Fajardo Sotelo v. Gonzales ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                  FOR PUBLICATION
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    SERGIO FAJARDO SOTELO; PRISCA         
    RAMIREZ ALEMAN; YADIRA BETZAVE                No. 03-74083
    FAJARDO ALEMAN,                               Agency Nos.
    Petitioners,
    v.                           A72-538-378
    A72-538-379
    ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney                 A72-538-380
    General,                                       OPINION
    Respondent.
    
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Argued and Submitted
    September 16, 2005—Pasadena, California
    Filed October 21, 2005
    Before: Jerome Farris, David R. Thompson, and
    Jay S. Bybee, Circuit Judges.
    Opinion by Judge Farris
    14449
    14452                 SOTELO v. GONZALES
    COUNSEL
    Murray D. Hilts, San Diego, California, for the petitioners-
    appellants.
    S. Nicole Nardone and Leslie McKay, United States Depart-
    ment of Justice, Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litiga-
    tion, Washington, D.C., for the respondent-appellee.
    OPINION
    FARRIS, Circuit Judge:
    Petitioners challenge the Board of Immigration Appeals’
    denial of their motion to reopen deportation proceedings. The
    motion was made in an attempt to avail themselves of the
    class action settlement approved in Barahona-Gomez v. Ash-
    croft, 
    243 F. Supp. 2d 1029
     (N.D. Cal. 2002). That settlement
    permitted eligible immigrants to apply for suspension of
    deportation under the law as it existed prior to the Illegal
    Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of
    1996, Pub. L. No. 104-208, 
    110 Stat. 3009
    , as amended by
    Pub. L. No. 104-302, 
    110 Stat. 3656
     (1996) (IIRIRA). The
    record indicates that petitioners are not Barahona-Gomez
    class members and therefore are not entitled to this relief. The
    BIA did not err in denying their motion to reopen.
    I
    Petitioners Sergio Fajardo Sotelo, his wife Prisca Ramirez
    Aleman, and their daughter Yadira Betzave Fajardo Aleman,
    SOTELO v. GONZALES                         14453
    all natives and citizens of Mexico, entered the United States
    without inspection in August 1989. Less than six years later,
    on March 10, 1995, they were served with an Order to Show
    Cause and charged with entering the country without inspec-
    tion. Deportation proceedings were commenced against them.
    Petitioners conceded deportability and subsequently applied
    for asylum and withholding of removal.
    Following a November 1995 hearing, an Immigration
    Judge denied petitioners’ application. A timely appeal was
    filed with the BIA on December 8, 1995. On February 11,
    1998 the BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision and dismissed the
    appeal. Review of the BIA’s dismissal was not sought; rather
    petitioners filed, on March 6, 1998, a motion to reopen their
    deportation proceedings, seeking suspension of deportation
    based on their accrual of seven years of continuous physical
    presence in the United States during the pendency of their
    appeal.
    On August 5, 1999 the BIA denied petitioners’ motion to
    reopen based on section 309(c)(5) of the IIRIRA, which
    amended the suspension of deportation provisions such that
    any period of continuous physical presence in the United
    States is terminated when an alien is served with notice and
    placed in removal proceedings. This is commonly known as
    the “stop time” rule.1 Compare 
    8 U.S.C. § 1254
    (a) (1996)
    1
    “Before IIRIRA, an alien was eligible for suspension of deportation if
    (1) he or she ‘ha[d] been physically present in the United States for a con-
    tinuous period of not less than seven years immediately preceding the date
    of [the] application’ for suspension of deportation; (2) he or she was a
    ‘person of good moral character’; and (3) deportation would result in
    ‘extreme hardship’ to the alien or to an immediate family member who
    was a U.S. citizen or a lawful permanent resident.” Guadalupe-Cruz v.
    INS, 
    240 F.3d 1209
    , 1210 n.2 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Immigration and
    Nationality Act § 244(a)(1), 
    8 U.S.C. § 1254
    (a)(1) (1994)). Furthermore,
    “[b]efore IIRIRA, aliens accrued time toward the continuous physical
    presence in the United States requirement until they applied for suspension
    of deportation. Commencement of deportation proceedings had no effect
    on this accrual.” Id. at n.3 (internal quotation marks omitted).
    14454                 SOTELO v. GONZALES
    (repealed 1996) with 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229b(b)(1), 1229b(d)(1).
