Margaret Olayinka Lanier v. U.S. Atty. General
PUBLISH (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The statutory bar in INA § 212(h) that prevents certain lawful permanent residents convicted of an aggravated felony from seeking a discretionary waiver of removal applies only to those who were admitted to the U.S. as a lawful permanent resident upon entry, not to those who adjusted their status to lawful permanent resident after having already entered the country.
Facts:
- Margaret Olayinka Lanier, a citizen of Nigeria, entered the United States without inspection in 1992.
- In 1996, while already residing in the United States, Lanier's immigration status was adjusted to that of a lawful permanent resident.
- Following her adjustment of status, Lanier was convicted of a crime classified as an aggravated felony under immigration law.
- Lanier has a daughter who is a U.S. citizen and suffers from sickle cell anemia, a condition which Lanier argued would cause extreme hardship if she were removed.
Procedural Posture:
- The Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against Margaret Olayinka Lanier in an immigration court.
- Lanier conceded removability but filed a motion to apply for a discretionary waiver of removal under INA § 212(h).
- The Immigration Judge (IJ) ruled that Lanier was statutorily ineligible to apply for the waiver due to her aggravated felony conviction and ordered her removed to Nigeria.
- Lanier, the petitioner, appealed the IJ's decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).
- The BIA affirmed the IJ's decision, upholding the finding of ineligibility.
- Lanier, the petitioner, then filed a petition for review of the BIA's decision with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the statutory bar in INA § 212(h), which prevents an "alien who has previously been admitted to the United States as an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence" from seeking a waiver of removal, apply to an alien who entered the U.S. without inspection and later adjusted her status to lawful permanent resident while inside the country?
Opinions:
Majority - Barkett, Circuit Judge
No. The statutory bar in INA § 212(h) does not apply to an alien who adjusted her status to lawful permanent resident while already living in the United States. The court's reasoning is based on a plain language analysis of the statute. The statutory bar applies to an alien "who has previously been admitted to the United States as an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence." The court analyzed the two key terms defined by Congress: 'admitted' and 'lawfully admitted for permanent residence.' The term 'admitted' is defined as the lawful entry into the U.S. after inspection. In contrast, 'lawfully admitted for permanent residence' defines a status. Because Lanier adjusted her status after she had already entered the U.S. without inspection, she was never 'admitted' as a lawful permanent resident. Since the statutory text is unambiguous, the court declined to grant deference to the BIA's contrary interpretation.
Analysis:
This decision creates a significant distinction between two categories of lawful permanent residents for the purpose of seeking a § 212(h) waiver. It provides a path for relief for individuals who obtained their permanent residency through adjustment of status, while barring the same relief for those who entered the U.S. with an immigrant visa. The ruling underscores the judiciary's reliance on strict textualism in statutory interpretation, especially when Congress provides explicit definitions for key terms. This interpretation limits the government's ability to remove certain permanent residents convicted of aggravated felonies, impacting future cases involving aliens with similar immigration histories.
