. IIRIRA § 304, 8 U.S.C. §1229a. In addition, the IIRIRA substituted suspension of deportation with a more limited form of discretionary relief known as cancellation of removal, which contains additional eligibility requirements. IIRIRA § 304(a), 8U.S.C. § 1229b. For purposes of this case, the most significant change effected by the IIRIRA concerns the creation of the stop-time rule. Rather than allowing aliens to continue accruing time toward the physical presence requirement once administrative proceedings commenced, as happened under the INA, the IIRIRA terminates the accrual of time toward the physical presence requirement when the INS serves an alien with a notice to appear, a document that the IIRIRA created and that operates like an order to show cause under the INA. Hence, under the IIRIRA framework, an alien can no longer accumulate time toward satisfaction of the continuous physical presence requirement after the INS initiates removal proceedings. The change from a deportation to a removal system had an effective date, the title III-A effective date, of April 1, 1997. 10 The IIRIRA contains transitional rules to govern cases pending as of the September 3, 1996, date of the IIRIRA's enactment. Section 309 of the IIRIRA contains the relevant transitional rules the INS applied in Sad's case: 11 (c) Transition for Aliens in Proceedings. 12 (1)General Rule that New Rules Do Not Apply. Subject to the succeeding provisions of this subsection, in the case of an alien who is in exclusion proceedings as of the title III-A effective date 13 (A)the amendments made by this subtitle shall not apply, and(B)the proceedings (including judicial review thereof) shall continue to be conducted without regard to such amendments. 14 (5)Transitional Rule with regard to Suspension of Deportation. Paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 240A(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (relating to continuous residence or physical presence) shall apply to notices to appear issued before, on, or after the date of the enactment of this Act. 15 IIRIRA § 309 (emphasis added). Section 240A(d)(1) of the INA, referenced in this section, contains the new stop-time rule and provides: 16 (d)Special Rules relating to Continuous Residence or Physical Presence 17 (1)Termination of Continuous Period. For purposes of this section, any period of continuous residence or continuous physical presence in the United States shall be deemed to end when the alien is served a notice to appear. 18 INA § 240A(d)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1) (emphasis added). Therefore, because section 309(c)(5) embodies an express exception to the general rule of nonapplicability contained in section 309(c)(1)(A), this transitional rule attempts to apply the stop-time rule to pending applications for suspension of deportation. Because notices to appear did not exist prior to the effective date of the IIRIRA, however, section 309(c)(5) presents a facial ambiguity: either notices to appear encompasses orders to show cause or the reference to notices to appear issued before the effective date of the IIRIRA is an error in drafting. Additionally, section 240A employs the terminology of the new removal regime while the transitional rule attempts to apply it to deportation proceedings initiated by orders to show cause. In other words, the transitional rule applies the stop-time rule to pending cases initiated by a notice to appear prior to the IIRIRA's effective date even though notices to appear did not initiate administrative proceedings until after the IIRIRA's effective date. 19 The BIA addressed this interpretative dilemma in In reN-J-B-, Int. Dec. 3309 (BIA 1997) (en banc), by broadly construing notices to appear in section 309(c)(5) to encompass other documents, including orders to show cause, initiating deportation or removal proceedings. Under this interpretation, aliens who failed to satisfy the physical presence requirement prior to being served with an order to show cause became ineligible for suspension of deportation. The Attorney General vacated N-J-B- and certified the case to herself for review. Att'y Gen. Order No. 2093-97 (July 10, 1997). Before she could review the decision, however, Congress enacted the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act, Pub. L. No. 105-100, 111 Stat. 2160 (1997) (NACARA), as a clarifying amendment to the IIRIRA. The NACARA amended the stop-time rule by replacing notices to appear in section 309(c)(5) with orders to show cause and making this amendment effective as if included in the IIRIRA. NACARA § 203(a) and (f). After the amendment, then, the IIRIRA's transitional rule regarding suspension of deportation now reads as follows:(5)Transitional Rule with regard to Suspension of Deportation. Subject to paragraphs (B) and (C), paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 240A(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (relating to continuous residence or physical presence) shall apply to orders to show cause (including those referred to in section 242B(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act as in effect before the title III-A effective date), issued before, on, or after the date of the enactment of this Act. 20 NACARA § 203(a)(1) (new language in italics). Section 242B of the INA, parenthetically referenced, was codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1252b and simply contains the provisions regarding the contents of orders to show cause. The initial subject to clause creates two exceptions to the retroactive application of the amended transitional rule. First, Congress clarified that if the Attorney General chooses to terminate deportation proceedings and reinstate removal proceedings, the stop-time rule does not apply. NACARA § 203(a)(1). This clarification changes the default rule under the general transitional rules for aliens already in proceedings that the stop-time rule applies when the Attorney General terminates then reinitiates proceedings. IIRIRA § 309(c)(1) and (3). In such cases, an alien who had been served with an order to show cause would have an opportunity to apply for cancellation of removal. Second, the NACARA exempted certain aliens from Nicaragua, Guatemala, and Eastern Europe from application of the stop-time rule in all circumstances. NACARA § 203(a)(1). The NACARA only amended the IIRIRA transitional rule and did not change the language of the stop-time rule itself found in section 240A(d). 21 In In re Nolasco-Tofino, Int. Dec. 3385 (BIA 1999) (en banc), the BIA considered whether the IIRIRA's transitional rule as amended by the NACARA applies the stop-time rule to pending applications for suspension of deportation when calculating an alien's continuous physical presence in the United States. Finding the revised language of the transitional rule to be unambiguous, the majority decided that the stop-time rule applies to all pending deportation proceedings unless an alien satisfies one of the express statutory exemptions. Id. Three of the BIA's sixteen members concurred separately. Agreeing that the majority's reading of the statute was reasonable, they noted that its language was not plain on its face and unambiguous because of the incongruity of the terminology employed by the stop-time rule in section 240A(d)(1) of the INA and by the transitional rule in section 309(c)(5) of the IIRIRA as amended by the NACARA. Id.
