{"id":1556,"date":"2020-07-29T20:37:38","date_gmt":"2020-07-29T20:37:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/live-cornell-law-review.pantheonsite.io\/?p=1556"},"modified":"2020-07-29T20:37:38","modified_gmt":"2020-07-29T20:37:38","slug":"making-america-safe-again-the-proper-interpretation-%c2%a7-1101a43s-of-the-immigration-and-nationality-act-from-both-immigration-and-nationality-act-from-both-a-chevron-and-a-public-policy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/2020\/07\/29\/making-america-safe-again-the-proper-interpretation-%c2%a7-1101a43s-of-the-immigration-and-nationality-act-from-both-immigration-and-nationality-act-from-both-a-chevron-and-a-public-policy\/","title":{"rendered":"&#8220;Making America Safe Again&#8221;: The Proper Interpretation \u00a7 1101(A)(43)(S) of the Immigration and Nationality Act From both Immigration and Nationality Act From both a Chevron and a Public Policy Perspective"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>A recent Ninth Circuit decision, <em>Valenzuela Gallardo v. Lynch<\/em>, has created a three-pronged circuit split over the proper interpretation of statutory language in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). In <em>Gallardo<\/em>, the government initiated a deportation action against a Mexican alien residing in the U.S. due to his conviction as an accessory after the fact under California law. <sup class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_1556_1('footnote_plugin_reference_1556_1_1');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_1556_1('footnote_plugin_reference_1556_1_1');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_1556_1_1\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">1<\/sup><\/a><cite class=\"footnote_tooltip\"><span class=\"footnote-inner\">1. 1 Valenzula Gallardo v. Lynch, 818 F.3d 808, 811 (9th Cir. 2016). <\/span><\/cite><\/sup><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_1556_1_1').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_1556_1_1', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The INA provides that any alien convicted of an &#8220;aggravated felony&#8221; is &#8220;deportable.&#8221; <sup class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_1556_1('footnote_plugin_reference_1556_1_2');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_1556_1('footnote_plugin_reference_1556_1_2');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_1556_1_2\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">2<\/sup><\/a><cite class=\"footnote_tooltip\"><span class=\"footnote-inner\">2. 2  8 U.S.C. \u00a7 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) (2012).<\/span><\/cite><\/sup><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_1556_1_2').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_1556_1_2', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> The Act does not statutorily define the term aggravated felony, but instead provides a list of various types of criminal activities that would qualify an alien for deportation. <sup class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_1556_1('footnote_plugin_reference_1556_1_3');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_1556_1('footnote_plugin_reference_1556_1_3');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_1556_1_3\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">3<\/sup><\/a><cite class=\"footnote_tooltip\"><span class=\"footnote-inner\">3. 3 <em>See<\/em> 8 U.S.C. \u00a7 1101(a)(43) (2012).<\/span><\/cite><\/sup><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_1556_1_3').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_1556_1_3', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> One of the provisions in the statute states that a crime &#8220;relating to obstruction of justice, perjury or subornation of perjury, or bribery of a witness, for which the term of imprisonment is at least one year&#8221; makes an alien deportable. <sup class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_1556_1('footnote_plugin_reference_1556_1_4');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_1556_1('footnote_plugin_reference_1556_1_4');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_1556_1_4\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">4<\/sup><\/a><cite class=\"footnote_tooltip\"><span class=\"footnote-inner\">4. 4<em>  Id<\/em>. at \u00a7 1101(a)(43)(S). <\/span><\/cite><\/sup><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_1556_1_4').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_1556_1_4', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> The precise meaning of this language, particularly &#8220;relating to obstruction of justice,&#8221; is arguably vague. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or Board), the agency tasked with hearing appeals of decisions to begin deportation hearings under the INA, has found the phrase &#8220;relating to obstruction of justice&#8221; to be ambiguous and thus open for interpretation under Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. <sup class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_1556_1('footnote_plugin_reference_1556_1_5');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_1556_1('footnote_plugin_reference_1556_1_5');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_1556_1_5\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">5<\/sup><\/a><cite class=\"footnote_tooltip\"><span class=\"footnote-inner\">5. 5 <em>See<\/em> In re Valenzuela Gallardo, 25 I.&amp;N. Dec. 838, 839-40 (B.I.A. 2012); Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984). <\/span><\/cite><\/sup><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_1556_1_5').