# Opposition Brief — Ferguson v. Holder

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386017_0941%3A3

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Opposition Brief
- **Published:** January 1, 2010
- **Citation:** 559 U.S. 991

## Text

+. ol gir
: a ie 2
‘ MES. 0: Qe ed
=
£

as n) 3 ne
\7?- 4 pene

No. 09-263

Jn the H-oreme Court of the Gnited States

SANDRA FERGUSON, PETITIONER
Vv.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., ATTORNEY GENERAL

ON PETITION FORA WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

BRIEF FOR THE RESPONDENT IN OPPOSITION

ELENA KAGAN

Solicitor General

Counsel of Record

TONY WEST

Assistant Attorney General
DONALD E. KEENER
ANDREW C. MACLACHLAN

Attorneys

Department of Justice

Washington, D.C. 20530-0001
(202) 514-2217

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

In 1996, Congress repealed Section 212(c) of the Im-
migration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1182(c) (1994),
which provided for a discretionary waiver of deporta-
tion, and replaced it with another form of discretionary
relief not available to aliens convicted of certain crimes,
including aggravated felonies and controlled-substance
offenses. In JNS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289 (2001), this
Court held that the repeal of Section 212(c) did not ap-
ply retroactively to an alien previously convicted of an
aggravated felony through a plea agreement at a time
when the conviction would not have rendered the alien
ineligible for discretionary relief. The questions pre-
sented are:

1. Whether this Court’s holding in St. Cyr applies to
an alien who was convicted of a controlled-substance of-
fense after trial, and who therefore did not relinquish
her right to a trial in reliance on potential eligibility for
a waiver under Section 212(c).

2. Whether detrimental reliance is necessary to es-
tabiush the retroactive effect that this Court has con-
strued the repeal of the availability of relief under for-
mer Section 212(c) to avoid, and, if so, whether actual or
objectively reasonable reliance is required.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
a ee rts ea ee re re Tt 1
GI 0 5.5 445 6060055454554 1
PPO ET PRCT TaN EOE PCr rire gee 2
III ops 5 ee os Ee Eee 5
CONE ok Rs oo 5 ee a eee ee 19
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases:
Aguilar v. Mukasey, 128 S. Ct. 2961 (2008) ............. 6
Alvarez-Aceves v. Fasano, 150 Fed. Appx. 596
CO Ce Se ik ken eae oe oe ey ea ee 15
Appel v. Gonzales, 146 Fed. Appx. 175 (9th Cir. 2005),
cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1051 (2006) .................. 16
Armendanz-Montoya v. Sonchik:
291 F.3d 1116 (9th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 539 U.S.
We I nea keynes eo eee eb eee 13, 15
Be Cl a, ee CE? 0c oe os eee oe ee 6
Atkinson v. Attorney Gen., 479 F.3d 222 (3d Cir.
NY eva hoe eo eee a 10, 11, 12, 14, lo
Berisha) v. Gonzales, 238 Fed. Appx. 275 (9th Cir.
BI a eran eee a ee ee 16
Canto v. Holder, No. 08-4272, 2010 WL 308795
(Tha Gir, Fam. BE, BOO) sc vicki oc cde cates eewnses 12, 18
Carranza-De Salinas v. Gonzales, 477 F.3d 200
EI ED ena ee keen es ca Ww Ueecieeanes 16
Cerbacio-Diaz v. Gonzales, 234 Fed. Appx. 583
RE ES onc cca tak easter ence a 17
Chambers v. Reno, 307 F.3d 284 (4th Cir. 2002) ..... 10 15
Clark v. Martinez, 543 U.S. 371 (2005) ............... 7,8

(IIT)

IV

Cases—Continued: Page
Crump v. Reno, 1380 Fed. Appx. 500 (2d Cir. 2005) ...... 15
Cruz-Garcia v. Holder, 129 S. Ct. 2424 (2009) ........... 6

