Crespo v. Holder

PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

FRANKLIN EDUARDO CRESPO, 
Petitioner,
v.
 No. 09-2214
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney
General,
Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an
Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Argued: October 28, 2010

Decided: January 11, 2011

Before SHEDD and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and
HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition for review granted by published opinion. Judge
Shedd wrote the opinion, in which Judge Duncan and Senior
Judge Hamilton joined.

COUNSEL

ARGUED: Dree Kristin Collopy, MAGGIO & KATTAR,
Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. James Eugene Grimes, Jr.,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washing-
ton, D.C., for Respondent. ON BRIEF: Tony West, Assistant
2 CRESPO v. HOLDER
Attorney General, Civil Division, Linda S. Wernery, Assistant
Director, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.,
for Respondent.

OPINION

SHEDD, Circuit Judge:

Franklin Eduardo Crespo, a citizen and native of Peru, peti-
tions for review of the denial of his 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h)
waiver. Crespo contends that the Board of Immigration
Appeals (BIA) erred in determining that a 1997 adjudication
under Virginia Code § 18.2-251 for possession of marijuana
qualified as a "conviction" under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(48)(A).
Because the plain language of § 1101(a)(48)(A) does not
encompass Crespo’s 1997 adjudication, we grant the petition
for review and remand the case to the BIA for further pro-
ceedings.

I.

Crespo entered the United States with a B-2 tourist visa in
1997. He overstayed this visa and remained in the United
States, where he eventually married Diane Marie Duran, a
United States citizen. Duran filed an I-130 Petition for Alien
Relative on Crespo’s behalf but, at some point, the marriage
dissolved and the Immigration and Naturalization Service
(INS) denied the petition.

In response, the INS issued Crespo a "notice to appear" on
October 24, 2000, and later detained him in 2006 after Crespo
pled guilty to assault and battery in Fairfax, Virginia. In 2001,
prior to his detention, Crespo fathered a child with Rachel
Crawford, a United States citizen. Following his release from
detention in September 2006, he and Crawford married.
 CRESPO v. HOLDER 3
In January 2007, Crawford filed an I-130 Petition for Alien
Relative on behalf of Crespo, and Crespo filed an I-485
Application to Adjust Status. After the I-130 petition was
approved, Crespo sought a § 212(h) waiver1. Crespo’s case
was assigned to an Immigration Judge (IJ), who heard testi-
mony regarding Crespo’s good character from Crawford,
Crespo’s criminal defense attorney, and Crespo’s sister. In a
written decision, the IJ determined that Crespo was ineligible
for § 212(h) relief because he had two convictions for mari-
juana possession: October 24, 1997 in Virginia and January
31, 2005 in Washington, D.C. Relevant here, the IJ deter-
mined that Crespo’s 1997 prosecution, which occurred pursu-
ant to Virginia Code § 18.2-251, counted as a "conviction" for
immigration purposes under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(48)(A) even
though it was a deferred adjudication. In the alternative, the
IJ concluded that Crespo did not warrant a waiver under
§ 212(h) because he failed to satisfy the extreme hardship
standard.

Crespo filed a timely appeal with the BIA. The BIA dis-
missed Crespo’s appeal, agreeing with the IJ that the 1997
adjudication counted as a "conviction" and that Crespo was
thus ineligible for a § 212(h) waiver. The BIA further con-
cluded that it "need not address" whether Crespo satisfied the
extreme hardship standard in § 212(h) or otherwise merited
discretionary relief. (J.A. at 4). This petition for review fol-
lowed.
1
A § 212(h) waiver is available for someone who is otherwise inadmis-
sible to the United States because of a previous conviction, as long as the
conviction was for, inter alia, a "single offense of simple possession of 30
grams or less of marijuana." 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h). The petitioning alien
must also show that his removal would result in extreme hardship for a
United States citizen or lawfully resident spouse, child, or parent. 8 U.S.C.
§ 1182(h)(1)(B).
4 CRESPO v. HOLDER
II.