    The IIRIRA amendments took effect on April 1, 1997, while
    petitioners’ asylum appeal was pending before the BIA. Since
    Fajardo Sotelo and his family were placed in deportation pro-
    ceedings when fewer than six years had passed since their
    entry from Mexico, the BIA concluded that they were not eli-
    gible for suspension of deportation under the amended law.
    The petitioners did not seek review.
    In June 2003 petitioners again moved to reopen their depor-
    tation proceedings claiming they were entitled to apply for
    “renewed suspension” of deportation under pre-IIRIRA rules
    as eligible class beneficiaries of the class action settlement
    approved in Barahona-Gomez, 
    243 F. Supp. 2d 1029
    . On
    October 10, 2003 the BIA concluded that petitioners were not
    eligible for relief under the Barahona-Gomez settlement and
    denied their second motion to reopen. Petitioners seek review
    of this decision.
    II
    We have jurisdiction over this appeal under the IIRIRA’s
    transitional rules. See IIRIRA § 309(c)(1); Arrozal v. INS, 
    159 F.3d 429
    , 431-32 (9th Cir. 1998) (“Sarmadi supports a finding
    that the [IIRIRA] transitional rules do not deny this court
    jurisdiction over motions to reopen.” (citing Sarmadi v. INS,
    
    121 F.3d 1319
    , 1320, 1322 (9th Cir. 1997))). We review the
    BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for an abuse of discretion,
    “although de novo review applies to the BIA’s determination
    of purely legal questions.” Mejia v. Ashcroft, 
    298 F.3d 873
    ,
    876 (9th Cir. 2002). Our review of the interpretation of settle-
    ment agreements is also de novo and is governed by princi-
    ples of state contract law. See Botefur v. City of Eagle Point,
    Or., 
    7 F.3d 152
    , 156-57 (9th Cir. 1993). Whether petitioners
    are entitled to relief under the Barahona-Gomez settlement is
    a question of law and our review is de novo.
    SOTELO v. GONZALES                   14455
    III
    [1] The Barahona-Gomez settlement was reached to
    resolve a dispute over two directives issued by the BIA Chair-
    man and Chief Immigration Judge in anticipation of the
    IIRIRA amendments. These directives instructed Immigration
    Judges and the BIA not to issue decisions or consider appeals
    resulting in suspension of deportation between February 13
    and April 1, 1997, the effective date of IIRIRA. See
    Barahona-Gomez v. Reno, 
    167 F.3d 1228
    , 1232 (9th Cir.
    1999), supplemented by 
    236 F.3d 1115
    , 1117 (9th Cir. 2001).
    As a result, some immigrants who would have had their sus-
    pension of deportation claims heard under pre-IIRIRA law
    during this period were rendered ineligible by the stop time
    rule when their cases were heard after April 1, 1997. As a
    class these immigrants challenged the delay caused by the two
    directives and the parties eventually agreed to settle the claim
    by permitting eligible class members to reapply for suspen-
    sion of deportation under the law as it existed before the stop
    time amendment. See Barahona-Gomez, 
    243 F. Supp. 2d at 1033
    .
    [2] Despite petitioners’ arguments, they are not persons
    entitled to relief under the terms of the Barahona-Gomez set-
    tlement. The settlement contains two provisions that define
    persons entitled to relief — a “Definition of the Class” and a
    “Definition of ‘Eligible class members.’ ” While the parties
    expend most of their efforts arguing whether Fajardo Sotelo
    and his family are “Eligible class members” entitled to relief,
    this emphasis overlooks a necessary preliminary determina-
    tion of class membership. Under the plain meaning of the set-
    tlement no person can be a “class member[ ] . . . eligible for
    the relief provided . . . by this agreement” if they do not first
    fall within the “Definition of the Class.” Barahona-Gomez,
    
    243 F. Supp. 2d at 1030-31
    ; see 
    Cal. Civ. Code § 1638
     (“The
    language of a contract is to govern its interpretation, if the
    language is clear and explicit, and does not involve an absur-
    dity.”); Botefur, 
    7 F.3d at 156
     (“The interpretation of a settle-
    14456                 SOTELO v. GONZALES
    ment agreement is governed by principles of state contract
    law. This is so even where a federal cause of action is settled
    or released.” (internal citations and quotations omitted)). Only
    if petitioners are class members can we then decide whether
    they are class members eligible for relief.