Cruz-Garcia v. Mukasey, 285 Fed. Appx. 446
(9th Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 2424 (2009) ... 17

Dias v. INS, U1 F.3d 456 (1st Cir. 2002),

eert. denied, 58° U.S. 926 (2003) ..........20. eens 10
Esquivel v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 919 (7th Cir. 2008) ..... 17
Evangelista v. Ashcroft, 359 F.3d 145 (2d Cir. 2004),

cert. demied, 543 U.S. 1145 (2005) ................2.- 16
Evangelista v. Attorney Gen., 176 Fed. Appx. 306

ee I oe one e steven a. cu eae aeeieeens 16
Fernandez-Vargas v. Gonzales, 548 U.S. 30 (2006) ....... 9
Gallardo v. Mukasey, 279 Fed. Appx. 484 (9th Cir.

CR et Pet ae RN AS ees Te rane ge, ee ae 17
Garcia v. Fasano, 62 Fed. Appx. 816 (9th Cir. 2003) .... 16
Garcia-Ortiz v. Gonzales, 194 Fed. Appx. 513

Cn ne Rs Seer aee hak one a ka Oe eas neeae ee 17

Haque v. Holder, 312 Fed. Appx. 946 (9th Cir. 2009) .... 16
Hem v. Maurer, 458 F.3d 1185 (10th Cir. 2006) .. 10, 14,16

Hernandez-Castillo v. Gonzales, 549 U.S. 810 (2006) ..... 6
Hernandez-Castillo v. Moore, 436 F.3d 516

(5th Cir.), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 810 (2006) .......... 10
Hernandez de Anderson v. Gonzales, 497 F.3d 927

ee IE ce seer set oan met Resch 10, 14
Hughes Aircraft Co. v. United States ex rel. Schumer,

ee nc er ee soe nee ae vi
INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289 (2001) ...... 2, 3, &, 4, o 11, 12

Jaw-Shi Wang v. Ashcroft, 71 Fed. Appx. 624
(9th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1128 (2004) .... 17

Cases—Continued: Page

Johnson v. Holder, 564 F.3d 95 (2d Cir. 2009),
petition for cert. pending, No. 09-7909 (filed

Ce Db uc 30 das ces eos Le eee On 15
Jurado-Gutierrez v. Greene, 190 F.3d 1135 (10th Cir.

1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1041 (2000) ............ 13
Kelava v. Gonzales, 434 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir.),

cert. denied, 649 U.S. 810 (2006) 2.6 ccc ceteecsvens 16
Kellermann v. Holder, No. 08-3927, 2010 WL 252264

EG fet Me: a en eg ae a 10
LaGuerre v. Reno, 164 F.3d 1035 (7th Cir. 1998),

cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1158 (2000) ............... 13, 14
Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244 (1994) ..... 6,8
Lawrence v. Ashcroft, 540 U.S. 910 (2003) .............. 6
Lopez-Lopez v. Mukasey, 285 Fed. Appx. 440

I sac 55 5 cu bbe wee oe kes den eee eeae 15
Lovan v. Holder, 574 F.3d 990 (8th Ci~. 2009) ....... 10, 14
Manea v. Mukasey, 301 Fed. Appx. 589 (9th Cir.

| ee Pa nee Re a ee ener ee 16
Martin v. Hadiz, 527 U.S. 343 (1999) .. 1. ccc ee eee 6,9
Martinez-Murillo v. Mukasey, 267 Fed. Appx. 519

I oases outs ig cae eb uaa oe Ow nee ee 17
Matian v. Mukasey, 262 Fed. Appx. 753 (9th Cir.

SG tt Fe cae 5 A wee Fea eoEGS SERS CERN OSES 15
Mbea v. Gonzales, 482 F.3d 276 (4th Cir. 2007) ...... 10, 11

Montenegro v. Ashcroft, 355 F.3d 1035 (7th Cir. 2004)... 15

Morgorichev v. Mukasey, 274 Fed. Appx. 98 (2d Cir.
2008), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 242 (2009) ............ 16

Nadal-Ginard v. Holder, 558 F.3d 61 (1st Cir. 2009) .... 17
Olatunji v. Ashcroft, 387 F.3d 383 (4th Cir. 2004) ....... 10

Vi

Cases—Continued: Page
Ponnapula v. Ashcroft, 373 F.3d 480 (8d Cir.

