Opinion ID: 37739
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Flores's Legal Status

Text: 15 The government also argues that the district court erred on the merits because it granted Flores's motion to dismiss the indictment after concluding that Flores was not illegally or unlawfully in the United States and thus not in violation of § 922(g)(5)(A). The government claims that Flores's application for TPS and receipt of temporary treatment benefits did not alter Flores's status as an illegal alien for the purposes of § 922(g)(5)(A) and that he was therefore subject to prosecution for possessing a firearm. We agree with the government. 16 A challenge to an indictment based on the legal sufficiency of uncontested facts is an issue of law reviewed de novo. United States v. Banks, 339 F.3d 267, 269 (5th Cir.2003) (emphasis omitted). We also analyze questions of statutory interpretation de novo. See United States v. Fitch, 137 F.3d 277, 281 (5th Cir.1998); see also United States v. Atandi, 376 F.3d 1186, 1188 (10th Cir.2004) ([W]e review de novo the district court's dismissal of the indictment based on its interpretation of the underlying criminal statute.). 17 Section 922(g)(5)(A) provides: It shall be unlawful for any person. . . who, being an alien . . . is illegally or unlawfully in the United States . . . [to] possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition. . . . The phrase illegally or unlawfully in the United States is not defined by the statute. We must construe undefined statutory terms in accordance with [their] ordinary and natural meaning, as well as the overall policies and objectives of the statute. United States v. Lowe, 118 F.3d 399, 402 (5th Cir.1997) (internal citations omitted). 18 We read the phrase illegally or unlawfully in the United States in § 922(g)(5)(A) to include those aliens, like Flores, who entered the country illegally and subsequently qualified for temporary treatment benefits under 8 U.S.C. § 1254a. Our interpretation is informed by the administrative regulations promulgated by the ATF interpreting § 922(g)(5)(A). See 27 C.F.R. § 478.11. Those regulations define an [a]lien illegally or unlawfully in the United States as an alien who is not in valid immigrant, nonimmigrant or parole status[;][t]he term includes any alien . . . [w]ho unlawfully entered the United States without inspection and authorization by an immigration officer and who has not been paroled into the United States under section 212(d)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). . . . See id. Although interpreting 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(A) poses a question involving a mixture of both immigration and criminal law, Congress delegated authority to implement § 922(g) to the ATF. 9 See 18 U.S.C. § 926(a) (authorizing such rules and regulations as are necessary to carry out the provisions of this chapter). Thus, without deciding whether full Chevron 10 deference is appropriate in this instance, we owe at least some degree of deference to the ATF's interpretive regulation of § 922(g)(5)(A) because it is both reasonable and consistent with our interpretive norms for criminal statutes. Atandi, 376 F.3d at 1189 (affording some deference to the ATF's interpretation of § 922(g)(5)(A)) (citing Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Cmtys. for a Greater Or., 515 U.S. 687, 703, 115 S.Ct. 2407, 132 L.Ed.2d 597 (1995)). Under § 478.11, Flores is an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States because he unlawfully entered the United States without inspection and authorization by an immigration officer and because his application for TPS and receipt of temporary treatment benefits did not constitute a parole[ ] into the United States under section 212(d)(5) of the [INA]. 27 C.F.R. § 478.11; see also 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A); 8 U.S.C. § 1254a. 19 Flores argues that he was not in the United States illegally or unlawfully once he received temporary treatment benefits because those benefits — namely, a stay of removal and an employment permit — authorized him to be in the country. He argues that under United States v. Igbatayo, 764 F.2d 1039 (5th Cir.1985), such authorization shields him from prosecution under § 922(g)(5)(A). Igbatayo, however, stands for no such proposition. There we stated: 20 [I]t is clear that an alien who is in the United States without authorization is in the country illegally. After failing to maintain the student status required by his visa, Igbatayo was without authorization to remain in this country. He thus was in the same position legally as the alien who wades across the Rio Grande or otherwise enters the United States without permission. 21 Igbatayo, 764 F.2d at 1040. As Igbatayo explains, an alien without any authorization whatsoever is in the country illegally. That conclusion is obvious. But it does not follow that an alien who has been granted limited temporary authorization (i.e., a temporary stay of removal and a temporary work permit) is in the country legally for all purposes, rendering him immune to prosecution under § 922(g)(5)(A). Rather, consistent with Igbatayo, an alien may be temporarily granted a stay of removal and be permitted to work during that stay, but still be considered illegally or unlawfully in the United States. See Hussein v. INS, 61 F.3d 377, 381 (5th Cir.1995) (holding that a temporary stay of removal did not change the alien's previously illegal status into a lawful status); United States v. Bazargan, 992 F.2d 844, 848-49 (8th Cir.1993) (holding that an alien was illegally in the United States for the purposes of § 922(g)(5)(A) despite his receipt of employment authorization). 11 Thus, despite his receipt of temporary treatment benefits pending disposition of his application for TPS, Flores remained illegally or unlawfully in the United States under § 922(g)(5)(A). 12