HAMILTON FILES PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC IN LAWRENCE V. HOLDER

On May 22, 2013, I reported on the 9th Circuit's publication of their "Opinion" in Lawrence v. Holder (07-74829) in which a lawful permanent resident (LPR) aggravated felon was determined not to be eligible for INA 212(c) relief because because of the BIA's interpretation (and the Court's deference to that interpretation) of the word "admissions" in IMMACT 511(b).  The interpretation of an "admission" as the 212(c) application itself, rather than the alien's earlier entry after inspection and authorization by an immigration officer" [as the word is defined by 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(13)(A)] is vexing and in our opinion, worthy of further review.

Hence, on July 3, 2013, we filed a petition for rehearing en banc, seeking a fresh look at the issues in this this matter by at least 11 of the Court's judges.

The current petition  addresses whether IMMACT 511(b) was "unambiguously prospective" pursuant to Ledezma-Galicia v. Holder, 599 F.3d 1055(9th Cir. 2010) to such an extent there was no ambiguity in the statute for the agency to resolve, and whether in applying what is called "Chevron deference" to the agency's interpretation, the panel missed a more subtle traditional requirement in immigration cases that ambiguous statutes be read in the light most favorable to the alien [see INS v. Errico, 385 U.S. 214, 225 (1966) and INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 429 (1987)].

By:  Duane Hamilton