Case ID: f-appx_222/html/0528-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Joseph John RYAN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.
    No. 06-3135.
    United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
    Argued March 27, 2007.
    Decided April 20, 2007.
    Godfrey Y. Muwonge, Alliance for the Defense of new Americans’ Rights, Milwaukee, WI, for Petitioner.
    Karen Lundgren, Department of Homeland Security, Office of the Chief Counsel, Chicago, IL, Richard Zanfardino, Department of Justice, Civil Division, Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before Hon. DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge, Hon. MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge, Hon. DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge.
   ORDER

Joseph John Ryan is a citizen of Ireland who entered into the United States in 1975 as an immigrant. He made a life for himself in the Chicagoland area where he is married and has four children. He has been employed as a dock worker since 1984 and is active in his union and community. However, Ryan was also convicted in 1995 of criminal sexual assault of a family member under the age of 18 in violation of 720 ILCS 5/12-13-A-3 and was sentenced to four years probation. In 2004, a Notice to Appear was issued charging him with removability pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) because the sexual assault conviction qualified as an aggravated felony as defined by 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(A).

In the proceeding before the IJ, Ryan “submitted] and coneede[d] removability,” R. 60 at ln. 4-5, but he submitted an application for a § 212(c) waiver. The IJ held that a § 212(c) waiver was not available because of the BIA’s decision in In re Blake, 23 I. & N. Dec. 722 (B.I.A.2005). The BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision.

Ryan argues that In re Blake conflicts with the Supreme Court’s decision in I.N.S. v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 121 S.Ct. 2271, 150 L.Ed.2d 347 (2001). However, we previously rejected this argument in Valere v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 757 (7th Cir. 2007); see also Dalombo Fontes v. Gonzales, 483 F.3d 115, 123 n. 4 (1st Cir.2007); Vo v. Gonzales, 482 F.3d 363 (5th Cir. 2007). Valere controls our consideration of this issue. We find no reason to contrast Valere or otherwise reject its application in the present case. Therefore, we faithfully apply Valere and reject Ryan’s argument as to § 212(c) relief.

Ryan also raises secondary arguments in his brief as to the type of removal charges levied against him and whether he is actually removable. Unfortunately for Ryan, he did not bring these arguments before the IJ and BIA and therefore we cannot review them. See Capric v. Ashcroft, 355 F.3d 1075, 1087 (7th Cir.2004) (“An alien is required to raise and exhaust his remedies as to each claim or ground for relief if he is to preserve the right to judicial review of that claim.”) (citing Abdulrahman v. Ashcroft, 330 F.3d 587, 594-95 (3d Cir.2003); Mojsilovic v. I.N.S., 156 F.3d 743, 748 (7th Cir.1998)).

The petition for review is DENIED.