In his petition, Crespo challenges the BIA’s determination
that his 1997 adjudication under Virginia Code § 18.2-251
constitutes a conviction under § 1101(a)(48)(A). This chal-
lenge raises a purely legal question regarding the BIA’s inter-
pretation of an immigration statute and our review is thus
subject to the familiar standard of Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v.
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837
(1984). "Under this standard, we initially examine the statu-
tory language, and if Congress has spoken clearly on the pre-
cise question at issue, the statutory language controls;
however, if the statute is silent or ambiguous, we defer to the
BIA’s interpretation if it is reasonable." Ramirez v. Holder,
609 F.3d 331, 334 (4th Cir. 2010).

A.

Crespo argues that the plain language of § 1101(a)(48)(A)
supports his argument that his adjudication does not constitute
a "conviction." In contrast, the Government contends that the
unambiguous language supports the BIA’s conclusion and
that, to the extent the statute is ambiguous, the BIA’s interpre-
tation is reasonable given Congressional intent.

"When interpreting statutes we start with the plain lan-
guage." U.S. Dep’t of Labor v. N.C. Growers Ass’n, 377 F.3d
345, 350 (4th Cir. 2004). "It is well established that when the
statute’s language is plain, the sole function of the courts-at
least where the disposition required by the text is not absurd-
is to enforce it according to its terms." Lamie v. United States
Tr., 540 U.S. 526, 534 (2004) (internal quotation marks omit-
ted). In interpreting the plain language of a statute, we give
the terms their "ordinary, contemporary, common meaning,
absent an indication Congress intended [it] to bear some dif-
ferent import." North Carolina ex rel. Cooper v. Tenn. Valley
Auth., 515 F.3d 344, 351 (4th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation
marks omitted).
 CRESPO v. HOLDER 5
We thus start with the language of the relevant statute,
which provides:

(48)(A) The term "conviction" means, with respect
to an alien, a formal judgment of guilt of the alien
entered by a court or, if adjudication of guilt has
been withheld, where—

(i) a judge or jury has found the alien guilty or the
alien has entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere
or has admitted sufficient facts to warrant a finding
of guilt, and

(ii) the judge has ordered some form of punishment,
penalty, or restraint on the alien’s liberty to be
imposed.

8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(48)(A).

Section 1101(a)(48)(A) "leaves nothing to the imagina-
tion." Herrera-Inirio v. I.N.S., 208 F.3d 299, 304 (1st Cir.
2000). That is, the statute "unambiguously encompasses
within the definition of ‘conviction’ situations in which adju-
dications of guilt have been withheld, as long as the defen-
dant’s guilt has been established by a trial, plea, or admission,
and a judicial officer orders some form of punishment, pen-
alty, or restraint on the defendant’s liberty." Id.2

Crespo’s 1997 adjudication was pursuant to Virginia Code
§ 18.2-251, which applies to a first offender who "pleads
2
The legislative history also supports this reading of § 1101(a)(48)(A):
This new provision . . . clarifies Congressional intent that even
in cases where adjudication is "deferred," the original finding or
confession of guilt is sufficient to establish a "conviction" for
purposes of the immigration laws.
H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 104-828, at 224 (1996), quoted in Moosa v. I.N.S.,
171 F.3d 994, 1002 (5th Cir. 1999).
6 CRESPO v. HOLDER
guilty to or enters a plea of not guilty to possession of . . .
marijuana." Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-251. After such a plea, "if
the facts found by the court would justify a finding of guilt,"
the court may, "without entering a judgment of guilt," instead
"defer further proceedings and place" the offender on proba-
tion. Id. In his case, Crespo pled not guilty to the offense and
the judge found facts justifying a finding of guilt and deferred
adjudication over the Commonwealth’s objection. Crespo was
sentenced to one year of probation, which he served without
incident.

B.

