When Statutes Conflict, Agencies Shouldn ' t Get to Pick Which One They Like More

One federal statute says that Rony Estuardo Perez-Guzman, who claims refugee status, isn ’t eligible for asylum. Another one says that he is. Whose duty is it to reconcile this glaring legislative contradiction, and how should it be remedied?Mr. Perez-Guzman fled to the United States to escape violence and persecution in Guatemala. He was stopped by border patrol agents and deported, but reentered the United States because he still feared for his life. The asylum statute (8 U.S.C. § 1158) guarantees the right of “any alien … physically present in the United States … irrespective of such alien’s status” to apply for asylum. The reinstatement statute (8 U.S.C. § 1231) states that an individual who has previously been removed from the United States “may not apply f or any relief under this chapter” (which includes asylum). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the two statutes conflict—so far so good—and are therefore are ambiguous, which is where the judicial mischief starts. A finding of statutory ambiguity often leads courts to sim ply defer to administrative agency interpreting the statute, which here means the Justice Department refused to let Perez-Guzman apply for asylum.Perez-Guzman has petitioned the Supreme Court to review his case. Cato has filed anamicus brief supporting that petition and challenging the lower-court holding that statutory conflict triggersChevron deference (named after the 1984 Supreme Court case that create...
Source: Cato-at-liberty - Category: American Health Authors: Source Type: blogs