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_1556_1_5', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> The Board has interpreted the phrase to refer to an &#8220;affirmative and intentional attempt, motivated by a specific intent, to interfere with the process of justice, irrespective of the existence of an ongoing criminal investigation or proceeding.&#8221; <sup class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_1556_1('footnote_plugin_reference_1556_1_6');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_1556_1('footnote_plugin_reference_1556_1_6');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_1556_1_6\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">6<\/sup><\/a><cite class=\"footnote_tooltip\"><span class=\"footnote-inner\">6. 6 Chevron, 467 U.S. at 838.<\/span><\/cite><\/sup><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_1556_1_6').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_1556_1_6', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Fifth Circuit has deferred to this interpretation as reasonable under the Chevron doctrine. <sup class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_1556_1('footnote_plugin_reference_1556_1_7');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_1556_1('footnote_plugin_reference_1556_1_7');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_1556_1_7\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">7<\/sup><\/a><cite class=\"footnote_tooltip\"><span class=\"footnote-inner\">7. 7 <em>See<\/em> United States v. Gamboa-Garcia, 620 F.3d 546, 549-50 (5th Cir. 2010). <\/span><\/cite><\/sup><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_1556_1_7').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_1556_1_7', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> The Ninth Circuit in Gallardo, however, refused to defer to the BIA&#8217;s interpretation. Instead, they applied the doctrine of &#8220;constitutional avoidance&#8221; to hold that Congress had no intention of allowing the Board to interpret the statute as stretching to the limits of the Constitution, and remanded the case back to the BIA. <sup class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_1556_1('footnote_plugin_reference_1556_1_8');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_1556_1('footnote_plugin_reference_1556_1_8');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_1556_1_8\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">8<\/sup><\/a><cite class=\"footnote_tooltip\"><span class=\"footnote-inner\">8. 8 <em>See<\/em> Valenzuela Gallardo v. Lynch, 818 F.3d 808, 823, 825 (9th Cir. 2016).<\/span><\/cite><\/sup><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_1556_1_8').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_1556_1_8', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In contrast, the Third Circuit has read \u00a7 110 1(a)(43)(S) of the INA as unambiguous and thus closed to agency interpretation. <sup class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_1556_1('footnote_plugin_reference_1556_1_9');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_1556_1('footnote_plugin_reference_1556_1_9');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_1556_1_9\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">9<\/sup><\/a><cite class=\"footnote_tooltip\"><span class=\"footnote-inner\">9. 9 <em>See<\/em> Denis v. Att&#8217;y Gen. of the United States, 633 F.3d 201, 209-10 (3d Cir. 2011).<\/span><\/cite><\/sup><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_1556_1_9').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_1556_1_9', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> This is the optimal answer from a statutory interpretation perspective. The distinct phrases &#8220;relating to&#8221; and &#8220;obstruction of justice&#8221; can be easily defined by looking to Supreme Court precedent and other statutes. &#8220;Relating to&#8221; requires a causal or logical connection between the crime committed and the crime enumerated in the statute. <sup class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_1556_1('footnote_plugin_reference_1556_1_10');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_1556_1('footnote_plugin_reference_1556_1_10');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_1556_1_10\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">10<\/sup><\/a><cite class=\"footnote_tooltip\"><span class=\"footnote-inner\">10. 10 <em>See id.<\/em> at 210-11.<\/span><\/cite><\/sup><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_1556_1_10').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_1556_1_10', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &#8220;Obstruction of justice&#8221; is a heading in the U.S. Code, which contains a list of federal crimes that are considered &#8220;obstruction of justice&#8221; crimes. <sup class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_1556_1('footnote_plugin_reference_1556_1_11');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_1556_1('footnote_plugin_reference_1556_1_11');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_1556_1_11\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">11<\/sup><\/a><cite class=\"footnote_tooltip\"><span class=\"footnote-inner\">11. 11 <em>See id. <\/em>at 209.<\/span><\/cite><\/sup><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_1556_1_11').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_1556_1_11', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> Thus, there is no reason to allow the BIA to interpret the statute.