Opinion ID: 696635
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: analysis

Text: 8 As the basis for deportation, the INS charged and the BIA found that Biggs was excludable when she entered the United States following her 1985 visit to the Philippines. See 8 U.S.C. Secs. 1182(a)(20), 1251(a)(1). She argues that this return was not an entry that would render her deportable as an alien excludable at the time of entry. See id.; 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1101(a)(13). 9 Biggs correctly points out that under certain circumstances, section 1101(a)(13) will except a resident alien's return from abroad from classification as an entry for purposes of section 1251(a)(1). See Rosenberg v. Fleuti, 374 U.S. 449, 83 S.Ct. 1804, 10 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1963) (construing 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1101(a)(13) so to except the returns of resident aliens to the United States if their departures were innocent, casual and brief). Biggs asserts that her 1985 departure to visit her family was innocent, casual and brief, within the meaning of Fleuti. In order to qualify for the exception, however, the alien must first satisfy section 1101(a)(13)'s prerequisites. The section limits the entry exception to aliens having a lawful permanent residence in the United States.... (Emphasis added.) 10 Even if we assume, without deciding, that Biggs' trip to the Philippines was innocent, casual and brief, she does not qualify for the exception because she had secured her permanent resident status through marriage fraud. Biggs thus was not a lawful permanent resident at the time of her 1985 entry. One who has procured a visa or other entry documentation by fraud is excludable by statute. 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1182(a)(19). An alien who was excludable at the time of entry is of course deportable. 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1251(a)(1). 11 Biggs also argues that, by instituting deportation proceedings against her in 1988 on the ground of her fraudulent status, the INS violated the five-year statute of limitations for rescission of adjustment of status. See 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1256(a). Under the above analysis, however, section 1256 and its statute of limitations are not applicable. 12 The INS based its original order to show cause on Biggs' 1985 entry as an alien who was excludable at the time of that entry, and therefore deportable, for having procured a visa by fraud. The Service did not seek any adjustment or rescission of her status. It sought only to deport her. The five-year limitation of section 1256 is simply a limitation on rescission of the change of status; it is not a limitation on deportation. Matter of S, 9 I & N Dec. 548, 555 (BIA 1962). Deportation in fact has no statute of limitations. Id. at 553. On this interpretation of Biggs' argument, then, section 1256(a)'s statute of limitations does not come into play. 3 13 Biggs was deportable as an alien excludable at the time of entry. We therefore affirm the BIA's finding on that issue. 14
15 Biggs finally argues that the BIA erred in holding her ineligible for discretionary relief from deportation pursuant to 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1254(a)(1). The BIA held that Biggs was statutorily ineligible for such relief because she had not made a showing of extreme hardship. One member dissented, stating that Biggs had made a sufficient showing of medical hardship to require further development of the record on that point. 16 We agree with the dissenter. The BIA must consider all relevant factors in determining whether the alien established extreme hardship, and must demonstrate that it has so done. Batoon v. I.N.S., 707 F.2d 399, 401 (9th Cir.1983). Biggs presented evidence of a serious illness. The letter from Dr. Birnbaum explained his diagnosis and described treatment for Biggs, and concluded: 17 This patient has well documented systemic lupus erythematosus with continued disease activity and multi-organ involvement. Her prognosis is guarded and she requires ongoing, regular management of this serious illness. Management of patients with this degree of lupus activity requires a highly trained, well-experienced rheumatologist. I believe that this patient's health would be very adversely effected if she were to return to the Philippines. 18 The Birnbaum letter provided direct evidence of the adverse effect that deportation would have on Biggs' health. The IJ essentially ignored that evidence, and then refused Biggs' reasonable request to allow Dr. Birnbaum to testify telephonically on the matter. The BIA then ruled against Biggs because she failed to present evidence of medical hardship. This was an abuse of discretion. We remand to the BIA to allow Biggs to supplement the medical evidence in her record and to allow the BIA to reconsider her claim of medical hardship. 19 PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.