FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J UNE 10, 2009 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 8- 15 44 0 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Age nc y No. A0 31 -4 46 -8 59 RICHARD FITZGERALD WAYNE BARTON, Pet it io ne r, ve rs us U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, Res po nd en t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pet it io n fo r Rev ie w of aDeci si on of t he Bo ardof I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Jun e 1 0, 2 00 9) Befo re CARNES, M ARCUS an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Ri ch ardFit zg eral d B art on , a na ti ve an d c it iz enof J am ai ca, p et it io ns for

rev ie w of the Bo ardof I m m ig rat io n Ap pe al s’ jud gm en t af firm in g the Im

m ig rat io n Ju dg e’s de ni al of h is reque st s fo r rel ie f fro m rem ov ab il ity

un de r fo rm er INA § 21 2( c), 8 U.S.C. § 1 15 2( c) an d INA § 21 2( h) , 8 U.S.C. § 11 52 (h ). Bart on co nt en ds th athe is adm is si bl e to th e Uni te d S ta te s fo r pe rm an en t re si de nc e, as requi redforanad

jus tm en t o f st atus un de r INA § 2 45 , 8 U.S.C. § 12 55 , bec au se he is en ti tl edto a waiv er o f th e co nv ic ti on s i n h is cri m in al hi st ory th atwou ld ot he rwis e m ak e h im

in adm is si bl e. Sp eci fic al ly, he arg ue s tha t the BIA erre d b y fin di ng hi m

st atut or il y

in el ig ib le fora waiv er o f hi s two ro bb ery co nv ic ti on s u nd er fo rm er INA § 21 2( c) an d h is m ari juan a co nv ic ti on un de r INA § 2 12 (h ). I. Bart onwas a dm it te d t o the Uni te d S ta te s as a la wfu l i m m ig ran t i n J un e 19 71 . In 1 98 8 h e p le ad edgu il ty to two ch arg es of f irs t d eg ree r ob be ry . In J ul y 20 01 Bart on was c on vi ct edof m is de m ean orpo ss es si on of up t o o ne ha lf o un ce o f m ari juan a. InApri l 2 00 2 h e was co nv ic te d o f po ss es si on of afir earm by a co nv ic te d fe lo n. A 2 00 4 No ti ce t o Ap pe ar al le ge d tha t Ba rto n was rem ov ab le (1) un de r INA § 2 37 (a)( 2) (A)(i ii ), 8 U.S.C. § 12 27 (a)( 2) (A)(i ii ) be cau se of h is co nv ic ti on of a n a gg rav at edfel on y th atwas s pe ci fic al ly a crim e o f vi ol en ce u nd er INA § 1 01 (A)(4 3) (F), 8 U.S.C. § 1 10 1( a)(4 3) (F); (2) un de r INA § 2 37 (a)( 2) (C), 8 2U.S.C. § 1 22 7( a)(2 )(C) be cau se of h is co nv ic ti on of u nl awfu l p os se ss io n o f a

fir earm ; an d (3 ) un de r INA § 2 37 (a)( 2) (A)(i i), 8 U.S.C. 12 27 (a)( 2) (A)(i i) b ecau se of hi s co nv ic ti on of t wo cr im es of m or al tu rp itud e n otari si ng ou t o f a s in gl e sc he m e o f cri m in al mis co nduc t. Barto n c on ced edrem ov ab il ity bu t ap pl ie d fo r an ad jus tm en t o f st atus un de r § 2 45 (a), 8 U.S.C. § 1 25 5( a) an d fo r wai ve rs of in adm is si bi li ty und er fo rm er INA § 21 2( c) an d INA § 21 2( h) . The IJ de ni ed Bart on ’s reque stforrel ie f of rem ov al , andth e BIA af firm edth e IJ ’s dec is io n. Bart on ap pe al s. Bart ondo es no t ch al le ng e th e ex erci se of d is cret io na ry rel ie f bu t i ns te adth e de te rm in at io n tha t h e was in el ig ib le forth atrel ie f. W e h av e juri sd ic ti on to rev ie w th atleg al qu es ti on . See INA § 24 2( a)(2 )(D), 8 U.S.C. § 1 25 2( a)(2 )(D) (“Not hi ng in subp arag rap h (B ) or

