Interim Decision #3138
MATTER OF MEDRANO
In Deportation Proceedings
A-29076886
Decided by Board September 10, 1990
Decided by Board February 5, 1991
(1) The status of a lawful temporary resident alien who commits a deportable offense
must be terminated pursuant to section 245A(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1255a(b)(2) (1988), as a condition precedent to the commencement
of deportation proceedings.
(2) A motion to reconsider which is based on a legal argument that could have been
raised earlier in the proceedings will be denied.
CHARGE:
Order: Act of 1952—See. 241(a)(11) [8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(11)]—Convicted of controlled
substance violation
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: ON BEHALF OF SERVICE:
Pro se Janice B. Neetenbeek
General Attorney
David Dixon
Appellate Counsel
BY: Milhollan, Chairman; Dunne, Vacca, and Heilman, Board Members. Dissenting
Opinion: Morris, Board Member.
BEFORE THE BOARD
(September 10, 1990)
In a decision dated March 15, 1990, the immigration judge entered
an order terminating the respondent's deportation proceedings "without prejudice to the Immigration Service to reinstitute deportation
proceedings at such time as the Respondent's lawful temporary
resident status has properly been terminated," and the immigration
judge certified his decision to the Board pursuant to 8 C.F.R. §§ 3.1(c)
and 3.7 (1990). The decision of the immigration judge will be
affirmed.
The respondent is a 26-year-old native and citizen of Mexico. He
entered the United States without inspection on March 25, 1980. On
Interim Decision #3138
March 24, 1988, the respondent was granted lawful temporary resident
status pursuant to section 245A(a) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1255a(a) (1988). On October 6, 1989, the Immigration
and Naturalization Service issued an Order to Show Cause, Notice of
Hearing, and Warrant for Arrest of Alien (Form 1 -221S) against the
respondent, charging that he had been convicted of delivery of cocaine
in violation of the Texas Penal Code on October 1, 1989, and that he
was consequently deportable pursuant to section 241(a)(11) of the Act,
8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(11) (1988). The respondent appeared pro se for a
deportation hearing on October 24, 1989. After noting that the
respondent had been granted temporary resident status under the
Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986,
Pub. L. No. 99-603,
100 Stat. 3359, the immigration judge asked the Service attorney to
submit a brief addressing the issue of whether he had the authority to
proceed to a determination of the respondent's deportability in the
absence of any evidence that the respondent's temporary resident
status had been terminated.
The respondent's deportation hearing was continued pending the
Service's submission of a brief regarding this question. In its brief
submitted to the immigration judge, the Service contended that
because it has exclusive jurisdiction over applications for temporary
residence pursuant to section 245A(a) of the Act, the immigration
judge could not make inquiries regarding the respondent's temporary
resident status and had to "proceed to the merits of the deportation
proceeding." The immigration judge disagreed. He reviewed the Act's
provisions concerning termination of temporary residence, as well as
the regulations implementing the termination procedure, and he
concluded that he could not conduct the respondent's deportation
hearing until the Service established that his temporary resident status
had been terminated. The immigration judge then certified his
decision to the Board.
The issue which this case presents is whether the Service is required
to terminate, as a condition precedent to the commencement of
deportation proceedings, the lawful temporary resident status of an
alien who commits a deportable offense after he has acquired
temporary residence in this country. At section 245A(b)(2), the Act
provides:
The Attorney General shall provide for termination of temporary resident status
granted an alien under subsection (a)—
(A)if it appears to the Attorney General that the alien was in fact not eligible for
such status;
(B)if the alien commits an act that (i) makes the alien inadmissible to the United
States as an immigrant, except as otherwise provided under subsection (d)(2), or (ii)
217
Interim Decision #3138
is convicted of any felony or three or more misdemeanors committed in the United
States; or
(C) at the end of the thirty-first month beginning after the date the alien is granted
such status, unless the alien has filed an application for adjustment of such status
pursuant to paragraph (I) and such application has not been denied.
The respondent is charged with having been convicted of a drugtrafficking felony, and he is accordingly subject to having his
temporary resident status terminated pursuant to section
245A(b)(2)(B) of the Act.
In accordance with the statutory mandate that "[t]he Attorney
General shall provide for termination of temporary resident status"
for specified aliens, the Service has promulgated regulations providing
for the termination of an alien's temporary residence. See 54 Fed. Reg.
6504, 6511 (1989). These regulations have been codified at 8 C.F.R.
§ 245a.2(u) (1990).
