Court Opinion

ID: 9494281
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 15:33:56.967+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:56:19.570076
License: Public Domain

GOULD, Circuit Judge, concurring:
I concur in the result reached by the majority, but reach my conclusion based on the plain language of 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(48)(A). In my view, we need not consider the parties’ arguments regarding legislative history or Chevron deference. The statutory language of Congress is too clear to be disregarded.
Section 1101(a)(48)(A) unambiguously defines “conviction” as a “formal judgment of guilt entered by a court,” and does not expressly exempt vacated convictions. *775When, as here, the manifested intent of Congress in its command is so clear, it is not correct to base a decision on legislative history or deference to an administrative agency. Chevron by its terms is inapplicable.
This conclusion about the plain meaning of § 1101(a)(48)(A) is consistent with the decisions of two other circuits that have considered this statute, though in different contexts. In Herrera-Inirio v. INS, 208 F.3d 299 (1st Cir.2000), the First .Circuit described § 1101(a)(48)(A) as “leav[ing] nothing to the imagination.” Id. at 304. The court further said that “state rehabilitative programs that have the effect of vacating a conviction other than on the merits or on a basis tied to the violation of a statutory or constitutional right in the underlying criminal case have no bearing in determining whether an alien is to be considered ‘convicted’ under section 1101(a)(48)(A).” Id. at 305. Similarly, the Second Circuit has observed that nothing in § 1101 (a)(48)(A) “excepts from [the] definition a conviction that has been vacated,” and held that a conviction vacated by a state court constitutes a conviction for purposes of a sentencing enhancement under 8 U.S.C. § 1326. United States v. Campbell, 167 F.3d 94, 98 (2d Cir.1999).
Thus the majority reaches the right result for the wrong reason, and in doing so, inverts the proper order of analysis. I decline to join in the majority’s rationale, for it may lead to error in future cases.