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Further, a broader interpretation of \u00a7 1101(a)(43)(S), as this Note&#8217;s straightforward textual analysis suggests, gives the government greater discretion to deport dangerous or otherwise undesirable aliens: a key concern of the drafters of the INA. <sup class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_1556_1('footnote_plugin_reference_1556_1_12');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_1556_1('footnote_plugin_reference_1556_1_12');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_1556_1_12\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">12<\/sup><\/a><cite class=\"footnote_tooltip\"><span class=\"footnote-inner\">12. 12 The legislative history and the INA itself supports my view that the drafters of the INA were concerned with allowing greater government power to deport dangerous immigrants. This will be&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_1556_1('footnote_plugin_reference_1556_1_12');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/cite><\/sup><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_1556_1_12').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_1556_1_12', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> At the same time, the fact that the statute does not require deportation, but rather only makes an alien &#8220;deportable,&#8221; acts as an important safety valve to prevent deportation for comparatively minor offenses. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Section I of this Note details the purpose and provisions of the INA. Section II provides a brief overview of the legal doctrine used to determine the appropriate level of judicial review of federal agency decisions. Section III provides an in-depth analysis of each of the varying approaches that circuit courts have employed in analyzing the issue of the &#8220;relating to obstruction of justice&#8221; language in \u00a7 1101(a)(43)(S). Finally, Section IV discusses which approach is best, from both a statutory interpretation and a public policy standpoint.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><em>To read more of &#8220;Making America Safe Again&#8221;, <a href=\"https:\/\/scholarship.law.cornell.edu\/cgi\/viewcontent.cgi?article=4760&amp;context=clr\">click here.<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n<div class=\"speaker-mute footnotes_reference_container\"> <div class=\"footnote_container_prepare\"><p><span role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_reference_container_label pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_expand_collapse_reference_container_1556_1();\">References<\/span><span role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_reference_container_collapse_button\" style=\"display: none;\" onclick=\"footnote_expand_collapse_reference_container_1556_1();\">[<a id=\"footnote_reference_container_collapse_button_1556_1\">+<\/a>]<\/span><\/p><\/div> <div id=\"footnote_references_container_1556_1\" style=\"\"><table class=\"footnotes_table footnote-reference-container\"><caption class=\"accessibility\">References<\/caption> <tbody> \r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index_combi pointer\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_1556_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_1556_1_1');\"><a id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_1556_1_1\" class=\"footnote_backlink\"><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>1<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">1 Valenzula Gallardo v. Lynch, 818 F.3d 808, 811 (9th Cir. 2016). <\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index_combi pointer\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_1556_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_1556_1_2');\"><a id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_1556_1_2\" class=\"footnote_backlink\"><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>2<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">2  8 U.S.C. \u00a7 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) (2012).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index_combi pointer\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_1556_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_1556_1_3');\"><a id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_1556_1_3\" class=\"footnote_backlink\"><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>3<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">3 <em>See<\/em> 8 U.S.C. \u00a7 1101(a)(43) (2012).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index_combi pointer\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_1556_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_1556_1_4');\"><a id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_1556_1_4\" class=\"footnote_backlink\"><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>4<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">4<em>  Id<\/em>. at \u00a7 1101(a)(43)(S). <\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index_combi pointer\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_1556_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_1556_1_5');\"><a id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_1556_1_5\" class=\"footnote_backlink\"><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>5<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">5 <em>See<\/em> In re Valenzuela Gallardo, 25 I.&amp;N. Dec. 838, 839-40 (B.I.A. 2012); Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984). <\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index_combi pointer\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_1556_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_1556_1_6');\"><a id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_1556_1_6\" class=\"footnote_backlink\"><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>6<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">6 Chevron, 467 U.S. at 838.