The regulation which sets forth the procedure for the termination of
temporary resident status requires that the Service issue a Notice of
Intent to Terminate to the alien; that the alien be given 30 days to
submit evidence in response to the termination charge; and that the
Service notify the alien of an adverse decision giving reasons for that
determination. 8 C.F.R. § 245a.2(u)(2) (1990). This regulation also
provides that an alien may appeal an adverse decision to the Service's
Administrative Appeals Unit within 30 days of the service of the
termination decision. Id.; see also
8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(2)(i) (1990).
Furthermore, the regulations written by the Service regarding
termination of temporary residence clearly contemplate that the
termination process will precede the commencement of deportation
proceedings against an alien:
Termination of the status of any alien previously adjusted to lawful temporary
residence under section 245A(a) of the Act shall act to return such alien to the
unlawful status held prior to the adjustment, and render him or her amenable to
exclusion or deportation proceedings under section 236 or 242 of the Act, as
appropriate.
8 C.F.R. § 245a.2(u)(4) (1990) (emphasis added).
On appeal, the Service has indicated that its present position is that
a lawful temporary resident who commits an offense for which he
becomes subject to deportation from the United States must have his
temporary resident status terminated prior to the institution of
deportation proceedings against him. By virtue of its position on
appeal, the Service has removed its opposition to the decision of the
immigration judge. Because the Service apparently intends to terminate, prior to the commencement of deportation proceedings, the
temporary resident status of all aliens whose cases arise in the same
procedural posture as the respondent's, we find no reason to disturb
218
Interim Decision #3138
the immigration judge's decision in this case. Accordingly, the decision
below, terminating the respondent's deportation proceedings because
the Service failed to present evidence to establish that the respondent's
temporary residence had been terminated, will be affirmed.
ORDER: The decision of the immigration judge is affirmed.
FURTHER ORDER: The record is returned to the Office of
the Immigration Judge.
BEFORE THE BOARD
(February 5, 1991)
The Immigration and Naturalization Service has filed a motion to
reconsider the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision dated September 10, 1990, in which we affirmed the immigration judge's decision.
In a decision dated September 27, 1990, the Board denied the
Service's. motion for a 30-day stay of the execution of the decision
affirming the immigration judge. The motion to reconsider will now be
denied_
In a memorandum dated June 14, 1990, the Board asked the Service
for its opinion concerning the issue of whether an alien who commits a
deportable offense after he has acquired temporary residence can "be
found deportable or deported" without his temporary resident status
being terminated pursuant to section 245A(b)(2)(B) of the Act. On July
6, 1990, the Service responded to the Board's query as follows: "It is
the Service position that a respondent in these circumstances must
first have his temporary LPR status terminated pursuant to 8 C.F.R.
Sec. 245a.2(u)." The Service did not indicate in its response that it had
any disagreement with the immigration judge's decision. The Board
subsequently entered the decision affirming the immigration judge's
order which had terminated the respondent's deportation proceedings.
In its motion to reconsider, the Service raises two arguments. It
contends first that the Board's holding conflicts with the requirements
of the Act regarding aliens who have been convicted of an "aggravated
felony" as defined in the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, Pub. L. No.
100-690, 102 Stat. 4181. The Service also contends that immigration
judges lack jurisdiction to question a Service decision to commence
deportation proceedings against an alien.
We will not address the merits of the Service's arguments because
no adequate explanation has been offered for its failure to raise these
arguments earlier in the proceedings. Arguments for consideration on
appeal should all be submitted at one time, rather than in piecemeal
fashion. This is particularly true in the instant case, where the Board
specifically solicited the Service's views concerning the issues presented. The Service was granted a reasonable period of time in which to
?IQ
Interim Decision #3I38
consider fully the implications of the issues and to develop its position
on appeal.
Moreover, we note that in its argument concerning the Act's
"aggravated felony" provisions, the Service has cited Board decisions
which were not designated as precedent decisions. The regulations
provide that a motion to reconsider "shall be supported by such
precedent decisions as are pertinent." 8 C.F.R. § 3.8(a) (1990).
Decisions which the Board does not designate as precedents are not
binding on the Service or the immigration judges in cases involving the
same or similar issues. See
8 C.F.R. § 3.1(g) (1990). We therefore do
not consider the Service's reliance on Board decisions which were not
designated as precedent decisions to be a persuasive ground for
reconsideration. We note too that the argument in the Service's
motion, that an immigration judge has no authority to review a Service
decision to commence proceedings against an alien, was initially raised
by the general attorney in a trial brief. The Service abandoned this
argument, however, when it submitted its previous appellate position,
which appeared to endorse the decision of the immigration judge.