Tei oue atc ans ead seas sky sake ome sak 11, 13, 16
Prieto-Romero v. Mukasey, 304 Fed. Appx. 512

2s aes ste se eee RAW ee eee Oka ces 17
Pugliese v. Gonzales, 174 Fed. Appx. 601 (2d Cir.

St Seay eas Cadk aa soak hee eee eee Oke os 16
Quinones-Saucedo v. Ashcroft, 83 Fed. Appx. 865

le re ee 16
Rankine v. Reno, 319 F.3d 93 (2d Cir.), cert. denied,

DO Mas WUE avi ks ccecdncucesscavets 10, 13, 16
Raya-Baez v. INS, 63 Fed. Appx. 381 (9th Cir. 2003) ... 15
Restrepo v. McElroy, 369 F.3d 627 (2d Cir. 2004) ...... 15
Reyes v. McElroy, 543 U.S. 1057 (2005) ................ 6
Saravia-Paguada v. Gonzales, 488 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir.

2007), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 2499 (2008) ........... 15
Serrano-Salcedo v. Ashcroft, 56 Fed. Appx. 803

oe aban ea ecr aches CON Co eak ewes 15
Sidhu v. Gonzales, 179 Fed. Appx. 221 (5th Cir.),

cert. denied, 549 U.S. 9938 (2006) ..............000.. 16
Singh v. Keisler, 255 Fed. Appx. 710 (4th Cir. 2007) .... 16
Singh v. Mukasey, 520 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 2008) ......... 16
St. Cyr v. INS, 229 F.3d 406 (2d Cir. 2000),

aff’d, 583 U.S. 289 (2001) ................ 13
Stephens v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1124 (2005) ... . . 6
Swaby v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 156 (2d Cir. 2004) . .. 16
Tecat v. Gonzales, 188 Fed. Appx. 308 (5th Cir. 2006) ... 16

Theodoropoulos v. INS, 358 F.3d 162 (2d Cir.),
cert. denied, 543 U.S. 823 (2004) ..............0005. 16

VII

Cases—Continued: Page

Thom v. Ashcroft, 369 F.3d 158 (2d Cir. 2004),

cert. denied, 546 U.S. 828 (2005) ................5- 16
Thom v. Gonzales, 546 U.S. 828 (2005) ............0 ces 6
Trevor v. Reno, 88 Fed. Appx. 445 (2d Cir. 2004) ....... 16
United States v. De Horta Garcia, 519 F.3d 658

(7th Cir.), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 489 (2008) ...... 10,17
'/nited States v. Munoz-Recillas, 224 Fed. Appx. 621

(9th Cir.), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 1889 (2007) ....... 16
Walcott v. Chertoff, 517 F.3d 149 (2d Cir. 2008) ......... 15
Wilson v. Gonzales, 471 F.3d 111 (2d Cir. 2006) ........ 16
Zamora v. Mukasey, 128 S. Ct. 2051 (2008) ............. 6

Statutes and regulation:

Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act
of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, § 440(d),
SEES se nce deiccehesdepekan cere eassanee es 2

Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Respon-
sibility Act of 1996 Pub. L. No. 104-208, Div. C,

§ 304(b), 110 Stat. 3009-597 ........... cee eee eee 2
Immigration Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-649, § 511,
Se I coy cao eee nies deed Cave take ekte een 2
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.
CO Sree ee rr eee eee Tee eee rT eer ee 2
Der es BED ois 5c ors 40s eae shee Res 3
B UBL. LIBS) GBD) oc cece scence. passim
GS US A., TEAMED) ve ccc nsec vccsncess .4
Ur EE 3 occa ok cca deene een es 4
Ces aaa eas sae scares ee eans chokes 2

