Page 40 - The Indian EYE 092526

IMMIGRATION SEPTEMBER 25, 2026 | The Indian Eye 40

The Fourth Circuit Breaks with

Pickering: Why Yanez Piedra v. Blanche

Matters for Vacated Convictions

CYRUS MEHTA & Blanche, No. 25-1258 (4th unsettle longstanding BIA pealed to the Fourth Circuit, cial interpretation produces a
KAITLYN BOX* Cir. Aug. 24, 2026), the Fourth doctrine. which began with an analysis “sharp break with past prac-
Circuit declined to apply that Lizbeyde Yanez Piedra, of INA § 212(a)(2)(A)(i), a tice.” Before Loper Bright,
or more than two de- framework to the inadmissibil- a native and citizen of Mexi- provision that makes inad- courts often asked whether
cades, the Board of Im- ity provision in INA § 212(a) co, came to the United States missible “any alien convicted an agency’s statutory interpre-
Fmigration Appeals has (2)(A)(i). Invoking Loper as a child and subsequently of” a crime involving moral tation was reasonable. After
treated some vacated criminal Bright Enterprises v. Raimon- became a lawful permanent turpitude or a controlled-sub- Loper Bright, the question is
convictions as continuing to do, 603 U.S. 369 (2024) to ex- resident. She was convicted stance offense. In the court’s which interpretation is best.
exist for immigration purpos- ercise independent judgement, of two counts of common-law view, that language pertains to An agency’s expertise and
es. Under Matter of Pickering, the court held that a person forgery in North Carolina, the noncitizen’s present legal considered judgment may still
23 I&N Dec. 621 (BIA 2003), whose conviction has been and, in a separate case, pos- status, not simply to whether be persuasive, but an agency
the critical question was why vacated and whose charge has session of marijuana. After re- a conviction existed at some cannot prevail merely because
the criminal court vacated the been dismissed is no longer turning to the U.S. from a trip point in the past. the statute is ambiguous and
conviction. A vacatur based an “alien convicted of” that to Mexico, Yanez Piedra was Once the state court va- its interpretation is reasonable.
on a substantive or procedural offense. The decision is signif- placed in removal proceedings cated Yanez Piedra’s mari- Applying that independent
defect eliminated the convic- icant not only for noncitizens as an applicant for admission. juana conviction and the state standard, the Fourth Circuit
tion for immigration purposes, seeking to eliminate the immi- She conceded inadmissibility dismissed the charge, she no concluded that Pickering re-
while a vacatur granted for re- gration-related consequences as an “alien convicted of” a longer stood “convicted of” flected a policy judgment rath-
habilitative reasons or to avoid of criminal convictions, but controlled-substance offense that offense. The court also er than the best reading of the
immigration consequences also as an early illustration of and a crime involving moral emphasized the ordinary legal statutory language Congress
generally did not. how the end of Chevron defer- turpitude, and sought an INA consequence of vacatur: a va- enacted. Nothing in § 212(a)
In Yanez Piedra v. ence under Loper Bright may 212(h). The immigration judge cated judgment no longer has (2)(A)(i), the court reasoned,
(IJ) denied the waiver prospective legal effect. instructs adjudicators to distin-
application on several The government relied on guish among vacaturs based on
grounds, including that INA § 101(a)(48)(A), which the reason they were granted.
she had not established defines “conviction” to include The government also re-
that the marijuana offense a formal judgment of guilt and, lied on Phan v. Holder, 667
involved 30 grams or less, in certain withheld-adjudica- F.3d 448 (4th Cir. 2012), in
had not demonstrated the tion cases, a plea or finding of which the Fourth Circuit had
requisite hardship, and guilt coupled with punishment applied Pickering in the natu-
did not merit relief as a or restraint. However, that ralization context. Phan con-
matter of discretion. The definition only identifies the cerned INA § 316(a), which
IJ nevertheless granted circumstances that establish requires an applicant for nat-
voluntary departure. a conviction; it does not pro- uralization to establish good
While her adminis- vide that a judgment remains moral character, together with
trative appeal was pend- a conviction after a court has INA § 101(f)(8), which bars a
ing, a North Carolina vacated it, nor does it direct finding of good moral charac-
court vacated the mar- immigration adjudicators to ter for a person convicted of
ijuana conviction, and examine the reason or motiva- an aggravated felony, and the
the state dismissed the tion for a state-court vacatur. general definition of “convic-
charge. Yanez Piedra The court therefore found no tion” in INA § 101(a)(48)(A).
asked the BIA to remand textual basis for Pickering’s dis- USCIS had concluded that
her case in light of that tinction between defect-based Phan’s cocaine-distribution
development. Instead, vacaturs and vacaturs granted conviction remained an ag-
the BIA applied Picker- for rehabilitative or immigra- gravated felony even though it
m of ing. Because it concluded tion-related reasons. The rel- had been set aside for rehabili-
CYRUS D. MEHTA & PARTNERS PLLC that the vacatur was not evant question in the Fourth tative purposes under the Dis-
based on a substantive or Circuit’s view was whether the trict of Columbia Youth Re-
procedural defect in the person remained “convicted habilitation Act. Yanez Piedra

underlying criminal pro- of” the offense, not why the presented a different statutory

  ceeding, the BIA contin- state court had eliminated the question. It directly concerned
   
­ ued to treat the marijuana conviction. INA § 212(a)(2)(A)(i), which
€
‚  
conviction as operative The opinion is unusually makes inadmissible “any alien
for immigration purposes direct about the significance of convicted of” specified of-
and found Yanez Piedra the Supreme Court’s repudia- fenses. The panel emphasized
ineligible for the 212(h) tion of Chevron. The Fourth the significance of that pres-
2 6th Floor waiver. Circuit characterized the case ent-tense formulation. Unlike

    Yanez Piedra ap- as one in which a fresh judi- the provisions at issue in Phan,

www.TheIndianEYE.com