Justices Struggle to Solve ‘Puzzle’ of Ambiguous Immigration Law

November 5, 2019 by Dan McCue
U.S. Supreme Court, Nov. 4, 2019 (Photo by Dan McCue)

WASHINGTON – The justices of the U.S. Supreme Court struggled on Monday to sort out ambiguities in the Immigration and Nationality Act related to when a noncitizen can apply for cancellation of a removal order.

The case before the court involves Andre Martello Barton, a citizen of Jamaica, who came to the United States on a B-tourist visa in May 1989 and became a lawful permanent resident in June 1992.

Four years later, he pleaded guilty to charges of aggravated assault, criminal damage to property, and possession of a firearm. He was subsequently convicted of separate controlled-substance offenses.

In 2016, the Department of Homeland Security began removal proceedings against Barton based on his deportability under the Immigration and Nationality Act.

The Act establishes conditions under which a noncitizen is subject to removal from the United States; however, in doing so it establishes two sets of rules: One for noncitizens who have been lawfully admitted into the United States, another for those who have not been admitted.

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case will significantly affect lawful permanent residents’ access to relief from removal.

The problem presented by the case lies in statutory language defining the “grounds of inadmissibility” of a noncitizen and the “grounds of deportability.”

The statutory grounds for deportability and inadmissibility are not the same. For example, a noncitizen who has not been lawfully admitted to the country can be declared inadmissible if they have been convicted of a crime involving “moral turpitude.”

Moral turpitude is a legal concept that refers to “an act or behavior that gravely violates the sentiment or accepted standard of the community”.

Admitted noncitizens, however, are deportable for a conviction of a single crime involving moral turpitude only if the crime was committed within five years of their coming to the United States.

Noncitizens found either inadmissible or deportable can apply for a cancellation of their removal if they meet certain statutory requirements, including having resided in the U.S. continuously for 7 years.

A provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act known as the “Stop-time’ rule specifies events or conditions that terminate a noncitizen’s period of continuous residence.

After Barton filed an application to cancel his removal, an immigration judge ruled he was ineligible for such relief because his 1996 crimes statutorily terminated his period of continuous residence in the United States just months shy of 7-year requirement under the Act.

The ruling was later upheld by the Board of Immigration Appeals and the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

But Barton continues to argue that because of the ambiguity of the law and the two sets of rules for deportability is establishes, his crimes should never have triggered the stop-time rule. Therefore, he says, he meets the residency requirement to at least try to have his deportation waived.

The government says he’s got it wrong. As far as it is concerned, his convictions and admissions of guilt to multiple offenses render him deportable, case closed.

But the justices from the outset appeared to struggle with the language of the law. Why, they wondered aloud, did Congress create two distinct legal paths to which a permanent legal resident facing deportation could be assigned?

“This sounds like the kind of language lawyers use to say that something that is not “this,” is in fact, this other thing,” Justice Samuel Alito said at another point.

Expressing the court’s frustration as it went around and around, Justice Elena Kagan opined. “It was a genius who drafted this.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor agreed, saying that by creating a dichotomy of consequences for the noncitizen facing removal from the country, “Congress has not been very consistent.”

Even then, Justice Brett Kavanaugh said, it appears that Congress expressly tried to write the law so that a crime that makes someone deportable, doesn’t necessarily make him ineligible for relief.

The real question is why does anybody write a statute that looks like this, unless they want to establish two categories,” Justice Kagan said.

“I am back to what in heaven’s name does the second clause mean?” Justice Breyer said, conceding the hearing would end on as an ambiguous note as it started.

The case is Barton v. Barr.

In The News

Health

Voting

Immigration

Number of Children Traveling Alone at Border Eases in April
Immigration
Number of Children Traveling Alone at Border Eases in April

SAN DIEGO (AP) — The number of unaccompanied children encountered on the U.S. border with Mexico in April eased from an all-time high a month earlier, while more adults were found coming without families, authorities said Tuesday. Authorities encountered 17,171 children traveling alone, down 9% from... Read More

Biden Quadruples Trump Refugee Cap After Delay Backlash
Immigration
Biden Quadruples Trump Refugee Cap After Delay Backlash

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden formally raised the nation's cap on refugee admissions to 62,500 this year, weeks after facing bipartisan blowback for his delay in replacing the record-low ceiling set by former President Donald Trump. Refugee resettlement agencies have waited for Biden to quadruple... Read More

Biden Terminates Diversion of Funds for Construction of Border Wall
White House
Biden Terminates Diversion of Funds for Construction of Border Wall
May 3, 2021
by Daniel Mollenkamp

WASHINGTON- The Biden administration has begun the process of canceling all sections of the border wall that were funded by money diverted from military projects, in relation to a federal walk back of one of the Trump administration's principal policy commitments. The announcement came as the... Read More

US Begins Reuniting Some Families Separated at Mexico Border
Immigration
US Begins Reuniting Some Families Separated at Mexico Border

SAN DIEGO (AP) — The Biden administration said Monday that four families that were separated at the Mexico border during Donald Trump's presidency will be reunited in the United States this week in what Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas calls "just the beginning" of a broader... Read More

ICE Rebuts DHS Watchdog Recommendations in Detention Facility Report
Immigration
ICE Rebuts DHS Watchdog Recommendations in Detention Facility Report
April 5, 2021
by Reece Nations

ELOY, Ariz. — Detainees at an immigrant detention center in Arizona are alleging they experienced mistreatment, slurs and abuse by the staff after a Department of Homeland Security audit of the facility.  Immigrants held at the La Palma Correctional Center told DHS Office of Inspector General... Read More

Biden Taps Harris to Take Lead on Response to Border Crisis
Immigration
Biden Taps Harris to Take Lead on Response to Border Crisis
March 24, 2021
by TWN Staff

WASHINGTON - President Joe Biden is putting Vice President Kamala Harris in charge of leading the White House effort to get a handle on the surge of migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border. Biden made the announcement as he and Harris met at the White House on... Read More

News From The Well
scroll top