Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-08-01236/USCOURTS-ca7-08-01236-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mendy Massena
Petitioner
Michael B. Mukasey
Respondent

Document Text:

*

After an examination of the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral

argument is unnecessary.  Thus, the petition for review is submitted on the briefs and

record.  See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2).

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois  60604

Submitted October 2, 2008*

Decided October 7, 2008

Before

JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge

MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge

No. 08‐1236

MENDY MASSENA,

Petitioner,

v.

MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney

General of the United States,

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals.

No. A 47 632 361

O R D E R

The Department of Homeland Security ordered Mendy Massena removed based on

its finding that Massena had been convicted of two aggravated felonies: assault and battery

and drug trafficking.  After the Board of Immigration Appeals summarily affirmed the

Immigration Judge’s decision denying Massena withholding of removal and relief under

the Convention Against Torture, Massena petitioned this court for review.  Because we lack

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

Case: 08-1236 Document: 17 Filed: 10/07/2008 Pages: 3
No. 08‐1236 Page 2

jurisdiction to review either the DHS’s removal order or the IJ’s discretionary denial of

withholding of removal based on Massena’s conviction for a particularly serious crime, we

dismiss the petition for review.

Massena, who is 19 today, left Haiti for America at the age of eleven to join his

father, step‐mother, and siblings in Boston in 2000.  Along with his family members, he

became a permanent resident of the United States.  In October 2006, while still in high

school, he was charged with assault and battery on a police officer, possessing crack cocaine

with intent to distribute, and resisting arrest.  He pleaded guilty to possessing crack cocaine

with intent to distribute in violation of Massachusetts Chapter 94C, § 32A(a), and was

placed on probation for two years.   Four months later, in January 2007, Massena was

charged with two counts of assault and battery, one of which involved the use of a

dangerous weapon.  He pleaded guilty to both counts and was sentenced to two years’

imprisonment.

On the basis of Massena’s conviction for assault and battery with a dangerous

weapon, DHS charged that Massena was subject to removal from the United States

pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 101(a)(43)(F), and Massena was taken into custody.  DHS later added

as a second basis for removal Massena’s 2006 conviction for possession of crack with intent

to distribute.  

In September 2007 Massena applied for withholding of removal and relief under the

Convention Against Torture (CAT), claiming that he feared returning to Haiti.  Massena

testified at a hearing on his application that, on two separate occasions while he was still a

child living in Haiti, gang members affiliated with political parties came to his home, fired

their guns, and admonished Massena that he must join them once he became an adult.  In

addition, Massena submitted articles detailing the rising crime in Haiti and letters from his

family urging the immigration court to allow him to stay in the country.

Massena’s convictions for aggravated felonies would make him ineligible for

withholding of removal if either qualified as a “particularly serious” crime.  See 8 U.S.C. §

1231(b)(3)(B)(ii); Tunis v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 547, 548‐49 (7th Cir. 2006).  Neither conviction

however, automatically qualified as “particularly serious” because Massena did not serve

five or more years of imprisonment for either of them.  See Petrov v. Gonzales, 464 F.3d 800,

801 (7th Cir. 2006).  It was thus up to the immigration judge to decide, as a matter of

discretion, whether at least one of Massena’s aggravated felonies was particularly serious.

See id.; Tunis, 447 F.3d at 549.   The IJ reasoned that Massena’s drug‐trafficking conviction

was his most serious, and cited In re Y‐L, 23 I. & N. Dec. 270, 274 (BIA 2002), for the

proposition that drug‐trafficking crimes should be deemed “particularly serious” absent

extraordinary and compelling circumstances.  The IJ discerned nothing unusual about

Case: 08-1236 Document: 17 Filed: 10/07/2008 Pages: 3
No. 08‐1236 Page 3

Massena’s case and thus found that his crack conviction was particularly serious.  Finally,

the IJ rejected Massena’s CAT claim.  In his appeal to the BIA, Massena challenged only the

IJ’s determination that his drug‐trafficking crime was particularly serious and precluded

withholding of removal.  

In his petition for review Massena renews only his argument that his possession of

crack with intent to distribute was not a particularly serious crime.  But we lack jurisdiction

to review a final order of removal in any case where the alien is subject to removal based on

a conviction for an aggravated felony.  8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C); Zamora‐Mallari v. Mukasey,

514 F.3d 679, 693‐94 (7th Cir. 2008).   Furthermore, an IJ’s discretionary determination that

the underlying crime was “particularly serious” is also beyond our jurisdiction to review.

See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii); Petrov, 464 F.3d at 801‐02; Ali v. Achim, 468 F.3d 462, 470 (7th

Cir. 2006).   Therefore we retain jurisdiction only to ensure that the IJ did not commit legal

or constitutional error.  See Tunis, 447 F.3d at 549; Ali, 468 F.3d at 470.  And so Massena tries

to characterize his argument as one illuminating a legal error.  But despite Massena’s

protestations to the contrary, the IJ correctly cited both the general rule governing whether a

conviction constituted a particularly serious crime and the more particular rule regarding

drug‐trafficking crimes articulated in In re Y‐L.  See Bosede v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 946, 950‐51

(7th Cir. 2008).  We thus lack jurisdiction to further review the IJ’s discretionary

determination.

Accordingly, we DISMISS the petition for review.

Case: 08-1236 Document: 17 Filed: 10/07/2008 Pages: 3