Accordingly, because the arguments in the Service's motion were
not raised when it submitted its position on appeal, and because the
Service has not provided an adequate explanation for its failure to
raise these arguments at an earlier stage of the proceedings, the motion
to reconsider will be denied.
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied.
DISSENTING OPINION: James P. Morris, Board Member
I respectfully dissent
Our decision of September 10, 1990, was based upon the fact that
the Immigration and Naturalization Service had removed its opposition to the decision of the immigration judge. Because the Service
apparently intended to terminate, prior to the commencement of
deportation proceedings, the temporary resident status of all aliens
whose cases arise in the same procedural posture as the respondent's,
we found no reason to disturb the immigration judge's decision. The
Board's decision was reasonable under those circumstances. Nevertheless, I believe that the immigration judge's decision misconstrued the
applicable regulation. The Service has now filed a motion to reconsider and has indicated its opposition to the construction of the regulation
applied by the immigration judge.
In its decision on the motion to reconsider the Board chooses to
avoid the merits of the issue because the Service has not adequately
explained why the arguments made by the Service in its motion were
not raised earlier in the proceedings. The Board, therefore, has decided
71A
Interim Decision #3138
to deal with the case on the basis of procedural failures by the Service.
Yet, if these failures are conceded, they do not preclude the Board
from addressing the issue before it, i.e., must the status of a lawful
temporary resident be terminated before the initiation of deportation
proceedings on grounds of deportability arising subsequent 'to the
acquisition by the alien of such status? Since the Service has moved to
reconsider and has now expressed its opposition to the construction
given to the regulation by the immigration judge, we now have an
opportunity to correct what I perceive to be error by the immigration
judge.
I would not rely on the arguments advanced by the Service in
support of its motion to reconsider. Rather, I would construe the
applicable regulation in a reasonable way, with the result that
termination of lawful temporary resident status prior to the initiation
of deportation proceedings would not be required in this case.
The regulation, 8 C.F.R. § 245a.2(u)(4) (1990), provides as follows:
Return to unlawful status after termination.
Termination of the status of any alien previously adjusted to lawful temporary
residence under section 245A(a) of the Act shall act to return such alien to the
unlawful status held prior to the adjustment, and render him or her amenable to
exclusion or deportation proceedings under section 236 or 242 of the Act, as
appropriate_
Itis apparent from the language of the regulation that a person
whose temporary status has been terminated returns to his former
unlawful status and, of course, he or she is then amenable to exclusion
or deportation proceedings on the basis of that unlawful status. The
regulation does not say, however, that in the absence of a termination
of temporary status, the alien is immune from deportation or exclusion
proceedings. Such an intent would be a clear departure from the
treatment given to lawful permanent residents who are deportable. I
would require that any such intent be clearly manifest in the regulation
and would not impose a requirement of termination on the basis of an
inference that might be drawn from the provision that aliens whose
temporary resident status has been terminated are subject to exclusion
or deportation proceedings.
The regulation says nothing about - an alien who commits a
deportable offense while in lawful temporary resident status. The
regulation does not require that such status be terminated in order to
initiate deportation proceedings on the basis of a ground of deportation arising after the attainment of lawful temporary resident status.
To impose such a requirement is to place a higher value on lawful
temporary resident status than is accorded to the status of a lawful
permanent resident. Section 246 of the Immigration and Nationality
Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1256 (1988), provides for the rescission of the
221
Interim Decision #3138
adjustment of status of an alien who has been granted adjustment of
status under section 245 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1255 (1988). It is well
established that the Service may use exclusion or deportation proceedings against a lawful permanent resident whether the alien gained
resident status through entry on an immigrant visa or through
adjustment of status. There is no prerequisite of revocation of the
status of an alien whose status was adjusted to that of lawful
permanent resident. Monet v. INS,
791 F.2d 752 (9th Cir. 1986);
Ubiera v. Bell,
463 F. Supp. 181 (S.D.N.Y.), affd without opinion,
594
F.2d 853 (2d Cir. 1978); Matter of Belenzo,
17 I&N Dec. 374 (A.G.
1981); Matter of S-,
9 I&N Dec. 548 (A.G. 1962).
As a matter of logic and policy, it makes no sense to provide more
protection from deportation to a temporary resident than to a lawful
permanent resident. The plain language of the regulation does not
require that result, nor does any language of the statute. Therefore, the
Board should take this opportunity to correct the erroneous decision of
the immigration judge in this case. It should not be necessary for the
Service to revise the regulation in order to have a reasonable
interpretation of it.
I would grant the motion to reconsider the Board's decision of
September 10, 1990, and, upon reconsideration, reverse the order of
the immigration judge.
222
