Holder v. Martinez Gutierrez

Immigration: Title 8 U. S. C. §1229b(a) authorizes the Attorney General to cancel the removal of an alien from the United States: Title 8 U. S. C. §1229b(a) authorizes the Attorney General to cancel the removal of an alien from the United States who, among other things, has held the status of a lawful permanent resident (LPR) for at least five years, §1229b(a)(1), and has lived in the United States for at least seven continuous years after a lawful admission, §1229b(a)(2). These cases concern whether the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or Board) should impute a parent’s years of continuous residence or LPR status to his or her child. That issue arises because a child may enter the country lawfully, or may gain LPR status, after one of his parents does—meaning that a parent may satisfy §1229b(a)(1) or §1229b(a)(2), while his child, considered independently, does not. In In re Escobar, 24 I. & N. Dec. 231, the BIA concluded that an alien must meet §1229b(a)’s requirements on his own. But the Ninth Cir­cuit found the Board’s position unreasonable, holding that §1229b(a)(1) and §1229b(a)(2) require imputation. See Mercado-Zazueta v. Holder, 580 F. 3d 1102; Cuevas-Gaspar v. Gonzales, 430 3d 1013.

Respondent Martinez Gutierrez illegally entered the country with his family in 1989, when he was 5 years old. Martinez Gutierrez’s fa­ther was lawfully admitted to the country two years later as an LPR. But Martinez Gutierrez was neither lawfully admitted nor given LPR status until 2003. Two years after that, he was apprehended for smuggling undocumented aliens across the border. Admitting the of­fense, he sought cancellation of removal. The Immigration Judge concluded that Martinez Gutierrez qualified for relief because of his father’s immigration history, even though Martinez Gutierrez could not satisfy §1229b(a)(1) or §1229b(a)(2) on his own. Relying on Esco­bar, the BIA reversed. The Ninth Circuit then granted Martinez Gutierrez’s petition for review and remanded the case to the Board for reconsideration in light of its contrary decisions.

Respondent Sawyers was lawfully admitted as an LPR in October 1995, when he was 15 years old. At that time, his mother had al­ready resided in the country for six consecutive years following a law­ful entry. After Sawyers was convicted of a drug offense in August 2002, the Government began removal proceedings. The Immigration Judge found Sawyers ineligible for cancellation of removal because he could not satisfy §1229b(a)(2). The BIA affirmed, and Sawyers peti­tioned the Ninth Circuit for review. There, he argued that the Board should have counted his mother’s years of residency while he was a minor toward §1229b(a)(2)’s 7-year continuous-residency require­ment. The Court of Appeals granted the petition and remanded the case to the BIA.

Held: The BIA’s rejection of imputation is based on a permissible con­struction of §1229b(a).

(a) The Board has required each alien seeking cancellation of re­moval to satisfy §1229b(a)’s requirements on his own, without relying on a parent’s years of continuous residence or immigration status. That position prevails if it is a reasonable construction of the statute, whether or not it is the only possible interpretation or even the one a court might think best. See e.g., Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Re­sources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, 843–844, and n. 11. The BIA’s approach satisfies this standard.

The Board’s position is consistent with the statute’s text. Section 1229b(a) does not mention—much less require—imputation. Instead, it simply calls for “the alien” to meet the prerequisites for cancella­tion of removal. See §§1101(a)(13)(A) and (a)(33). Respondents con­tend that this language does not foreclose imputation, but even if so, that is not enough to require the Board to adopt that policy; nor do the INA’s purposes demand imputation. As respondents correctly observe, many provisions of immigration law advance the goals of promoting family unity and providing relief to aliens with strong ties to this country. But these are not the INA’s only goals, and Congress did not pursue them at all costs. For example, aliens convicted of aggravated felonies are ineligible for cancellation of removal, regardless of the strength of their family ties, see §1229b(a)(3). In addition, as these cases show, not every alien with LPR status can immediately get the same for a spouse or minor child. A silent statute cannot be read as requiring imputation just because that rule would be family-friendly (U.S.S.Ct., 21.05.12, Holder v. Martinez Gutierrez, J. Kagan, unanimous).

La loi fédérale autorise le Procureur général à annuler le renvoi des Etats-Unis d’un étranger qui, notamment, est titulaire du statut de résident légal pendant au moins 5 ans, et a vécu aux Etats-Unis pendant au moins 7 ans consécutifs après admission officielle. Dans cette affaire, la question posée est celle de savoir si le Board of Immigration Appeals doit imputer les années de résidence légale des parents à leurs enfants, ce qui importe en particulier dans les cas où les parents satisfont aux deux conditions de durée précitées, alors que les enfants ne les satisfont pas encore. En l’espèce, le Board a refusé l’imputation dans divers cas où les enfants avaient commis des infractions impliquant renvoi. La Cour Suprême fédérale juge que le rejet de l’imputation par le Board résulte d’une interprétation admissible du droit fédéral applicable à de telles situations. En effet, selon la jurisprudence Chevron, déférence est accordée à l’interprétation de la loi donnée par l’administration quand il s’agit de trancher une question qui relève de son domaine de spécialisation. Dite interprétation doit être raisonnable, qu’elle soit ou non la seule interprétation possible, ou qu’elle ne soit pas la meilleure interprétation possible aux yeux du Tribunal. Ces conditions sont réalisées en l’espèce : s’agissant des questions d’annulation du renvoi (renvoi prononcé suite à la commission d’une infraction pénale), il est raisonnable pour le Board de considérer la situation de l’enfant de manière indépendante de la situation de ses parents. La position du Board est conforme au texte de la loi fédérale qui ne mentionne pas l’imputation. Une interprétation téléologique n’implique pas non plus imputation. Il est vrai que de nombreuses dispositions du droit de l’immigration ont pour but la promotion de l’unité familiale et protègent les étrangers dont les liens avec les Etats-Unis sont forts. Mais ces buts ne sont pas les seuls buts de la loi fédérale qui régit l’annulation du renvoi, et par ailleurs le Congrès ne poursuit pas ces buts à tout prix. Par exemple, les étrangers condamnés pour crimes aggravés ne peuvent obtenir l’annulation de leur renvoi, quelle que soit la force de leurs liens familiaux. En outre, tous les étrangers au bénéfice d’un statut de résident légal permanent ne peuvent obtenir immédiatement ce même statut pour leur conjoint ou leurs enfants.