(C), o r in an y

othe r pr ov is io n o f th is ch ap te r (o th er tha n th is sec ti on ) whi chli m it s o r el im in at es jud ic ia l re vi ew, sh al l b e co ns tru edas pr ecl ud in g re vi ew of

co ns ti tu ti on al cla im s o r qu es ti on s o f la w rai se d upo n a pe ti ti on forrev ie w fil edwith a n app ro pr ia te co urt o f ap pe al s i n a cco rd an ce wi th th is sec ti on .”); INS v. St . Cyr, 53 3 U.S. 2 89 , 30 7– 08 , 12 1 S . Ct. 2 27 1, 2 28 3 (2 00 1) (n ot in g the di st in ct io n b etweeneli gi bi li ty for d is cret io na ry rel ie f an d the fav or ab le ex erci se of d is cret io n) .

3W e rev ie w on ly the BIA’s de ci si on be cau se th e BIA d idno t ex pr es sl y ad op t th e IJ ’s jud gm en t o r rea so ni ng . See Al Najjar v . Ash cro ft, 2 57 F.3d12 62 , 12 84 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 1) . W e rev ie w de n ov o the BIA’s le ga l d et erm in at io ns , andth at rev ie w is “ in fo rm edby the pri nc ip le of d efer en ce arti cu la te d i n C he vr on , U.S.A., In c. v. Natur al Res ources Defen se Co un ci l, In c., 46 7 U.S. 8 37 , 10 4 S . Ct. 2 27 8, 8 1 L.Ed.2 d 8 94 (19 84 ).” Cas ti ll o- Aria s v . U.S. Att’y Gen., 4 46 F.3d11 90 , 11 95 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 6) (ci ta ti onan d i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . II . Bart onco nt en ds th atth e BIA erredinfin di ng he was i ne li gi bl e fo r a wai ve r of hi s arm edrob be ry

co nv ic ti on s u nd er fo rm er INA § 21 2( c). Tha t p ro vi si on al lo ws the Att orne y

Gene ral to waiv e anali en ’s in adm is si bl e st atus when anali en is a lawfu l p erm an en t re si de ntwho ha s l iv edco nt in uo us ly in the Uni te d S ta te s fo r se ve n years. See INA § 21 2( c), 8 U.S.C. § 1 18 2( c). Altho ug h § 21 2( c) o rig in al ly

1 pr ov id edfora waiv er o f ex cl us io n fo r al ie ns who ha d g on e ab ro adtem po rari ly, th e p ro vi si on ha s b een“ ex te nd edto pro vi de rel ie f fro m de po rta ti on ord ers as well .” Ase nc io v. INS, 3 7 F .3d61 4, 6 16 (11 th Cir . 19 94 ). A § 2 12 (c) wai ve r is av ai labl e to rem ov ab le lawf ul pe rm an en t re si de nt s o nl y Although Congress repeale d § 212(c) in 1996, Ba rton, who plea ded guilty

befor e the 1 repe al, ca n still seek § 212( c) r elief. See Alexandre v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 452 F .3d 1204, 1207 (11th Cir. 2006). 4to th e ex te ntth atth e g ro un ds forrem ov al are an al og ou s t o g ro un ds forex cl us io n

un de r INA § 2 12 (a), 8 U.S.C. § 1 18 2( a). The BIA d et erm in edth atalt ho ug h Bart on ’s rob be ry

co nv ic ti on s h adanan al og ou s g ro un d fo r ex cl us io n u nd er INA § 21 2( a) t o the ex te ntth atth ey were ch arg edas c rimes of m or al tu rp itud e, th ey

