DEBORAH PAULINE HERGERT, AKA Debora Pauline Taylor v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DEBORAH PAULINE HERGERT, AKA
Debora Pauline Taylor,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-72811
Agency No. A014-577-999
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 5, 2016**
Pasadena, California
Before: REINHARDT, PAEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Deborah Hergert challenges her removal order. She was convicted of
several drug crimes, which the BIA found rendered her removable under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1227. We dismiss her petition.
FILED
FEB 10 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 3 --

Hergert has been a lawful permanent resident since she was first admitted to
the United States in 1965. In 2006, she was convicted of transporting heroin with
intent to sell, possessing methamphetamine with intent to sell, and a couple of
secondary offenses. In subsequent removal proceedings, the IJ found that
Hergert’s convictions met the criteria of § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) and (B)(i). These
sections make an alien deportable if she is “convicted of” an aggravated felony or
drug offense “at any time after admission.” Hergert appealed to the BIA contesting
only whether the date of her convictions occurred “any time after admission” as
defined by § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) and (B)(i). Specifically she contended that because
she left the United States for a brief trip to Europe and then returned in 2008, it is
this later admission that begins the period during which the crime must have been
committed. The BIA rejected this theory, finding Hergert’s readmission after her
convictions irrelevant and concluding that the 1965 admission was the one that
pertained.
Before us, Hergert again presses her claim that only the last admission
counts for § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) and (B)(i). She is incorrect. A crime committed
2

-- 2 of 3 --

while an alien is in the country pursuant to an admission is a crime committed after
admission. The meaning of the relevant provisions of the statute is clear.1
PETITION DISMISSED
1Although the BIA here relied in part on its reading of § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i) in
Matter of Alyazji, 25 I&N Dec. 397 (BIA 2011), we express no opinion on the
proper interpretation of (A)(i) when an alien has multiple admissions.
3

-- 3 of 3 --