Roland Adams v. U.S. Attorney General , 472 F. App'x 898 ( 2012 )

Case: 10-13921 Date Filed: 07/12/2012 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
_____________________________
No. 10-13921
_____________________________
D. C. Docket No. A070-973-237
ROLAND ADAMS,
Petitioner,
versus
U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
_________________________________________
Petition for Review from the
Board of Immigration Appeals
_________________________________________
(July 12, 2012)
Before EDMONDSON and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges, and EDENFIELD,*
District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
*
Honorable B. Avant Edenfield, United States District Judge for the Southern District of
Georgia, sitting by designation.
Case: 10-13921 Date Filed: 07/12/2012 Page: 2 of 3
This case is an immigration case; Petitioner Roland Adams asks us to
review a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming an
immigration judge’s removal order. The removal proceedings are based on
Petitioner’s criminal conviction. At the time of the pertinent criminal conviction,
Petitioner was a naturalized American citizen.1 Later, Petitioner’s citizenship was
revoked; Immigration and Customs Enforcement charged Petitioner as a
removable alien and began removal proceedings against him.
The BIA erred in construing statutory language -- “[a]ny alien who is
convicted of an aggravated felony at any time after admission is deportable,” 8
U.S.C. section 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) (emphasis added) -- to apply to Petitioner. This
issue of pure statutory construction is for courts to decide. See INS v. Cardoza-
Fonseca, 107 S. Ct. 1207, 1221 (1987); cf. United States v. Home Concrete &
Supply, LLC, 132 S. Ct. 1836, 1843 (2012) (involving re-enactment of a statute
after it had been construed by Supreme Court). And given the statute’s wording,
the guidance of Costello v. INS, 84 S. Ct. 580 (1964), the rule of lenity, and
Congress’s long acquiescence in Costello’s construction of the words “‘[a]ny alien
. . . shall . . . be deported who . . . at any time after entry is convicted,’” id. at 581
1
In response to Adams’s petition for review, the government argues for the first time that the
pertinent criminal conviction became final after Petitioner lost his citizenship. By failing to
present this argument to the IJ and to the BIA, the government waived the argument.
2
Case: 10-13921 Date Filed: 07/12/2012 Page: 3 of 3
(emphasis added) (quoting the INA of 1952, ch. 5, § 241(a)(4), 66 Stat. 204(current version at 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i))), we grant the petition for review
and vacate the removal order. The pertinent statute does not apply to a person
who was a naturalized citizen when convicted. Petitioner may not be deported
pursuant to section 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) for this criminal conviction.
PETITION GRANTED; VACATED and REMANDED.
3