GE. Cate >: Serer nae 3

Vill

Regulation—Continued: Page
SOF Te, TR oc coos co nevsstcexdeseeeeeresiaeseres 3
Miscellaneous:

Exec. Office for Immigration Review, U.S. Dep’t of

Justice, FY 2008 Statistical Year Book (2009)

The aliens in Atkinson and Lovan were also both convicted after
the 1990 narrowing of Section 212(c) relief on the basis of sentence
length, on which this Court focused in St. Cyr. See p. 12, supra; Atkin
son, 479 F.3d at 224; Lovan, 574 F.3d at 992.

15

ceiling was not added to Section 212(c) until 1990, four
years after her conviction. See p. 2, supra. Petitioner
thus can point to no act or transaction that raises even
the prospect of reasonable reliance.

4. Finally, petitioner also cannot avoid the fact that
the questions she presents involve the retroactive effect
of a statutory repeal that occurred more than 13 years
ago. She identifies 57 court of appeals decisions since
St. Cyr in which she claims “(t]he issue has arisen.” Pet.
14n.6. That list, however, is largely a reflection of the
fact that some immigration cases remain pending for a
long time. Like this case, at least 40 of the cases peti-
tioner cites involved deportation or removal proceedings
that were initiated by the INS before St. Cyr was de-
cided in 2001. Among the remaining cases on peti-

* See Saravia-Paguada v. Gonzales, 488 F.3d 1122, 1124 (9th Cir.
2007) (proceeding began in May 1990), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 2499
(2008); Alvarez-Aceves v. Fasano, 150 Fed. Appx. 596, 597 (9th Cir.
2005) (began in March 1996); Armendariz-Montoya v. Sonchik, 291
F.3d 1116, 1118 (9th Cir. 2002) (began in April 1996); Crump v. Reno,
130 Fed. Appx. 500 (2d Cir. 2005) (began in May 1996; based on Gov't
C.A. Br., 2005 WL 2614749, at *4); Walcott v. Chertoff, 517 F.3d 149, 151
(2d Cir. 2008) (began in July 1996); Matian v. Mukasey, 262 Fed. Appx.
753 (9th Cir. 2007) (began in October 1996; based on Gov't C.A. Br.,
2005 WL 5302167); Restrepo v. McElroy, 369 F.8d 627, 680 (2d Cir.
2004) (began in October 1996); Raya-Baez v. INS, 63 Fed. Appx. 381
(9th Cir. 2003) (began in November 1996; based on Gov’t C.A. Br., 2008
WL 21471678, at *4); Johnson v. Holder, 564 F.3d 95, 97 (2d Cir. 2009)
(began in Decemher 1996), petition for cert. pending, No. 09-7909 (filed
Oct. 8, 2009); Montenegro v. Ashcroft, 355 F.3d 1035 (7th Cir. 2004)
(began in January 1997; based on Gov't C.A. Br., 2003 WL 23336264, at
*5); Chambers v. Reno, 307 F.3d 284, 287 (4th Cir. 2002) (began in April
1997); Serrano-Salcedo v. Ashcroft, 56 Fed. Appx. 803 (9th Cir. 2003)
(began in May 1997; based on Pet. C.A. Br., 2002 WL 32112814, at *3);
Lopez-Lopez v. Mukasey, 285 Fed. Appx. 440 (9th Cir. 2008) (began in
June 1997; based on Gov't C.A. Br., 2006 WL 2450818, at *4); Atkinson

