Opinion ID: 588832
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Application for Asylum

Text: 7 First, Martins argues that he was improperly precluded from applying for asylum because the IJ and the BIA misinterpreted 8 C.F.R. § 208.14 on mandatory denials of asylum. Their interpretation will be upheld if it is reasonable and not contrary to congressional intent. Martinez-Montoya v. I.N.S., 904 F.2d 1018, 1021 (5th Cir.1990), citing Martin v. Kilgore First Bancorp., 747 F.2d 1024 (5th Cir.1984). 8 Martins' argument is without merit because Martins is statutorily ineligible to apply for asylum under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d). Subsection (d) to § 1158 was added by the 1990 Immigration Act and states that an alien who has been convicted of an aggravated felony, ..., may not apply for or be granted asylum. The term aggravated felony was first defined in the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (ADAA) codified as amended at 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43) and includes any drug trafficking crime, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 924. 7 Martins' heroin convictions are within the definition of drug trafficking crime. Therefore, Martins' conviction constitutes an aggravated felony under the ADAA definition. 9 Martins next contends that he is not an aggravated felon because he was convicted in 1986 and the aggravated felony provision was adopted as part of the ADAA in 1988. We must now decide whether section 1158(d) precludes an alien from applying for asylum if the alien has been convicted of an aggravated felony prior to the effective date of the ADAA. This court has already addressed this issue, in a different context, in Ignacio v. I.N.S., 955 F.2d 295 (5th Cir.1992) (en banc). In Ignacio, an alien was seeking to avoid the consequences of an Immigration Act provision, barring aggravated felons from invoking an automatic stay of deportation, because his conviction was prior to the ADAA. Id. at 297. In Ignacio, the court noted that the 1990 Immigration Act did not address the substantive retroactivity question--when the [aggravated felony] conviction must have occurred. Id. at 298, quoting Ayala-Chavez v. I.N.S., 945 F.2d 288, 291 n. 5 (9th Cir.1991). The Ignacio court found that Congress answered this question in its 1991 Technical Amendments to the Immigration Act, which state that the 1990 amendments apply to convictions entered before, on, or after [the effective] date. Miscellaneous and Technical Immigration and Naturalization Amendments of 1991 (Technical Amendments), Pub.L. No. 102-232, 105 Stat. 1733, § 306(a)(11) (1991). Like the Ignacio court, we conclude that Congress inserted the on, before, or after 8 language, into § 1158(d), in order to bar from asylum those aliens whose convictions fall under the definition of aggravated felony, regardless of the date of those convictions. Id. at 298. We hold that Martins is an aggravated felon under § 1158(d), and the BIA did not err in finding Martins ineligible to apply for asylum. 10