Background
Alejandra Montesinos Cisneros, a citizen of El Salvador, entered the United States without inspection in 1985 and later received Temporary Protected Status. After that designation ended, she benefited from Deferred Enforced Departure, an executive program postponing removal. When she returned from authorized travel on December 14, 1994, an immigration officer stamped her passport “Admitted” and added “DED until Dec. 30, 1994.”
Cisneros became a lawful permanent resident in November 2006. After she pleaded guilty to Virginia petit larceny in 2013, the government initiated removal proceedings based on a crime involving moral turpitude. She conceded removability but sought cancellation of removal, which required seven years of continuous U.S. residence after admission “in any status.” The immigration judge and Board of Immigration Appeals concluded that her residence clock did not begin in 1994 and denied relief.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Circuit denied Cisneros’s petition for review. Assuming without deciding that the passport stamp made her 1994 return an “admission,” the majority held that she was not admitted “in any status” under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a)(2). It interpreted “status” as membership in an immigration classification defined by Congress, carrying legal rights or entitlements recognized under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Deferred Enforced Departure did not qualify because it is discretionary executive forbearance rather than a congressionally created immigration status. Cisneros therefore did not begin accruing qualifying residence until she became a lawful permanent resident in November 2006, leaving her short of seven years when she committed petit larceny in February 2013. The majority rejected contrary reasoning from the Fifth and Ninth Circuits that would treat admission without lawful status as admission “in any status.” Judge Thacker dissented.
Key Takeaways
- An admission and an immigration status are distinct requirements under the cancellation-of-removal statute.
- Deferred Enforced Departure does not constitute an immigration status because it rests on executive discretion rather than a classification created by Congress.
- Even assuming Cisneros was admitted when her passport was stamped in 1994, that event did not start the seven-year continuous-residence clock because she held no qualifying status.
Why It Matters
The decision limits lawful permanent residents’ ability to count time spent under Deferred Enforced Departure toward the seven years required for cancellation of removal. In the Fourth Circuit, executive permission to remain temporarily does not itself amount to admission in an immigration status.
The ruling also creates or deepens a circuit disagreement with the Fifth and Ninth Circuits over the breadth of the phrase “admitted in any status,” increasing the significance of the issue for noncitizens whose eligibility for relief depends on periods spent without a congressionally defined status.