Opinion ID: 654589
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Eligibility for a Discretionary Waiver of Deportation under Sec. 1182(c).

Text: 26 In Francis, we invoked the implicit equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment due process clause, see Francis, 532 F.2d at 272 n. 5 (citing Johnson v. Robison, 415 U.S. 361, 364 n. 4, 94 S.Ct. 1160, 1165 n. 4, 39 L.Ed.2d 389 (1974); Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497, 74 S.Ct. 693, 98 L.Ed. 884 (1954)) to determine that it was irrational to distinguish between two categories of narcotics offenders on the basis of a brief visit out of the country. Guan Chow Tok v. INS, 538 F.2d 36, 38-39 (2d Cir.1976) (construing Francis ). We therefore concluded that the discretionary waiver that Sec. 1182(c) allowed in favor of a returning alien in exclusion proceedings must also be accorded his more sedentary counterpart in deportation proceedings. See Francis, 532 F.2d at 272-73. We did so even though Congress had provid[ed] a separate but analogous scheme of discretionary relief to the non-departing alien. Id. at 273 (citing 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1254(a)(2)); cf. Correa v. Thornburgh, 901 F.2d 1166, 1174 n. 10 (2d Cir.1990) (there is no requirement that exclusion and deportation grounds be analogous) (citing Cabasug, 847 F.2d at 1326-27). 27 The BIA subsequently applied the Francis rule nationally in In re Silva, 16 I. & N.Dec. 26, 30 (BIA 1976). 5 That rule has now been adopted in the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits. See De Gonzalez v. INS, 996 F.2d 804, 806 (6th Cir.1993); Leal-Rodriguez, 990 F.2d at 949 (citing Variamparambil v. INS, 831 F.2d 1362, 1364 n. 1 (7th Cir.1987)); Butros v. INS, 990 F.2d 1142, 1143 (9th Cir.1993) (in banc) (citing, inter alia, Tapia-Acuna v. INS, 640 F.2d 223, 224 (9th Cir.1981)); Casalena v. INS, 984 F.2d 105, 106 n. 3 (4th Cir.1993) (citing, inter alia, Chiravacharadhikul v. INS, 645 F.2d 248, 248 n. 1 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 893, 102 S.Ct. 389, 70 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981)); Ghassan v. INS, 972 F.2d 631, 633 n. 2 (5th Cir.1992) (citing, inter alia, Ashby v. INS, 961 F.2d 555, 557 n. 2 (5th Cir.1992); Mantell v. INS, 798 F.2d 124, 125 (5th Cir.1986)), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 1412, 122 L.Ed.2d 783 (1993); Campos, 961 F.2d at 313 (citing Joseph v. INS, 909 F.2d 605, 606 n. 1 (1st Cir.1990); Lozada v. INS, 857 F.2d 10, 11 n. 1 (1st Cir.1988)); Vissian v. INS, 548 F.2d 325, 328 n. 3 (10th Cir.1977). 28 In Francis, however, the ground of deportation was a narcotics conviction, for which there was a substantially equivalent ground of exclusion. Thus, Francis did not address the situation presented by this appeal--a ground of deportation, entry without inspection, for which there is no analogous ground of exclusion. 29 The Attorney General determined in Hernandez-Casillas that the Francis rule should not be extended to allow Sec. 1182(c) relief in such situations. His ruling was affirmed by the Fifth Circuit, without opinion. See Hernandez-Casillas v. INS, 983 F.2d 231 (5th Cir.1993) (mem.). Three other circuits concur. See Leal-Rodriguez v. INS, 990 F.2d 939, 950-52 (7th Cir.1993) (entry without inspection); Campos v. INS, 961 F.2d 309, 314-17 (1st Cir.1992) (firearms violation); Cabasug v. INS, 847 F.2d 1321, 1326-27 (9th Cir.1988) (firearms violation) (preceding Hernandez-Casillas ). 30 Hernandez-Casillas articulated the rationale that has typified these decisions. The bases for the Attorney General's ruling were that: (1) under his interpretation, as under Francis and Silva, the statute remains tied, albeit loosely, to the statutory text, because it permits waivers of only those grounds for deportation that Congress expressly made waiveable in the related context of exclusion, 1990 WL 385764 at  20-21, and the contrary approach would take immigration practice even further from the statutory text, which refers only to grounds for exclusion; and (2) the guarantee of equal protection does not require[ ] ... further departure from the terms of [Sec. 1182(c) ]. Id. at  21; see also Leal-Rodriguez, 990 F.2d at 952; Campos, 961 F.2d at 316-17; Cabasug, 847 F.2d at 1326-27. 