2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
6-9-2008 

# Roj a s -P aredes v

. Atty Ge n U SA
P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-1402

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" Roj as -P ar e de s v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 944. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/944H onor abl e J ane A
. R es t ani , C hi ef J udge of the U ni t ed * St at es C our tof I nt ernat i onal T r ade, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT
N o. 07- 1402

_______________ RA M O N A RM A N D O RO J A S PA RE D ES, Pet i t i oner
v. A TTO RN EY G EN ER A L O F TH E U N I TED STA TES, R es pondent

_______________ O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( N o. A 41- 303- 558) I m m i gr at i on J udge: H on. A l ber t o J
. R i efkohl

_______________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ay9, 2008

_______________ B efor e: B A R R Y and ST A PL E T O N , C i r cui tJ udges , and

R E ST A N I , J udge

* ( O pi ni on fi l ed: J une 9, 2008)T he cap t i on of the IJ ’s rem ov al order erroneou sly 1 in d ica tes th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t c h a rg e d p e tit io n e r w ith re m o v a b ili ty 2 J ohn J
. G ar zon, E s q. Sui t e 204 4 6 -12 Q u ee n s B o u leva rd Sunny s i de, N Y 11104- 0000 C ouns el forPet i t i oner
R i char d M
. E vans , E s q. P a u l F io ri n o , E s q . M i chel l e G
. L at our , E s q. M i chel e Y
. F. Sar ko, E s q. U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof J us t i ce O ffi ce of I m m i gr at i on L i t i gat i on P. O
. B ox 878 B en Fr ankl i n St at i on W as hi ngt on, D C 20044- 0000 C ouns el forR es pondent

______________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

_______________ R E ST A N I , J udge. Pet i t i onerR amon A r m ando R oj as Par edes , a nat i ve and ci t i zen of

t he D om i ni can Republ i c, pet i t i ons forr evi ew of a f i nal or derof the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) di s m i s s i ng h is a p p e a l f

ro m a n Im m ig ra tio n J u d g e ’s (“ IJ ” ) r e m o v a l o rd e r. T he IJ concluded t hat tw o N ew Jer seyst at e con vict i on s agai nst pet i t i onercons t i tut ed off ens es forw hi ch pet i t i onerm aybe d e p o rte d u n d e r § 2 3 7 (a )(2 ) o f th e Im m ig ra tio n a n d N a tio n a lity A ct( “I N A ”)
. 8 U
. S. C
. § 1227( a) ( 2) ( A ) ( i i i ) , ( B ) ( i )
. Pet i t i oner

1u n d e r I N A § 2 3 7 (a )( 2 )( A )( i) . (S e e A p p . f o r P e t’ r a t 4 a .) T he r ecor d i s uncl ear as t o w hen, exac t l y , pet i t i onerfi l ed 2 t h e p e t i t i o n s f

o r p o s t - c o n v i c t i o n r e l i e f
. Th e o n l y e v i d ence of pet i t i oner ’ s eff

or tt o obt ai n s uch r el i ef i s a l ett erfr om C r i m i nal L egal R es ear ch I nc, dat ed A ugus t27, 2006, s t at i ng thatt he o r g a n i z a t i o n “ h a [ d ] b e e n r e t a i n e d t o f i l e 2 mot i o n s f

o rC or am N o b is ” a n d th a t “ b o th m o tio n s s h o u ld [ b e ] re a d y w ith in 1 5 d a y s .” ( A pp. forPet ’ rat164a. ) T he r ecor d al s o s ugges t s t hat t he I J w as n o t s u re a s to th e sta tu s o f th e p e tit io n s a t th e tim e h e re n d e re d h is deci s i on on A ugus t29, as he not ed t hat t he pos t - convi ct i on r el i ef “appe ar s t o be pendi ng orappea r s t o be a p lan by
. . . C r i m i nal L egal R es ear ch, I nc. ” ( I d. at6a. ) N o n ethel es s , i n hi s N ot i ce of A ppeal t o t he B I A , dat ed A ugus t31 and fi l ed on Sept ember1, pet i t i oner cl ai m ed t hat he w as “w ai t i ng for deci s i on on [hi s ] m ot i on forcor am nobi s att he St at e C our tof N ew Jerse y . ” (I d. at75a, 7 7 a .) 3 di d notappea l t he s t at e convi ct i ons but , r ather , fi l ed pet i t i ons for w r i t s of err orcor am nobi s t o chal l enge them. O n appea l t o t he 2 B I A , pet i t i onerar gued thatthe I J ’ s deci s i on of r emoval w as c a p ric io u s a n d e rro n e o u s b e c a u se h is c h a llen g e s to th e sta te co n v ict ion s w ere sti ll p en d ing
. T h e B IA af firm ed the IJ’s deci s i on, concl udi ng t hatthe s t at e convi ct i ons w er e fi nal for im m igrati o n rem o v al pu rpo ses. P eti ti o n er a rgu es th at th e B IA err ed and vi ol at ed hi s due pr oces s r i ght s bybas i ng i t s or deron t he s t at e convi ct i ons , beca us e the convi ct i ons w er e bei ng a p p e a led a n d th e re f

o re w e re n o t y e t f

in a l. A l t hough 8 U
. S. C
. § 1252( a) ( 2) ( C ) pr ovi des that“no cour ts hal l have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew anyfi nal or derof r emoval agai ns tan al i en w ho i s r emovabl e byr eas on of havi ng c o mmi t t e d [ c e r t a i n ] c r i mi n a l o f f e n s e [ s ] , ” 8 U. S
. C. § 1252( a) ( 2) ( D ) gr ant s cour t s j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew “cons t i tut i onal cl ai m s orques t i ons of l aw r ai s ed upon a pe t i t i on forr evi ew ” of f

