Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

CA9 Limits Hernandez-Arias (Admission; IRCA)

August 05, 2014 (1 min read)

"The opinion filed on March 21, 2014 is hereby amended as follows:

Following page 12, first full paragraph, the following footnote is appended:

3 Our review in this case is confined to the operation of IRCA and its unique implementing regulations. Our disposition of this case does not contradict Hing Sum v. Holder, 602 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2010), which holds that the
word “admission,” either at the border or through adjustment of status or some other administrative process, generally refers to a procedural event rather than a substantive status. Id. at 1096; see also id. at 1099–1101 (tracing the evolution of the statutory definition of “admission”). Just as Congress had authority to adopt an admission-based removal system over an entry-based deportation system in the Illegal Immigration and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, so too did it have the authority to dictate the specific contours of IRCA’s temporary resident provisions, which include an adjustment of status process (and a regulatory definition of “admission”) unknown elsewhere in immigration law.

Accordingly, we limit the effect of our holding and our discussion of rescission and termination of status to those admissions arising under the provisions for adjustment to lawful temporary resident status authorized by 8 U.S.C.
§ 1255a(a) and implemented at 8 C.F.R. § 245a.2. 

With this amendment, the panel votes to deny the Petition for Rehearing En Banc." - U.S. v. Hernandez-Arias, Aug. 5, 2014.