In his petition for review, Crespo and the Government
agree that § 1101(a)(48)(A) creates two prongs for finding a
conviction. See also Griffiths v. I.N.S., 243 F.3d 45, 52 (1st
Cir. 2001). The first prong covers situations in which there
has been a "formal judgment of guilt," a circumstance the par-
ties agree did not occur in this case. Id. The second prong
covers deferred adjudications "and requires the presence of
additional elements." Id. "The language of the statute as to the
second prong requires two elements—(i) [a] sufficient finding
of support for a conclusion of guilt, and (ii) the imposition of
some form of punishment." Id. at 53.

Our review in this case focuses only on the first require-
ment—whether there was some sufficient finding of guilt to
satisfy § 1101(a)(48)(A)(i). A plain reading of the statute con-
firms that there was not. Subsection (i) specifies five suffi-
cient findings: a finding of guilt by a judge or jury (i.e., a
trial), a plea of guilt, a plea of no contest, or an admission by
the alien of facts sufficient to find guilt. As Crespo correctly
notes, none of these five possibilities occurred in his case
because neither a judge nor a jury found him guilty after a
trial and he did not plead guilty or no contest or admit to any
facts, let alone facts sufficient to warrant a finding of guilt.

For its part, the Government suggests that the judicial find-
ing of facts sufficient to justify a finding of guilt made by the
 CRESPO v. HOLDER 7
judge under § 18.2-251 is the functional equivalent of a judge
finding the alien "guilty" as required under
§ 1101(a)(48)(A)(i). One difficulty with the Government’s
argument is that, if the judge finding the alien "guilty" was
intended to encompass Crespo’s situation then the phrase "or
has admitted sufficient facts to warrant a finding of guilt"
would be rendered superfluous since an alien’s plea of guilty
would likewise encompass such an admission. We are loathe
to contradict the established principle that "[s]tatutes must be
interpreted . . . to give each word some operative effect." See
Walters v. Metro. Educ. Enters., 519 U.S. 202, 209 (1997).
Instead, § 1101(a)(48)(A)(i) is most naturally read to "unam-
biguously encompass[ ] . . . situations in which . . . the defen-
dant’s guilt has been established by a trial, plea, or
admission." Herrera-Inirio, 208 F.3d at 304 (emphasis
added). None of those situations occurred in Crespo’s case.

Indeed, the language and design of § 1101(a)(48)(A), in its
entirety, makes clear that Congress intended a judge’s finding
of guilt to be a far different scenario than a judge finding facts
sufficient to find guilt. By listing five specific situations
which constitute a sufficient finding of guilt, Congress drew
a line. The Government may be right that Congress would
have drawn the line differently if it had been aware of a case
like Crespo’s, but Congress did not do so and "the fact the
line might have been drawn differently at some points is a
matter for legislative, rather than judicial, consideration." U.S.
R.R. Retirement Bd. v. Fritz, 449 U.S. 166, 179 (1980).

C.

In an effort to contradict this plain language, the Govern-
ment first points us to United States v. Campbell, 980 F.2d
245 (4th Cir. 1992), in which we held that an adjudication
under § 18.2-251 counted as a "prior conviction" under 21
U.S.C. § 841. There are at least two critical distinctions that
render Campbell unpersuasive. First, the phrase "final convic-
tion" did not have a specific statutory definition like the one
8 CRESPO v. HOLDER
provided by § 1101(a)(48)(A). Second, it is unclear from
Campbell whether the defendant in that case entered a plea of
guilty or a plea of not guilty under § 18.2-251.3 This distinc-
tion is important because even Crespo concedes that, if he had
pled guilty under § 18.2-251 and had his sentence deferred,
the adjudication would qualify as a conviction under
§ 1101(a)(48)(A) and he would not be eligible for the
§ 212(h) waiver.