31 Herandnez-Casillas also expressed considerable unease about the underlying Francis/Silva rule, wholly aside from the question of its application to grounds of deportation that do not have analogous grounds of exclusion. See 1990 WL 385764 at  20 (Attorney General leave[s] for another day the question of whether [Silva ] should be disapproved); id. at  21 (same); id. at  23 (I do not here reach the question of the validity of Francis and Silva.); id. at  28 n. 15 (same). The two pertinent circuit court opinions since Hernandez-Casillas state similar views. The First Circuit said in Campos: 32 [W]hen to avoid perceived equal protection problems the statute was stretched beyond its language to apply to deportation proceedings, problems crept in. If impatience with the legislative language had not resulted in adding nonexistent provisions to the statute in the first place, Congress would likely have recognized the defects and long ago repaired any problems at the instance of the Attorney General, the INS and those concerned with the welfare of resident aliens. The question now becomes whether to engage in a second judicial rewriting of the statute in order to improve upon the first rewriting. This would be legislation pure and simple. As a starting point, there is not even the justification of linguistic ambiguity. Continued judicial redrafting simply insures that the statute will less and less be the recognizable product of the legislative will. We think a statute of this detailed nature is best left to the ministrations of the Congress. We decline to tinker further. 33 961 F.2d at 316-17. The Seventh Circuit quoted this passage with approval in Leal-Rodriguez, 990 F.2d at 952. 34 We view the matter differently. Francis was decided over seventeen years ago, and addressed a situation that had been the subject of similarly ameliorative administrative decisions since 1940. See supra note 5. The Department of Justice declined to seek review of the Francis decision by the Supreme Court, and the BIA promptly adopted the Francis rule nationally. See Silva, 16 I. & N.Dec. at 29-30. As noted supra, seven circuits have since explicitly adopted the Francis rule, and no circuit has embraced a different rule. Further, since Francis was decided, Congress has not addressed either the issue to which Francis was addressed or the variant of the issue that is presented by this appeal. 35 The resulting situation bears considerable similarity to one recently addressed by the Supreme Court. In Musick, Peeler & Garrett v. Employers Insurance, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 2085, 124 L.Ed.2d 194 (1993), the Court answered affirmatively the question whether defendants in a 10b-5 action have a right to seek contribution as a matter of federal law. Id. at ----, 113 S.Ct. at 2086. Although not deriving from a constitutional imperative, the authorization of a private right of action under Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. Sec. 240.10b-5 (1992), like the Francis rule, is a judicial creation. See Musick, --- U.S. at ----, 113 S.Ct. at 2088 (citing Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores, 421 U.S. 723, 730, 737, 95 S.Ct. 1917, 1922, 1926, 44 L.Ed.2d 539 (1975)). The Court thus recognized in Musick that it would be futile to ask whether the 1934 Congress [that enacted the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, underlying Rule 10b-5] ... displayed a clear intent to create a contribution right collateral to the remedy that Congress did not enact in the first place. Id., --- U.S. at ----, 113 S.Ct. at 2088. 36 The Court therefore attempt[ed] to infer how the 1934 Congress would have addressed the issue had the 10b-5 action been included as an express provision in the 1934 Act. Id. at ---- - ----, 113 S.Ct. at 2089-90. As relevant here, the Court focused upon promot[ing] clarity, consistency and coherence for those who rely upon or are subject to 10b-5 liability, and ... effect[ing] Congress' objectives in enacting the securities laws. Id. at ----, 113 S.Ct. at 2090 (citations omitted). 37 The only clearly discernible Congressional intention regarding the denial of Sec. 1182(c) waivers is that they are not available in exclusion proceedings to aliens who are excludible because of security and related grounds or because of international child abduction, or have served a term of imprisonment of at least five years upon conviction of one or more aggravated felonies. See supra notes 3 and 4. In Hernandez-Casillas, the BIA majority decided that Sec. 1182(c) waivers should be available in deportation proceedings except as to grounds of deportation that are substantially equivalent to grounds of exclusion for which Sec. 1182(c) relief is explicitly barred. See 1990 WL 385764 at  3. This approach would result in extending Sec. 1182(c) eligibility to all grounds of deportation except those set forth in Sec. 1251(a)(4) (security and related grounds). 38 In reversing the BIA and ruling that Sec. 1182(c) waivers are available only for grounds of deportation for which there are substantially equivalent grounds of exclusion, the Attorney General stated that only two grounds of deportation fail to satisfy this requirement, entry without inspection, Sec. 1251(a)(1)(B), and certain firearm offenses, Sec. 1251(a)(2)(C). See id. at 25 n. 4. There is, however, at least one other nonequivalent ground of deportation--willful failure to notify the Attorney General of a change of address, Secs. 1251(a)(3)(A), 1305 (1988). See Cabasug, 847 F.2d at 1323-24. 