di d no t t o the ex te ntth atth ey were ch arg edas a gg rav at edfel on ie s. Fo r th atreas on , rem ov ab il ity

co ul d n otbe waiv edun de r § 2 12 (c) fo r th e ro bb ery co nv ic ti on s. Bart on arg ue s, h owe ve r, th athe sh ou ldno t b e d ep riv edof § 21 2( h) rel ie f fro m th e effe ctof h is m ari

juan a co nv ic ti on jus t b ecau se th e ro bb ery co nv ic ti on s ar e b ot h cri m es of m or al turp itud e an d a gg rav at edfel on ie s. To ad jus t s ta tu s, an ali enm

us t b e le ga ll y

adm is si bl e in to th e Uni te d S ta te s. INA § 2 45 (a), 8 U.S.C. § 1 25 5( a). An a li enwho ha s b eenco nv ic te d o f any co nt ro ll edsubs tanc e o ffen se is in adm is si bl e, al th ou gh th atco nv ic ti on m ay be waiv edun de r § 2 12 (h ). INA § 2 12 (a)( 2) (A)(i )(II) , (a)(2 )(F) , 8 U.S.C. § 11 82 (a)( 2) (A)(i )(II) , (a)(2 )(F) . In p art ic ul ar, a m ari juan a co nv ic ti onin vo lv in g si m pl e p os se ss io n o f th irt y

gra m s o r le ss m ay

be waiv ed , at the di sc ret io n o f th e Att orne y Gene ral , foranali enwho is th e sp ou se , par en t, o r ch il d o f anAm eri can ci ti zenor l awfu l p erm an en t re si de ntif the de ni al of a dm is si on wou ld“res ul t i n ex tre m e h ard sh ip ” to th e Am eri cancit iz enor p erm an en t re si de nt . INA § 21 2( h) (1 )(B) , 8 U.S.C. § 11 82 (h )(1 )(B) . 5Howev er, anali enwho ha s “ be enco nv ic te d o f anag gr av at edfel on y ” is no t

el ig ib le fora § 2 12 (h ) wai ve r. INA § 2 12 (h ), 8 U.S.C. § 11 82 (h ). A th eftoff en se is anag gr av at edfel on y . INA § 1 01 (a)( 43 )(G), 8 U.S.C. § 1 10 1( a)(4 3) (G). Even if th e BIA h adwaiv edBart on ’s rob be ry co nv ic ti on s, wai ve r of

anali en ’s con vi ct io n un de r fo rm er INA § 21 2( c) d oe s n otop erat e as “ a p ard on or e xp un ge m en t o f th e co nv ic ti on it se lf” an d s uc h aco nv ic ti on canst il l s erv e as a ba si s fo r de po rta ti on . See I n re Bal de ras , 20 I. & N. Dec. 38 9, 3 91 (19 91 ); c f. Ali v. U.S. Att ’y Gen., 4 43 F.3 d 8 04 , 80 9 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 6) (ho ld in g tha t “ st at e co nv ic ti on s ex pu ng edun de r a reh ab il it at iv e st atut e are st il l co nv ic ti on s fo r immig rat io n p ur po se s” (ci ta ti on an d in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) ). Bart onis no t el ig ib le fora § 2 12 (h ) wai ve r of hi s m ari juan a co nv ic ti on be cau se hi s ro bb ery co nv ic ti on s ar e ag gr av at edfel on ie s. His un waiv edm ari juan a co nv ic ti on is su ffi ci en t t o d en y hi m rel ie f of rem ov al . See INA § 21 2( a)(2 )(A)(i )(II) , 8 U.S.C. § 11 82 (a)( 2) (A)(i )(II) . Thu s, the BIA d idno t err in affi rm in g the IJ’s d en ia l o f Barto n’s re qu es t fo r rel ie f fro m rem ov al . PETI TI ON DENI ED .

6