Opinion ID: 3064915
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: standard of review

Text: The Ninth Circuit reviews de novo whether a conviction constitutes a removable offense under the Immigration and Nationality Act. See Alanis-Alvarado v. Holder, 558 F.3d 833, 836 (9th Cir. 2009); Coronado-Durazo v. INS, 123 F.3d 1322, 1324 (9th Cir. 1997). The BIA’s determination of purely legal questions regarding the Immigration and Nationality Act — such as its application of a particular statutory section — is likewise reviewed de novo. See Lafarga v. INS, 170 F.3d 1213, 1215 (9th Cir. 1999).5 4 In his petition to this court, Szalai does not challenge the denial of his request for asylum, withholding of removal, and/or relief under the Convention Against Torture. 5 The BIA’s interpretation and application of the immigration laws are nevertheless entitled to deference in certain instances under Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984). See Marmolejo-Campos v. Holder, 558 F.3d 903, 908-11 (9th Cir. 2009). The government argues that the BIA’s interpretation of section 1227(a)(2)(E)(ii) is entitled to such deference here, whereas Petitioner points out that the BIA’s interpretation is due no deference when its construction is contrary to the statute’s “plain and sensible meaning.” See Prieto-Romero v. Clark, 534 F.3d 1053, 1061 (9th Cir. 2008) (“We will not defer to the BIA when its construction of a statute defies its ‘plain and sensible meaning.’ Kankamalage v. INS, 335 F.3d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 9096 SZALAI v. HOLDER