In addition,4 the Government suggests that its reading of the
statute best satisfies the Congressional purpose in enacting
§ 1101(a)(48)(A)—to promote uniformity by ensuring "the
definition of the term ‘conviction’ . . . not be dependent on the
vagaries of State law," Matter of Punu, 22 I. & N. Dec. 224,
229 (BIA 1998), and to make it "‘easier to remove criminal
aliens, regardless of specific procedures in States for deferred
adjudications,’" id. (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 104-879 (1997)).
According to the Government, the Conference Report
explained, "aliens who have clearly been guilty of criminal
behavior and whom Congress intended to be considered ‘con-
victed’ have escaped the immigration consequences normally
3
It seems more likely that the defendant in Campbell had pled guilty
under § 18.2-251 because the court equated Virginia’s deferral statute to
that of Michigan, which required either a plea or a finding of guilty for its
operation. See Campbell, 980 F.2d at 250 n.8.
4
In its brief, contrary to its position at oral argument, the Government
also argued that the statute was ambiguous and, accordingly, that we
should defer to the BIA’s interpretation of the statute. Because we believe
the language of § 1101(a)(48)(A) is plain, we do not reach this argument.
We do note, however, that it is far from clear that the BIA actually ren-
dered an interpretation in this case. The IJ’s analysis of Crespo’s argument
consisted of a single sentence in which it concluded, without further expla-
nation, that "[a]ny distinction that may exist between ‘facts sufficient to
find’ guilt and a finding of guilt by a judge or jury" was "not material
under the INA." (J.A. at 98). The BIA "agreed" with the IJ and attached
a string citation to three cases, Matter of Salazar, 23 I. & N. Dec. 223
(BIA 2002), Matter of Roldan, 22 I. & N. Dec. 512 (BIA 1999), and Mat-
ter of Punu, 22 I. & N. Dec. 224 (BIA 1998), none of which address the
Virginia statute at issue in this case.
 CRESPO v. HOLDER 9
attendant upon a conviction" because of "a myriad of provi-
sions [in state laws] for ameliorating the effects of a convic-
tion." H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 104-828, at 224, quoted in Moosa
171 F.3d at 1002. See also Herrera-Inirio, 208 F.3d at 305
(noting Congress enacted § 1101(a)(48)(A) in part to "pro-
duce the desired uniformity").

However, "[the Supreme Court] ha[s] stated time and again
that courts must presume that a legislature says in a statute
what it means and means in a statute what it says there. When
the words of a statute are unambiguous, then, this first canon
is also the last: ‘judicial inquiry is complete.’" Conn. Nat’l
Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249, 253-254 (1992) (quoting
Rubin v. United States, 449 U.S. 424, 430 (1981)) (citations
omitted). Even assuming the Government is correct that Con-
gress would have intended situations like Crespo’s to be cov-
ered by the statute, "if the literal text of the statute produces
a result that is, arguably, somewhat anomalous-we are not
simply free to ignore unambiguous language because we can
imagine a preferable version." Sigmon Coal Co., Inc. v. Apfel,
226 F.3d 291, 308 (4th Cir. 2000), aff’d sub. nom. Barnhart
v. Sigmon Coal Co., 534 U.S. 438 (2002). The Government
is asking us to "improve the statute—to amend it, really," to
include Crespo’s situation. Id.

III.

In this case, performance of our judicial function leads to
a simple result: Congress listed five situations in
§ 1101(a)(48)(A)(i) that constitute a sufficient finding of guilt
to ensure that an alien engaged in criminal behavior. Crespo’s
adjudication under the Virginia deferral statute does not sat-
isfy any of these conditions, and as a result our inquiry must
cease. Accordingly, Crespo’s petition for review is granted
and his case is remanded to the BIA for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion.5
5
We note that, on remand, Crespo still has a high hurdle to overcome
in receiving a § 212(h) waiver because the IJ also found that Crespo had
10 CRESPO v. HOLDER
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED

not met the extreme hardship standard. Inexplicably, despite detailed fact-
finding and analysis from the IJ on this point, the BIA failed to address
this additional ground for denying Crespo relief. We are reviewing only
the BIA’s decision and because the BIA did not address this argument we
decline to do so in the first instance in this case.