Ledezma-Galacia v. Holder

While current law provides that Petitioner’s sodomy conviction is “sexual abuse of a minor,” an aggravated felony, he may not now be removed from the country based this 1988 conviction.   The 1988 Anti-Drug Abuse Act  (ADAA) that made individuals deportable for aggravated felony convictions did not apply to convictions prior to November 18, 1988, and  neither Congress’s overhaul of the grounds for deportation in 1990 (IMMAct) nor its rewrite of the definition of aggravated felony with IIRIRA in 1996 erased that temporal limitation.  Section 602 of the IMMAct did not repeal the section of the AADA specifying that an aggravated felony conviction entered prior to November 18, 1998 cannot serve as the basis for a charge of removability.  Therefore, ADAA’s temporal limitation remains in effect as an exception to other temporal provisions enacted later and  precludes Petitioner’s deportation. The BIA’s interpretation of IMMAct § 602(c) merits no deference because, when read in light of the applicable principles of statutory interpretation, that provision is not ambiguous in the respect the BIA deemed it to be (in Matter of Lettman, )). banc1998) (en  BIA22 I. & N. Dec. 365 (

Dissent: Bybee:  The BIA’s interpretation of the statutory scheme in Matter of Lettman was reasonable, and the Court must defer to it.  In 1990 with IMMAct, Congress provided that the new deportation provisions would apply to individuals even if the facts making them deportable occurred before enactment of the IMMAct, thus overriding the previous applicability provision. In 1996, Congress amended the definition of aggravated felony to include sexual abuse of a minor.  Congress chose to apply the amended definition retroactively to convictions that occurred prior to the enactment of IIRIRA.  Read together, these immigration statutes made Ledezma subject to removal

.http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/03/29/03-73648.pdf