Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

attorneyappealfelonyadmissibility
attorneyappealfelonyadmissibility

Related Cases

United States v. Akinsade
View Case »
Scorteanu v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Wang; U.S. v.
View Case »
Moreira v. Mukasey
View Case »
Machado Amadis v. Department of Justice
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Leiba v. Holder

Facts

Mendoza is a native and citizen of El Salvador who entered the United States illegally. He married in 1994, and he and his wife now have five children. Mendoza adjusted his status to that of lawful permanent resident ('LPR') in 1995 through an employment-based immigration petition, and his wife became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 2001. In 2008, Mendoza was convicted in the Circuit Court of Loudoun County, Virginia, of receiving stolen property, and he received a 36-month suspended sentence. DHS subsequently commenced removal proceedings against Mendoza in 2010 by filing a Notice to Appear ('NTA') with the Executive Office of Immigration Review.

Mendoza is a native and citizen of El Salvador who entered the United States illegally. He married in 1994, and he and his wife now have five children. Mendoza adjusted his status to that of lawful permanent resident ('LPR') in 1995 through an employment-based immigration petition, and his wife became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 2001. In 2008, Mendoza was convicted in the Circuit Court of Loudoun County, Virginia, of receiving stolen property, and he received a 36-month suspended sentence. DHS subsequently commenced removal proceedings against Mendoza in 2010 by filing a Notice to Appear ('NTA') with the Executive Office of Immigration Review.

Issue

Whether the Board of Immigration Appeals erred in finding Mendoza barred under 212(h) from obtaining a waiver of inadmissibility due to his conviction of an aggravated felony after obtaining lawful permanent resident status.

Whether the Board of Immigration Appeals erred in finding Mendoza barred under 212(h) from obtaining a waiver of inadmissibility due to his conviction of an aggravated felony after obtaining lawful permanent resident status.

Rule

The statutory provision at the center of this case, 212(h) of the INA, grants the Attorney General the discretion to excuse the commission of certain crimes or other misconduct that would otherwise preclude noncitizens from entering or remaining in the United States. No waiver shall be granted under this subsection in the case of an alien who has previously been admitted to the United States as an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence if either since the date of such admission the alien has been convicted of an aggravated felony.

The statutory provision at the center of this case, 212(h) of the INA, grants the Attorney General the discretion to excuse the commission of certain crimes or other misconduct that would otherwise preclude noncitizens from entering or remaining in the United States. No waiver shall be granted under this subsection in the case of an alien who has previously been admitted to the United States as an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence if either since the date of such admission the alien has been convicted of an aggravated felony.

Analysis

The court applied the rule by interpreting the defined terms 'admitted' and 'lawfully admitted for permanent residence' as they appeared in 212(h). The court concluded that the language meant that the waiver bar did not apply to Mendoza because he had never lawfully entered the United States after inspection with LPR status. The court reasoned that the definition of 'admitted' clearly did not include an adjustment of status, and thus the Board's interpretation was rejected.

The court applied the rule by interpreting the defined terms 'admitted' and 'lawfully admitted for permanent residence' as they appeared in 212(h). The court concluded that the language meant that the waiver bar did not apply to Mendoza because he had never lawfully entered the United States after inspection with LPR status. The court reasoned that the definition of 'admitted' clearly did not include an adjustment of status, and thus the Board's interpretation was rejected.

Conclusion

The court granted Mendoza's petition, concluding that the Board erred in its interpretation of the law regarding the waiver of inadmissibility.

The court granted Mendoza's petition, concluding that the Board erred in its interpretation of the law regarding the waiver of inadmissibility.

Who won?

Mendoza prevailed in the case because the court found that the Board's interpretation of the law was incorrect, specifically regarding the definitions of 'admitted' and 'lawfully admitted for permanent residence.'

Mendoza prevailed in the case because the court found that the Board's interpretation of the law was incorrect, specifically regarding the definitions of 'admitted' and 'lawfully admitted for permanent residence.'

You must be