v. Attorney Gen., 479 F.3d 222, 224 (3d Cir. 2007) (began in June 1997);
Singh v. Keisler, 255 Fed. Appx. 710, 712 (4th Cir. 2007) (began in June
1997); Quinones-Saucedo v. Ashcroft, 83 Fed. Appx. 865 (9th Cir. 2003)
(began in August 1997; based on Pet. C.A. Br., 20083 WL 22717151, at
*4); Wilson v. Gonzales, 471 F.3d 111, 113 (2d Cir. 2006) (began in
November 1997); Haque v. Holder, 312 Fed. Appx. 946 (9th Cir. 2009)
(began in 1997; based on Gov't C.A. Br., 2006 WL 5211835, at *7); Mor-
gorichev v. Mukasey, 274 Fed. Appx. 98, 99-100 (2d Cir. 2008) (began
in 1997), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 2424 (2009); Carranza-De Salinas v.
Gonzales, 477 F.3d 200, 203 (5th Cir. 2007) (began in 1997); Appel v.
Gonzales, 146 Fed. Appx. 175 (9th Cir. 2005) (began in 1997; based on
Pet. C.A. Br., 2004 WL 5469141, at *5), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1051
(2006); Manea v. Mukasey, 301 Fed. Appx. 589 (9th Cir. 2008) (began
before February 1998; based on Pet. C.A. Br., 2008 WL 2647725, at *4);
Pugliese v. Gonzales, 174 Fed. Appx. 601 (2d Cir. 2006) (began in March
1998; based on Gov’t C.A. Br., 2005 WL 5166523); Evangelista v. Ash-
croft, 359 F.3d 145, 148 (2d Cir. 2004) (began in April 1998), cert. denied,
543 U.S. 1145 (2005); Rankine v. Reno, 319 F.3d 93, 96 (2d Cir. 2003)
(began in May 1998), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 910 (2003); Thom v. Ash-
croft, 369 F.3d 158, 160 (2d Cir. 2004) (began in June 1998), cert. denied,
546 U.S. 828 (2005); Garcia v. Fasano, 62 Fed. Appx. 816 (9th Cir. 2003)
(began in August 1998; based on Pet. C.A. Br., 2002 WL 32118430, at
*3); Singh v. Mukasey, 520 F.3d 119, 121 (2d Cir. 2008) (began in Janu-
ary 1999); Tecat v. Gonzales, 188 Fed. Appx. 308 (5th Cir. 2006) (began
in March 1999; based on Gov’t C.A. Br. at 5 (No. 05-60480)); Fvange-
lista v. Attorney Gen., 176 Fed. Appx. 306, 308 (8d Cir. 2006) (began in
April 1999); Kelava v. Gonzales, 434 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir.) (began in June
1999: based on Gov’t C.A. Br., 2004 WL 3202731, at *3), cert. denied,
549 U.S. 810 (2006); Trevor v. Reno, 88 Fed. Appx. 445, 445 (2d Cir.
2004) (necessarily began before order of removal issued in July 1999);
Swaby v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 156, 158 (2d Cir. 2004) (began in August
1999); Theodoropoulos v. INS, 358 F.3d 162, 165 (2d Cir.) (began in
September 1999), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 823 (2004); Berishaj v. Gon-
zales, 238 Fed. Appx. 275 (9th Cir. 2007) (began in October 1999; based
on Pet. C.A. Br., 2006 WL 2983803); Hem v. Maurer, 458 F.3d 1185,
1187 (10th Cir. 2006) (began in November 1999); Sidhu v. Gonzales, 179
Fed. Appx. 221, 223 (5th Cir.) (began in 1999), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 993
(2006); United States v. Munoz-Recillas, 224 Fed. Appx. 621, 623 (9th
Cir.) (began in 2000), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 189 (2007); Ponnapula v.