22 The threshold consideration under Chevron is whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue. 467 U.S. at 842-43. If so, the agency and the courts must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress. Id. Respondent argues that the stop-time rule as amended unambiguously applies the stop-time rule to pending applications for suspension of deportation, obviating the need for further inquiry. Recently, panels of this court examined the issue and accepted this argument. Bartoszewska-Zajac v. INS, 237 F.3d 710, 713(6th Cir. 2001); Ashki v. INS, 233 F.3d 913, 918-19 (6th Cir. 2000). Likewise, other circuits have found the statutory language as amended clear on its face. Escudero-Corona v. INS, 244 F.3d 608, 613 (8th Cir. Mar. 22, 2001); Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 515 (9th Cir. Mar. 15, 2001); Rojas-Reyes v. INS, 235 F.3d 115, 121 (2d Cir. 2000); Angel-Ramos v. Reno, 227 F.3d 942, 947 (7th Cir. 2000); Afolayan v. INS, 219 F.3d 784, 788 (8th Cir. 2000); Rivera-Jimenez v. INS, 214 F.3d 1213, 1217 (10th Cir. 2000) (per curiam); Gonzalez-Torres v. INS, 213 F.3d 899, 903 (5th Cir. 2000); Appiah v. INS, 202 F.3d 704, 708-09 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 140 (2000); Tefel v. Reno, 180 F.3d 1286, 1293 (11th Cir. 1999), cert denied, 120 S. Ct. 2657 (2000). 23 No court has addressed the merits of Sad's proposed interpretation of the transitional rules, the plausibility of which the INS concedes. His reading builds on the observation of the concurring members of the BIA in In re Nolasco-Tofino that, even as amended, the transitional rules for applying the stop-time rule to pending applications for suspension of deportation mediate imperfectly between two different statutory regimes. Sad points out that the amended transitional rule in section 309(c)(5) by its own terms references the stop-time rule in section 240A(d), which in turn terminates the accrual of time toward satisfaction of the continuous physical presence requirement only when the INS serves an alien with a notice to appear. INA § 240A(d)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1). The NACARA amendment adding orders to show cause to section 309(c)(5) did not make a similar change in section 240A(d) and so the stop-time rule cannot apply to Sad's application for suspension of deportation. Under this reading, the transitional rule of section 309(c)(2) of the IIRIRA embodies the limits of the stop-time rule's retroactive application. Section 309(c)(2) offers the Attorney General the option of proceeding with pending cases, the processing of which had not commenced as of April 1, 1997, under the new statutory regime. In this case, Sad posits, an alien would be ineligible for suspension of deportation because such relief no longer exists under the IIRIRA, but could seek cancellation of removal under section 240A. Then, section 240A(d)(1) requires that the alien's period of continuous physical presence stop accruing upon service of the order to show cause that initiated proceedings. In response, the INS accepts Sad's reading as a potentially valid interpretation of the transitional rules, but asserts that the stop-time rule is not limited only to pending cases in which the Attorney General elects to apply the new procedures and substantive legal standards of the IIRIRA. Because these provisions credibly admit of multiple interpretations, we cannot say under Chevron's threshold inquiry that the transitional rules of the IIRIRA as amended by the NACARA are unambiguous. 24 We next ask whether the agency's construction of the statute is permissible. There is no question that the BIA's interpretation of the statute controls for Chevron purposes. Prior to the enactment of the IIRIRA, Congress had delegated to the Attorney General discretionary authority to make determinations regarding applications for suspension of deportation. INA § 244(a)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1254(a)(1) (1994). Creation of the new removal regime did not alter this framework. INA § 240A(a), 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a) (The Attorney General may cancel removal in the case of an alien who is inadmissible or deportable from the United States if certain conditions are met). The Attorney General has delegated this authority to the BIA. 8 C.F.R. § 3.1(d)(1) (2000). Therefore, for purposes of the Chevron analysis,the BIA's interpretation of the stop-time rule in In re Nolasco-Tofino merits deference if based on a permissible construction of the statute. The BIA should be accorded Chevron deference as it gives ambiguous statutory terms concrete meaning through a process of case-by-case adjudication. Aguirre-Aguirre, 526 U.S. at 425 (quoting INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 448-49 (1987)). Sad has presented no argument that the BIA interpretation is impermissible other than that it is inconsistent with the plain meaning of the statutory language as he construes it. Indeed, that the BIA, this court, and several other circuits have accepted a differing reading suggests that the statutory language may not be quite so lucid as Sad contends. At most, Sad's proposed reading of the statute points to and relies on ambiguities in its language. In such circumstances, we must defer to the permissible interpretation offered by the BIA. Nor has Sad argued that the BIA's interpretation or application of the stop-time rule to his case is arbitrary or capricious.