A-M
25 I & N Dec. 66 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A lawful permanent resident is statutorily eligible to apply for cancellation of removal as a battered spouse under section 240A(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, notwithstanding the section's heading referring to nonpermanent residents. In exercising discretion for such relief, an applicant's divorce from the abuser, remarriage, and prior receipt of immigration benefits based on the same abuse are significant adverse factors.
Facts:
- The respondent, A-M-, a citizen of Mexico, married her ex-husband in 1984.
- In 1989, A-M- joined her husband in the United States without lawful status.
- For a number of years, her husband, a lawful permanent resident (LPR), subjected her to physical and mental abuse.
- A-M- separated from her abusive husband in 1996.
- After the separation, A-M- successfully filed a Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) self-petition as a battered spouse, and her status was adjusted to that of a lawful permanent resident on September 25, 2001.
- On July 30, 2004, A-M- attempted to enter the U.S. from Mexico while driving two minor children who were not her own and who lacked entry documents.
- A-M- divorced her abusive ex-husband on August 18, 2004.
- In March 2006, A-M- remarried a man who did not have lawful status in the United States.
Procedural Posture:
- The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) initiated removal proceedings against A-M- on July 30, 2004, by issuing a Notice to Appear, charging her as an arriving alien inadmissible for alien smuggling.
- Before an Immigration Judge (the trial court in the immigration system), A-M- sought relief from removal, including special rule cancellation of removal for battered spouses.
- The Immigration Judge granted A-M- a continuance to accrue the necessary three years of good moral character.
- On September 11, 2007, the Immigration Judge issued an oral decision granting A-M-'s application for cancellation of removal.
- DHS, as the appellant, appealed the Immigration Judge's grant of relief to the Board of Immigration Appeals (the intermediate appellate body), with A-M- as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a lawful permanent resident eligible to apply for cancellation of removal for a battered spouse under section 240A(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, despite the statutory heading referring to 'Nonpermanent Residents'?
Opinions:
Majority - Cole, Board Member
Yes, a lawful permanent resident is eligible to apply for cancellation of removal for a battered spouse under section 240A(b)(2) of the Act. The Board reasoned that the plain language of the statute, which allows 'an alien who is inadmissible or deportable' to apply, is unambiguous and does not exclude lawful permanent residents. Citing Supreme Court precedent, the Board held that a statutory heading cannot limit the plain meaning of the text. The legislative history also supports this reading, as the provision was intended to 'restate' its predecessor, which was available to aliens of any status, and Congress has consistently sought to expand, not contract, protections for battered immigrants. Despite finding A-M- statutorily eligible, the Board denied her application as a matter of discretion. It determined that the purpose of VAWA relief is to allow victims to escape abusive relationships without fear of deportation. Because A-M- had already divorced her abuser, remarried, and previously used the abuse to obtain her LPR status via a VAWA self-petition, granting her relief again for the same past abuse would not serve the statute's purpose. These factors were held to be significant adverse discretionary factors that outweighed her positive equities.
Analysis:
This decision resolves a significant statutory ambiguity, confirming that lawful permanent residents are not categorically barred from seeking battered spouse cancellation of removal under INA § 240A(b)(2). The case reinforces the interpretive principle that clear statutory text prevails over a conflicting section heading. More importantly, it establishes a crucial framework for the discretionary analysis in these cases, signaling that the relief is intended for those currently needing protection from an abuser's control over their immigration status, not as a perpetual waiver for past abuse that has since been resolved and already used to obtain an immigration benefit. This holding guides immigration judges to look beyond threshold eligibility and heavily weigh whether granting relief aligns with the statute's protective purpose.