    [3] In Section I(B) the Barahona-Gomez settlement defines
    the class as follows:
    all persons who have had (or would have had) sus-
    pension of deportation hearings conducted before
    April 1, 1997, within the jurisdiction of the Ninth
    Circuit Court of Appeals, and who were served an
    Order to Show Cause within seven years after enter-
    ing the United States, where:
    (a) the immigration judge reserved or withheld
    granting suspension of deportation on the basis of
    the . . . directive from Defendant Chief Immigration
    Judge . . . ; or
    (b) the suspension of deportation hearing was con-
    cluded prior to April 1, 1997, the INS has appealed
    or will appeal, at any time, on a basis that includes
    the applicability of [the IIRIRA], and the case was
    affected by the . . . directive[s] . . . ; or
    (c) the Board of Immigration Appeals . . . has or had
    jurisdiction but withheld granting suspension of
    deportation (or reopening or remanding a case for
    consideration of an application for suspension of
    deportation) before April 1, 1997 on the basis of the
    . . . directive from Defendant Board Chairman . . . .
    Barahona-Gomez, 
    243 F. Supp. 2d at 1030-31
     (emphasis
    added). This definition makes plain that to be a member of the
    Barahona-Gomez class an immigrant must show that 1) he or
    she had a suspension of deportation hearing before April 1,
    SOTELO v. GONZALES                        14457
    1997 (or would have had a hearing but for the directives at
    issue), and 2) where a case was before the BIA, that before
    April 1, 1997 the BIA withheld granting suspension of depor-
    tation (or a motion to reopen or remand for the purpose of
    hearing an application for suspension of deportation) because
    of a challenged directive.
    [4] Petitioners fail to meet either “Definition of the Class”
    element and are not members of this class. They did not have
    a suspension of deportation hearing before April 1, 1997, nor
    would they have had a hearing if the challenged directives had
    not been issued. Petitioners did not seek suspension of depor-
    tation until their March 6, 1998 motion to reopen deportation
    proceedings. They also failed to meet Section I(B)(c) of the
    settlement. The BIA did not “withhold” reopening petitioners
    deportation proceedings before April 1, 1997 — the BIA
    denied the motion to reopen on August 5, 1999. Nor did the
    BIA “withhold” any consideration of the motion to reopen or
    petitioners’ eligibility for suspension of deportation on the
    basis of either directive. The BIA denied petitioners’ motions
    to reopen on the ground that they failed to accrue seven years
    of continuous presence in the United States under the
    IIRIRA’s stop time rule, which had taken effect before the
    motion was made.2 Thus, the BIA made a decision on the
    merits of petitioners’ motion, not a decision to “withhold”
    relief based on any directive challenged in Barahona-Gomez.
    Since petitioners are not members of the Barahona-Gomez
    class, they are not entitled to any relief contained in the settle-
    ment agreement.
    2
    We also reject petitioners argument that the BIA erred in applying the
    IIRIRA’s stop time rule under Guadalupe-Cruz v. INS, 
    240 F.3d 1209
     (9th
    Cir. 2001). In Guadalupe-Cruz an Immigration Judge applied the stop
    time rule before the IIRIRA took effect on April 1, 1997. Here, petitioners
    first moved to reopen deportation proceedings in March 1998 and the BIA
    denied the motion in August 1999, well after the stop time rule became
    law. There was no error.
    14458                 SOTELO v. GONZALES
    This interpretation is consistent with the purpose of the
    Barahona-Gomez settlement. The plaintiffs in that case suf-
    fered harm as a result of the delay caused by the directives of
    the Chief Immigration Judge and BIA Chairman. See
    Barahona-Gomez, 
    167 F.3d at 1233
    . The remedy won in the
    settlement is simply the opportunity to have their applications
    for suspension of deportation heard under the law which
    would have governed but for the delay. See Barahona-Gomez,
    
    243 F. Supp. 2d at 1033
    . It would be incongruous to afford
    the same remedy to immigrants who were not harmed because
    they did not have a suspension of deportation claim pending
    while the directives were in effect. A contrary result would
    create an exception to the application of IIRIRA’s stop time
    rule neither contemplated by Congress nor sanctioned by any
    court approved settlement.
    [5] Since petitioners are not entitled to relief based on class
    membership they cannot be “Eligible class members” under
    the settlement agreement.
    AFFIRMED