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

statute
statute

Related Cases

Mwani v. Laden
View Case »
Stewart v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Sebastian-Sebastian v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Tinoco v. Ridge
View Case »
Lopez-Ortiz; U.S. v.
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Route v. Garland

Facts

Jim Route, a citizen of the Federated States of Micronesia, was admitted to the United States twice: first in 2005 and again in 2015. In June 2018, he was convicted of unlawful imprisonment in the first degree under Hawai'i law. Following his conviction, the Department of Homeland Security charged him with being removable under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(i) for committing a crime involving moral turpitude within five years of his admission. The immigration judge determined that Route's 2015 admission was the relevant one for the purposes of the statute.

Jim Route, a citizen of the Federated States of Micronesia, was admitted to the United States twice: first in 2005 and again in 2015. In June 2018, he was convicted of unlawful imprisonment in the first degree under Hawai'i law. Following his conviction, the Department of Homeland Security charged him with being removable under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(i) for committing a crime involving moral turpitude within five years of his admission. The immigration judge determined that Route's 2015 admission was the relevant one for the purposes of the statute.

Issue

Whether the BIA correctly determined that Jim Route's 2015 admission to the United States was the relevant admission for purposes of deportability under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(i) given his conviction for unlawful imprisonment.

Whether the BIA correctly determined that Jim Route's 2015 admission to the United States was the relevant admission for purposes of deportability under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(i) given his conviction for unlawful imprisonment.

Rule

The phrase 'the date of admission' in 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) refers to the date of the admission by virtue of which the alien was present in the United States when he committed his crime. If the alien was in the U.S. pursuant to an admission that occurred within the prior five-year period when the crime was committed, he is deportable.

The phrase 'the date of admission' in 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) refers to the date of the admission by virtue of which the alien was present in the United States when he committed his crime. If the alien was in the U.S. pursuant to an admission that occurred within the prior five-year period when the crime was committed, he is deportable.

Analysis

The court applied the BIA's interpretation of the statute, which was based on the reasoning in the published decision Matter of Alyazji. The BIA held that Route's 2015 admission was the relevant admission because it was the admission during which he was present in the U.S. when he committed the crime in 2018. The court found that the BIA's interpretation was a permissible construction of the statute and deferred to it under Chevron deference.

The court applied the BIA's interpretation of the statute, which was based on the reasoning in the published decision Matter of Alyazji. The BIA held that Route's 2015 admission was the relevant admission because it was the admission during which he was present in the U.S. when he committed the crime in 2018. The court found that the BIA's interpretation was a permissible construction of the statute and deferred to it under Chevron deference.

Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the BIA's decision, denying Route's petition for review and upholding his removal from the United States.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the BIA's decision, denying Route's petition for review and upholding his removal from the United States.

Who won?

The government prevailed in the case, as the court upheld the BIA's decision to remove Route based on his conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude committed within five years of his relevant admission.

The government prevailed in the case, as the court upheld the BIA's decision to remove Route based on his conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude committed within five years of his relevant admission.

You must be