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

precedentappealasylumvisadeportation
precedentappealasylumvisadeportation

Related Cases

Beer v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Golicov v. Lynch
View Case »
Saidane v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Melhem v. Gonzales
View Case »
Benitez v. Dedvukaj
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Rotimi, Matter of

Facts

Felix Rotimi entered the United States on June 7, 1995, with a visitor visa and applied for political asylum before his visa expired. After his asylum application was denied, he became a lawful permanent resident through marriage to a U.S. citizen. He was later convicted of a crime of moral turpitude, conceded his removability, and applied for a waiver under INA 212(h). The immigration judge found him ineligible for the waiver, stating that his period of residence as an asylum seeker was not 'lawful.'

Felix Rotimi entered the United States on June 7, 1995, with a visitor visa and applied for political asylum before his visa expired. After his asylum application was denied, he became a lawful permanent resident through marriage to a U.S. citizen. He was later convicted of a crime of moral turpitude, conceded his removability, and applied for a waiver under INA 212(h). The immigration judge found him ineligible for the waiver, stating that his period of residence as an asylum seeker was not 'lawful.'

Issue

Whether the Board of Immigration Appeals erred in determining that Rotimi had not 'lawfully resided continuously' in the United States for seven years as required for a waiver under 212(h).

Whether the Board of Immigration Appeals erred in determining that Rotimi had not 'lawfully resided continuously' in the United States for seven years as required for a waiver under 212(h).

Rule

To be eligible for a waiver of removal under INA 212(h), an alien must have 'lawfully resided continuously' in the United States for seven years before the initiation of deportation proceedings.

To be eligible for a waiver of removal under INA 212(h), an alien must have 'lawfully resided continuously' in the United States for seven years before the initiation of deportation proceedings.

Analysis

The court held that the Board's nonprecedential decision should not be accorded Chevron deference because it was not intended to carry the force of law. The court noted that the BIA's definition of 'lawful residence' was not supported by a source and that the BIA itself does not accord precedential value to its unreported decisions. Therefore, the court remanded the case for the BIA to provide a precedential interpretation of the relevant statutory provision.

The court held that the Board's nonprecedential decision should not be accorded Chevron deference because it was not intended to carry the force of law. The court noted that the BIA's definition of 'lawful residence' was not supported by a source and that the BIA itself does not accord precedential value to its unreported decisions. Therefore, the court remanded the case for the BIA to provide a precedential interpretation of the relevant statutory provision.

Conclusion

The court granted Rotimi's petition for review, vacated the BIA's decision, and remanded for proceedings consistent with its opinion.

The court granted Rotimi's petition for review, vacated the BIA's decision, and remanded for proceedings consistent with its opinion.

Who won?

Felix Rotimi prevailed in the case because the court found that the BIA's decision did not merit Chevron deference and remanded the case for further consideration.

Felix Rotimi prevailed in the case because the court found that the BIA's decision did not merit Chevron deference and remanded the case for further consideration.

You must be