Pina-Galindo v. Lynch, No. 14-60752 (5th Cir. 2015)

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitioned for review of the BIA's finding that he is statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)(1)(C). Petitioner contends that, because that subsection provides that an alien convicted of “an offense under [8 U.S.C.] 1182(a)(2)” is not eligible for cancellation of removal, the plain reading of the statute shows that only aliens who have been convicted of a single offense for a crime involving moral turpitude or a controlled-substance offense, as set forth in section 1182(a)(2)(A), are ineligible for cancellation of removal. The court denied the petition, concluding that, even if there is ambiguity, the BIA’s construction of sections 1182(a)(2)(B) and 1229b(b)(1)(C) in the instant case is a reasonable interpretation of the statutory language that is entitled to deference. The BIA noted that although it had consistently found that the language of section 1229b(b)(1)(C) included all the offenses listed in section 1182(a)(2), its prior decisions were not necessarily dispositive because they had involved aliens who were ineligible under section 1182(a)(2)(A). The BIA, assuming that the statute was ambiguous, examined the legislative history and determined that petitioner's argument on that point was unpersuasive.