<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index_combi pointer\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_1556_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_1556_1_7');\"><a id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_1556_1_7\" class=\"footnote_backlink\"><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>7<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">7 <em>See<\/em> United States v. Gamboa-Garcia, 620 F.3d 546, 549-50 (5th Cir. 2010). <\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index_combi pointer\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_1556_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_1556_1_8');\"><a id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_1556_1_8\" class=\"footnote_backlink\"><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>8<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">8 <em>See<\/em> Valenzuela Gallardo v. Lynch, 818 F.3d 808, 823, 825 (9th Cir. 2016).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index_combi pointer\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_1556_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_1556_1_9');\"><a id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_1556_1_9\" class=\"footnote_backlink\"><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>9<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">9 <em>See<\/em> Denis v. Att&#8217;y Gen. of the United States, 633 F.3d 201, 209-10 (3d Cir. 2011).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index_combi pointer\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_1556_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_1556_1_10');\"><a id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_1556_1_10\" class=\"footnote_backlink\"><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>10<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">10 <em>See id.<\/em> at 210-11.<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index_combi pointer\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_1556_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_1556_1_11');\"><a id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_1556_1_11\" class=\"footnote_backlink\"><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>11<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">11 <em>See id. <\/em>at 209.<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index_combi pointer\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_1556_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_1556_1_12');\"><a id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_1556_1_12\" class=\"footnote_backlink\"><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>12<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">12 The legislative history and the INA itself supports my view that the drafters of the INA were concerned with allowing greater government power to deport dangerous immigrants. This will be discussed further in Part I.<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n <\/tbody> <\/table> <\/div><\/div><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> function footnote_expand_reference_container_1556_1() { jQuery('#footnote_references_container_1556_1').show(); jQuery('#footnote_reference_container_collapse_button_1556_1').text('\u2212'); } function footnote_collapse_reference_container_1556_1() { jQuery('#footnote_references_container_1556_1').hide(); jQuery('#footnote_reference_container_collapse_button_1556_1').text('+'); } function footnote_expand_collapse_reference_container_1556_1() { if (jQuery('#footnote_references_container_1556_1').is(':hidden')) { footnote_expand_reference_container_1556_1(); } else { footnote_collapse_reference_container_1556_1(); } } function footnote_moveToReference_1556_1(p_str_TargetID) { footnote_expand_reference_container_1556_1(); var l_obj_Target = jQuery('#' + p_str_TargetID); if (l_obj_Target.length) { jQuery( 'html, body' ).delay( 0 ); jQuery('html, body').animate({ scrollTop: l_obj_Target.offset().top - window.innerHeight * 0.2 }, 380); } } function footnote_moveToAnchor_1556_1(p_str_TargetID) { footnote_expand_reference_container_1556_1(); var l_obj_Target = jQuery('#' + p_str_TargetID); if (l_obj_Target.length) { jQuery( 'html, body' ).delay( 0 ); jQuery('html, body').animate({ scrollTop: l_obj_Target.offset().top - window.innerHeight * 0.2 }, 380); } }<\/script>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>A recent Ninth Circuit decision, Valenzuela Gallardo v. Lynch, has created a three-pronged circuit split over the proper interpretation of statutory language in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). In Gallardo, the government initiated a deportation action against a Mexican alien residing in the U.S. due to his conviction as an accessory after the fact&#8230;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[13,20,41,46],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1556","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-archives","category-print-volume-103","category-issue-4-volume-103","category-notes"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1556","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1556"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1556\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1556"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1556"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1556"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}