39 In thus limiting the Sec. 1182 relief available in deportation proceedings, the Attorney General did not address the Congressional purposes underlying the enactment of the immigration laws. Rather, as noted supra, he articulated a determination not to depart further from the statutory text, and the absence of any constitutional (equal protection) mandate to do so. See 1990 WL 385764 at  24. 40 As a result of Francis and Silva, building upon a history of administrative decisions, there has already been a considerable departure from the text of Sec. 1182(c), which now applies to deportation as well as exclusion proceedings despite the absence of any textual justification for this extension. Further, since Congress considered only grounds for exclusion when it enacted Sec. 1182(c), it could not conceivably have had any intent regarding the availability of Sec. 1182(c) discretion to a resident alien charged with illegal entry. Indeed, any such intention would be logically impossible. As the Seventh Circuit pointed out in Leal-Rodriguez, entry without inspection [is] a ground for deportation which, as a matter of logic, cannot be a ground for exclusion, since the moment the violation occurs the offender is already inside the United States. 990 F.2d at 949. This analysis also applies to the deportation ground of wilful failure to notify the Attorney General of a change of address. 41 Absent any Congressional indication to the contrary, we believe that coherence and consistency are promoted by allowing the exercise of Sec. 1182(c) discretion with respect to the deportation ground of entry without inspection. Francis effected a significant alteration of the legal framework in this area, and in the absence of any Congressional revisitation of that framework in the aftermath of Francis, courts must cope with the interstitial issue posed by grounds of deportation that have no counterparts among the statutory grounds for exclusion. At least with respect to entry without inspection, a ground of deportation that could not conceivably have such an analogue, there is no basis in statutory text or legislative purpose to preclude the modest extension of the Francis rule that Bedoya-Valencia seeks on this appeal. 42 We recognize, of course, as we did in Francis, see 532 F.2d at 273 & n. 8, the paramount authority of the executive and legislative branches of our national government with respect to immigration matters, and the correspondingly limited role of the judiciary. See Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787, 792, 97 S.Ct. 1473, 1478, 52 L.Ed.2d 50 (1977). We also recognize, however, that federal courts can play an important role in interstitial implementation of a legislative design, especially when that design has already been altered by a constitutionally based court decision. Cf. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 635, 72 S.Ct. 863, 870, 96 L.Ed. 1153 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring) (While the Constitution diffuses power the better to secure liberty, it also contemplates that practice will integrate the dispersed powers into a workable government. It enjoins upon its branches separateness but interdependence, autonomy but reciprocity.). 43 The ruling that we make today poses no challenge to the legislative and executive branches, or to the Attorney General's special role within the executive branch with respect to legal interpretation of the immigration statutes. See Sec. 1103(a). We note that this opinion addresses the ramifications of a prior constitutional decision of this court, rather than the original statute concerning whose interpretation the Attorney General has conceded expertise. We note also that the Attorney General regards the legitimacy of this court's opinion in Francis as an open question, see Hernandez-Casillas, 1990 WL 385764 at  23 (I do not here reach the question of the validity of Francis and Silva.), despite its adoption by seven circuit courts in addition to the one that initially announced it. In sum, following the lead of the Supreme Court in Musick, we undertake only to achieve coherence regarding the impact of our prior ruling in Francis upon a ground of deportation that, by logical necessity, can have no counterpart ground of exclusion. 44 The INS points out that the prevention of illegal entry is an important policy of our immigration laws. All of the statutory grounds for deportation, however, are rooted in considerations of public policy. We are confident that the Attorney General and her delegates will accord those considerations appropriate weight in their exercise of Sec. 1182(c) discretion. We hold only that Bedoya-Valencia is entitled to that exercise.