Opinion ID: 3013828
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the critical threshold for eligibility for

Text: 212(c) relief was a sentence below five The 1952 INA contained a years. provision excluding from the United States aliens convicted of the illicit traffic In 1996, Congress eliminated the in narcotics. See 66 Stat. 182-187; see Attorney General’s discretion under INA also St. Cyr, 533 U.S. at 294-95. The section 212(c) to waive removal for aliens same provision, which was section 212(c) excludable for having committed even of the INA, granted the Attorney General non-aggravated controlled substance discretion to waive removal in the case of offenses. See Anti-Terrorism and lawful permanent residents who had Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) § resided in the United States for at least 440(d), Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. seven years, so long as they had served 1277; Illegal Immigrant Reform and less than five years in prison for an Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) § “aggravated” felony (separately defined at 304(b), Pub. L. No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43) (1995)): 3009-597. The five-year threshold was also thereby eliminated. The question Aliens lawfully admitted for soon arose whether the 1996 elimination permanent resident who of the Attorney General’s discretion temporarily proceeded operated retroactively. That is, in the abroad voluntarily and not wake of AEDPA and IIRIRA, did the under an order of [removal], Attorney General retain discretion to grant 4 212(c) relief from removal for aliens Soriano and the Courts of Appeals whose non-aggravated removable offense decisions that followed it took the position occurred prior to the change in the law, that the elimination of 212(c) relief but whose removal had not yet been enacted by AEDPA and IIRIRA acted effected? retroactively; that is, 212(c) relief was not available to any criminal alien whose The first challenge to retroactive removal would be effected after the application of this broader preclusion of effective dates of AEDPA and IIRIRA. 212(c) relief came from aliens who had pled guilty to aggravated felonies prior to In 2001, the Supreme Court the enactment of AEDPA and IIRIRA but resolved the question through an appeal who served less than five years from a denial of a writ of habeas corpus. imprisonment. This group of aliens would See St. Cyr, 533 U.S. at 315. The Court have maintained the possibility of 212(c) reversed Soriano, and held that the relief if they faced removal before the elimination of 212(c) relief effected by effective dates of AEDPA and IIRIRA. AEDPA and IIRIRA was not retroactive.4 Seeking to retain their opportunity for Thus, the Court explained, 212(c) relief 212(c) relief after the new laws became remained available on the same terms after effective, these aliens argued, in part, that the effective dates of AEDPA and IIRIRA they had entered pleas of guilty to the to aliens who pled guilty before AEDPA aggravated felonies in an effort to keep the sentence imposed below the five-year 4 prison term threshold enumerated in 8 St. Cyr, like Torres, Soriano and U.S.C. § 1182(c). Thus, they had pled many of the other aliens who had guilty with the expectation under the challenged whether AEDPA and IIRIRA former law that, despite their felony could retroactively eliminate 212(c) relief, convictions, they would remain eligible had pled guilty to the offense that rendered for discretionary relief from removal. him removable. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. at 293. That being so, it would be unfair and The Supreme Court found this fact unconstitutional to retroactively apply the significant because it was at least possible elimination of 212(c) discretionary relief that St. Cyr had entered his plea in by AEDPA and IIRIRA against them. reliance on the availability—and likely receipt—of 212(c) relief to avoid removal. The Attorney General disagreed. Id. at 321-24. We have recently held that See In re Soriano, 21 I. &. N Dec. 516, AEDPA and IIRIRA could not act Int. Dec. 3289 (BIA 1996). Eventually, so retroactively to eliminate 212(c) relief did a number of the Courts of Appeals. even for an alien whose removable offense See, e.g., DeSousa v. Reno, 190 F.3d 175, conviction was secured after the alien 186-87 (3d Cir. 1999); Requena- rejected a plea agreement in favor of trial. Rodriguez v. Pasquarell, 190 F.3d 299, See Ponnapula v. Ashcroft, 373 F.3d 480, 306-08 (5th Cir 1999). From 1996-2001, 494-96, 501 (3d Cir. 2004). 5 and IIRIRA. Torres argues that the IJ’s failure to consider the availability of 212(c) relief