Court Opinion

ID: 9569785
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:17:25.847063+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:04:02.184396
License: Public Domain

PAEZ, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I agree with the majority that Sanchez is ineligible for the family unity waiver here because he is neither an “alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence who temporarily proceeded abroad,” nor “an alien seeking admission or adjustment of status as an immediate relative or immigrant under [8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)].” 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(ll). I therefore concur in the result.
I am not persuaded, however, that the statutory language makes “plain” that the 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(E) waivers are inapplicable to an evaluation of moral character. Mj. Opin. at 1032-33. The moral character provision states that “[n]o person shall be ... found to be[ ] a person of good moral character” if they are or were a member of certain “classes of persons ... described in” § 1182(a), including those described in paragraph (6)(E). 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f)(3). Paragraph (6)(E) states:
(E) Smugglers
(i)In general
Any alien who at any time knowingly has encouraged, induced, assisted, abetted, or aided any other alien to enter or to try to enter the United States in violation of law is inadmissible.
(ii) Special rule in the case of family reunification
Clause (i) shall not apply in the case of alien who is an eligible immigrant (as defined in section 301(b)(1) of the Immigration Act of 1990), was physically present in the United States on May 5, 1988, and is seeking admission as an immediate relative or under section 1153(a)(2) of this title (including under section 112 of the Immigration Act of 1990) or benefits under section 301(a) of the Immigration Act of 1990 if the alien, before May 5, 1988, has encouraged, induced, assisted, abetted, or aided only the alien’s spouse, parent, son, or daughter (and no other individual) to enter the United States in violation of law.
(iii) Waiver authorized
For provision authorizing waiver of clause (i), see subsection (d)(ll) of this section.
8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(E).
At issue here is thus how the “class[ ] of persons ... described in paragraph ](6)(E)” is defined. The majority today finds it clear that this class is described solely in subparagraph (6)(E)(i), emphasizing that the moral character provision bars those “whether inadmissible or not” who fall within the classes listed in § 1101(f)(3).1 However, I find it at least *1035equally plausible that the relevant class is that described by (6)(E) in its entirety— both the general definition offered in (6)(E)(i) and the exceptions to that definition provided by (6)(E)(ii) and (iii). This construction comports with the plain language of the moral character provision, which points to the class described in (6)(E) rather than that described in (6)(E)(i). Moreover, this is how the BIA has interpreted the moral character provision for over fifty years. See In re M-, 7 I. & N. Dec. 147, 149-51 (BIA 1956); In re Garcia-Hernandez, 23 I. & N. Dec. 590, 593 (BIA 2003) (noting that “the ‘description’ of the category ... also includes the exception”). Because I find the statute ambiguous as to whether the exceptions are included within the description of the class, I would defer to the BIA’s reasonable answer that they are so included. See Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 843, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984). I would therefore hold that the 6(E)(iii) waiver is applicable to a determination of good moral character.
I also write separately to note that while the statutory scheme as interpreted here may not be “patently absurd,” mj. opin. at 1033-34, it does appear “antithetical to Congress’s stated goal of promoting family unification in immigration law.” Moran v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1089, 1095 (9th Cir.2005) (Fletcher, J., concurring). In justifying the availability of the waiver to those applying for admission but not to those applying for cancellation of removal, the majority asserts that it is rational for Congress to draw a distinction between those who have entered the United States unlawfully and those who, despite helping others to enter illegally, are themselves seeking admission through the proper legal channels. Mj. opin. at 1033. This may be true, but it is harder to explain the distinction between those who have entered the United States illegally and those who have both entered the United States illegally and have helped their “spouse, parent, son, or daughter” to do so. Under current law, a person who has helped only himself is eligible for humanitarian relief from deportation to prevent “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the alien’s [lawfully present] spouse, parent, or child.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l). However, a person who has also helped an immediate family member enter the country is ineligible for such relief because, under the law as interpreted here, he necessarily lacks “good moral character.” In short, a person who leaves his family behind as he seeks better opportunities in the United States may have good moral character, but a person who attempts to bring a spouse or child along may not. This not only makes little sense in the context of a family unity provision, but “grossly distorts the meaning of’ the term “good moral character.” Moran, 395 F.3d at 1095 (Fletcher, J., concurring); see also Pregerson dissent at 1038.
Fortunately, as the majority notes, Congress “knows how to create an exception” to the classes of persons deemed necessarily lacking in good moral character. Mj. opin. at 1032-33. A clear pronouncement by Congress that the family unity policy *1036behind the “family smuggling” exception in the admissibility context applies equally to moral character and cancellation of removal determinations would ensure that people like Mr. Sanchez — by all accounts a model employee, son, husband, and father to three American children, see Pregerson dissent at 3640-41, 3644 — would not be summarily deported for endeavoring to keep their families together while seeking a better life.

. The "whether inadmissible or not” language sheds little light on the question of whether the exceptions apply. As the BIA has *1035observed, that language was likely inserted to clarify that § 1101(f) and § 1182, an inadmissibility statute, are applicable to aliens in other proceedings. See In re M-, 7 I. & N. Dec. 147, 150-51 (BIA 1956) (observing that the predecessor phrase "whether excludable or not” was inserted "because it was considered necessary in order to guard against a possible interpretation that section [1101(f)(3) ] did not relate to aliens applying for voluntary departure and suspension of deportation”); In re Garcia-Hernandez, 23 I. & N. Dec. 590, 593 n. 2 (BIA 2003) (“whether inadmissible or not” phrase is meant to assure applicability beyond the admissibility context).