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

attorneystatuteappealprobationliens
attorneyappealprobationstatutory interpretationliens

Related Cases

Velez v. Sanchez
View Case »
Gutierrez-Olivares v. Mukasey
View Case »
Gonzalez v. Wilkinson
View Case »
Francis v. Reno
View Case »
Dwomoh v. Sava
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Sejdini v. Holder

Facts

Alen Sejdini and his family are from the former Yugoslavia. In 1987, Sejdini, who was then less than a year old, entered the United States, traveling with his mother by boat from Canada. In 1999, the government placed Sejdini in removal proceedings. Then, in 2003, an immigration judge granted Sejdini a special-rule cancellation of removal under section 203 of the Nicaraguan Act, which in 1997 had amended the INA. In 2010, Sejdini was convicted in Michigan state court for possession of Vicodin and ecstasy, for which he received a prison sentence of eighteen months to ten years and two years' probation. Because the conviction made him removable, the government began removal proceedings in 2011 against Sejdini. He applied for cancellation of removal under section 240A(a) of the INA, but the immigration judge "pretermitted," or barred him, from applying for this relief because he had already received cancellation of removal under the Nicaraguan Act. Sejdini appealed to the Board, which adopted and affirmed the immigration judge's opinion and order.

Alen Sejdini and his family are from the former Yugoslavia. In 1987, Sejdini, who was then less than a year old, entered the United States, traveling with his mother by boat from Canada. In 1999, the government placed Sejdini in removal proceedings. Then, in 2003, an immigration judge granted Sejdini a special-rule cancellation of removal under section 203 of the Nicaraguan Act, which in 1997 had amended the INA. In 2010, Sejdini was convicted in Michigan state court for possession of Vicodin and ecstasy, for which he received a prison sentence of eighteen months to ten years and two years' probation. Because the conviction made him removable, the government began removal proceedings in 2011 against Sejdini. He applied for cancellation of removal under section 240A(a) of the INA, but the immigration judge "pretermitted," or barred him, from applying for this relief because he had already received cancellation of removal under the Nicaraguan Act. Sejdini appealed to the Board, which adopted and affirmed the immigration judge's opinion and order.

Issue

Whether cancellation of removal under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (the Nicaraguan Act) is the same as cancellation of removal under section 240A of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

This immigration case requires us to answer a pure question of statutory interpretation: is cancellation of removal under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (the Nicaraguan Act) the same as cancellation of removal under section 240A of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)?

Rule

Section 203(f)(1) of the Nicaraguan Act states that "the Attorney General may, under section 240A of [the INA], cancel removal" of eligible classes of aliens.

Section 203(f)(1) of the Nicaraguan Act states that "the Attorney General may, under section 240A of [the INA], cancel removal" of eligible classes of aliens.

Analysis

The immigration judge held that Sejdini could not apply for cancellation of removal under section 240A of the INA because he had already received a special cancellation of removal under the Nicaraguan Act. The immigration judge barred Sejdini from applying for cancellation of removal under Section 240A(a) of the INA because section 240A(c)(6) of the INA provides, in pertinent part, that an alien whose removal has been cancelled under Section 240A is ineligible for later relief under section 240A(a). The court found that the immigration judge did not misread the statute and that Sejdini was statutorily barred from reapplying for cancellation of removal under section 240A(a).

The immigration judge held that Sejdini could not apply for cancellation of removal under section 240A of the INA because he had already received a special cancellation of removal under the Nicaraguan Act. The immigration judge barred Sejdini from applying for cancellation of removal under Section 240A(a) of the INA because section 240A(c)(6) of the INA provides, in pertinent part, that an alien whose removal has been cancelled under Section 240A is ineligible for later relief under section 240A(a).

Conclusion

The court denied Sejdini's petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision.

The petition seeking review of the Board's ruling is denied.

Who won?

The government prevailed in the case because the court upheld the immigration judge's decision that Sejdini was ineligible for cancellation of removal under section 240A due to his prior special-rule cancellation under the Nicaraguan Act.

The government prevailed in the case because the court upheld the immigration judge's decision that Sejdini was ineligible for cancellation of removal under section 240A due to his prior special-rule cancellation under the Nicaraguan Act.

You must be