i nal r emoval or der s . See al s o Papageor gi ou v. G onzal es , 413 F. 3d 356, 357–58 ( 3d C i r . 2005)
. W e r evi ew ques t i ons of l aw de novo. C ar ol eo v. G onzal es , 476 F. 3d 158, 1 6 2 (3d C ir
. 2 0 0 7 ).Pet i t i onerfi l ed a M ot i on t o R econs i derand R eopen the 3 B I A decisi o n , ar gui ng t hatL opez nul l i fi ed the bas i s fort he r emoval or derbeca us e he “ w as convi ct ed of a s t at e drug fel onyt hat w oul d notbe puni s habl e as a fe l onyunderfede r al l aw . ” ( A pp. for P et’r at45a. ) N onethel es s , beca us e pet i t i onerw as r emoved aft er f i l i n g t h e M o t i o n , i twa s wi t h d r a wn p u r s u a n tt o 8 C. F
. R. § 1 0 0 3
. 2 (d). 4 “[A ] convi ct i on does notat t ai n a s uffi ci entdegr ee of fi nal i t yfori m m i gr at i on purpos es unt i l di r ectappel l at e r evi ew of t he convi ct i on has been e xhaus t ed orw ai ved. ” M at t erof O zkok, 19 I
. & N
. D e c . 54 6, 55 2 n
. 7 ( BI A 19 88 ) ( c i t i ng M a r i no v. I N S, 537 F. 2d 686 ( 2d C i r . 1976) ; A gui l er a- E nr i quez v. I N S, 516 F
. 2 d 5 6 5 (6th C ir
. 1 9 7 5 ); W il l v. I N S , 4 4 7 F
. 2 d 5 2 9 (7th C ir
. 1971) ) , s uper cede d bys t atut e on othergr ounds
. H er e, pet i t i oner ’ s t i m e t o di r ect l yappea l hi s convi ct i ons had expi r ed, and a pe t i t i on fora w r i tof err orcor am nobi s i s nota di r ect appea l of, butr athera col l at er al at t ack on, a convi ct i on. See U n ite d S ta te s v . G ro s s , 6 1 4 F .2 d 3 6 5 , 3 6 8 (3 d C ir . 1 9 8 0 ). W e have notcons i der ed pr evi ous l ythe i s s ue of w hether t he pende ncyof pos t - convi ct i on m ot i ons orot herform s of col l at er al at t ack ne gat es the fi nal i tyof convi ct i ons for i m m i gr at i on r emoval purpos es . O urs i s t erci r cui t s thathave addr es s ed the i s s ue, how ever , have c oncl uded thats uch pendenc ydoes notvi t i at e fi nal i t y , unl es s and unt i l the c o n v ic tio n s a re o v e rt u rn e d a s a re s u lt o f th e c o lla te ra l m o tio n s . See U ni t ed St at es v. G ar ci a- E chave r r i a, 374 F. 3d 440, 445–46 (6th C ir
. 2 0 0 4 ) (cit ing A g u il era -E n ri q u ez , 5 1 6 F
. 2 d at 57 0

– 7 1 ); G r a ge da v. I N S, 12 F. 3d 91 9, 92 1 ( 9th Ci r . 19 93 ) ; O ka be v. I N S, 6 7 1 F
. 2 d 8 6 3 , 8 6 5 ( 5 t h C i r . 1 9 8 2 ) ; Wi l l , 4 4 7 F
. 2 d a t5 3 3
. We fi nd t hes e dec i s i ons w el l

- r eas oned, s ee no r eas on t o devi at e fr om th is v iew , an d a d o p t ita s th e law in th is C irc u it. A s t o pet i t i oner ’ s ar gum entthat , underL opez v. G o n z a les , 5 4 9 U .S . 4 7 (2 0 0 6 ), “a sta te o f f e n se m a yn o t b e h e ld p u n isha b le as a fe lon yu n d er f ed era l l aw , ” (B r. fo r P et’r at2 0 ), pet i t i onerdi d notr ai s e i tbefor e the B I A r ender ed i t s deci s i on. 3 See 8 U
. S. C
. § 1252( d) ( 1) ( exhaus t i on of admi ni s t r at i ve5 r emedi es m andat or yand j ur i s di ct i onal ) ; s ee a l s o B onhom etr e v. G o n z a les , 4 1 4 F .3 d 4 4 2 , 4 4 7 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ) (“ T o e x h a u st a c laim b ef o re the ag en cy , an ap p li ca n t m u st fir st r aise the issue b ef o re t he B I A orI J , s o as t o gi ve i tthe oppor tuni t yt o r es ol ve a contr over s yorcorr ecti t s ow n err or s befor e j udi ci al i nt ervent i on. ” ( i nt ernal quot at i ons and ci t at i on om i t t ed) )
. I n any event , pet i t i onerm i s appr ehende d t he hol di ng i n L opez. T her e, t he S up rem e C ou rtrever sed a de ci si on of rem ov al no tbecau se s t at e off ens es w er e notpuni s habl e underfede r al l aw , but b e c a u s e t h e s t a t e f

e l o n y c o n v i c t i o n th e r e c o n s t i tu t e d o n l y a m i s demeanorunderfede r al l aw . L opez, 549 U
. S. at633. Fort he for egoi ng r eas ons , the pet i t i on forr evi ew w i l l be DE NI E D.