17

tioner’s list, one involved a post-AEDPA conviction,’ and
only eight involved immigration proceedings that were
initiated after 2002.°

To be sure, there are other cases already in the pipe-
line, but the numbers are diminishing. Petitioner's
amici cite (at 15) statistics about the frequency with
which Section 212(c) relief has been granted in the last
several years. That number declined from 1905 grants
in FY 2004 to 1049 grants in FY 2008. See Exec. Office
for Immigration Review, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, F'Y 2008
Statistical Year Book Table 15, at R3 (2009) . Although
the Statistical Year Book for F'Y 2009 has not yet been
published, the corresponding number for F'Y 2009 is ex-
pected to be 858 grants—reflecting a 55% decline since

Ashcroft, 373 F.3d 480, 485 (3d Cir. 2004) (began in October 2009); J/aw-
Shi Wang v. Ashcroft, 71 Fed. Appx. 624 (9th Cir. 2003) (necessarily be-
gan before charge of removability was sustained in October 2000; based
on Gov't C.A. Br., 2003 WL 21956383, at *3).

° United States v. De Horta Garcia, 519 F.3d 658 (7th Cir.), cert.
denied, 129 S. Ct. 489 (2008).

® Cerbacio-Diaz v. Gonzales, 234 Fed. Appx. 583 (9th Cir. 2007) (pro-
ceeding began in June 2003; based on Gov't C.A. Br., 2006 WL 4032551,
at *7); Gallardo v. Mukasey, 279 Fed. Appx. 484 (9th Cir. 2008) (began
in October 2003; based on Gov't C.A. Br., 2006 WL 2628033, at *4); Es-
quivel v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 919, 920 (7th Cir. 2008) (began in Septem-
ber 2004); Cruz-Garcia v. Mukasey, 285 Fed. Appx. 446 (9th Cir. 2008)
(began in November 2004; based on Gov’t C.A. Br., 2007 WL 1225610,
at *3), cert. denied, 129S. Ct. 2424 (2009); Nadal-Ginard v. Holder, 558
F.3d 61, 64 (1st Cir. 2009) (began in 2004); Martinez-Murillo v. Mu
kasey, 267 Fed. Appx. 519 (9th Cir. 2008) (began in January 2005; based
on Pet. C.A. Br., 2006 WL 4044532, at *6); Garcia-Ortiz v. Gonzales,
194 Fed. Appx. 513 (10th Cir. 2006) (began in January 2005; based on
Gov't C.A. Br., 2006 WL 6086256, at *4); Prieto-Romero v. Mukasey,
304 Fed. Appx. 512 (9th Cir. 2008) (began in February 2005; based on
Gov't C.A. Br., 2008 WL 486772, at *5).

13

FY 2004. Similarly, according to other unpublished sta-
tistics compiled by the Executive Office of Immigration
Review, the number of applications for Section 212(c)
relief has fallen dramatically. In FY 2004, there were
2617 applications; in FY 2008, there were 1281; and in
FY 2009, there were 576. That reflects a 78% decline
since FY 2004—and a 55% decline since FY 2008. More-
over, because most criminal defendants plead guilty, the
number of aliens affected by the general rule in the cir-
cuits that Section 212(c) does not apply to an alien who
was convicted after a trial would be only a small fraction
of those numbers.’

Thus, there is still every reason to believe that this
is an issue of diminishing prospective importance—and
one that is already of considerably less current impor-
tance than it was when the government sought this
Court’s review in St. Cyr nearly ten years ago. See Pet.
13.

Petitioner’s amici also describe (at 6-11) scenarios in which aliens
with pre-1996 convictions may find themselves placed in removal! pro
ceedings, including instances when they return from travel abroad,
apply for citizenship, or renew their permanent residency or “green”
cards. Because green cards issued after 1989 expire after ten years, see
54 Fed. Reg 47,586 (1989), nearly all lawful permanent residents who
are removable on the basis of pre-IIRIRA convictions have already
been exposed to immigration authorities at some point since 2000—
which further shrinks the poo! of those who might still have new pro-
ceedings initiated against them on the basis of pre-1996 convictions.

19

CONCLUSION
Che petition for a writ of certiorari should be denied

Respectfully submitted.

ELENA KAGAN
Solicitor General
TONY WEST
Assistant Attorney General
DONALD E. KEENER
ANDREW C. MACLACHLAN
Attorneys

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386017_0941%3A3. Public record. Not legal advice.