Where a majority of the judges voted against rehearing en banc a case involving whether to grant Chevron deference to the Board of Immigration’s recent interpretation of § 1101(a)(43)(S), the motion for rehearing en banc was denied.
A requested poll of the court failed to produce a majority of judges in regular active service and not disqualified who voted in favor of rehearing en banc. Chief Judge Gregory, Judge King and Judge Wynn voted to grant rehearing en banc. Judge Wilkinson, Judge Niemeyer, Judge Motz, Judge Agee, Judge Diaz, Judge Thacker, Judge Harris, Judge Richardson, Judge Quattlebaum, Judge Rushing and Judge Heytens voted to deny rehearing en banc.
Rehearing en banc denied.
Gregory, C.J., dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc:
I respectfully dissent from this court’s denial of rehearing en banc on the issue of whether to grant Chevron deference to the Board of Immigration’s recent interpretation of § 1101(a)(43)(S), providing that an aggravated felony under the Immigration and Naturalization Act is “an offense relating to the obstruction of justice, perjury or subornation of perjury, or bribery of a witness.”
Pugin v. Garland, Case No. 20-1363, March 7, 2022. 4th Cir., from Board of Immigration Appeals. VLW 022-2-065. 10 pp.