FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T AUGUST 12, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 14 96 3 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Agen cy No. A0 34 -7 14 -9 53 W ILFREDO FREDERIC K DARIA, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pet it io ne r,
ver su s U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll 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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Au gu st12 , 20 11 ) Befo re EDMONDSON, W ILSON an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM: W il fred o F red eri ckDari a p et it io ns th is Co urt fo r rev ie w of h is rem ov al pr oc eed in gs . Spe ci fic al ly, he cla im s t ha t t he U.S. Atto rn ey Gene ral vi ol at edhi spr oc edur al du e p ro ces s ri gh ts by w ai ti ng un ti l 2 00 8 t o c omm en ce re m ov al

pr oc eed in gs ba se d o n a n a gg rav at edfel on y co nv ic ti on—s ex ua l b at te ry —i n 1 99 1. 1

“ The pro cedur al co m

po ne nt of t he Fif

th Am en dm en t’s Du e Pro ces s C la us e pr ot ect s ag ai ns t t he de pr iv at io n o f li fe, l ib ert y , or p ro pe rty with ou t t he ‘ du e pr oc es s o f la w.’ The n eces sa ry fir stst ep in ev al ua ti ng an y pro cedur al du e-p ro ces s cl ai m is de te rm in in g wh et he r a co ns ti tu ti on al ly pro te ct edin te res t h as be en im pl ic at ed .” Tef

el v. Reno , 18 0 F .3d12 86 , 12 99 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ) (i nt ern al cit at io n
om it te d)
. Here, Dari a d oe s n ot art ic ul at e th e co ns ti tu ti on al ly pro te ct edin te res t at st ak e. He do es no t d em on st rat e th ateit he r “pr op ert y ” o r “ li be rty” are i m pl ic at ed by the Att orne y

Gene ral ’s dec is io n t o c omm en ce re m ov al pro ceed in gs in 20 08
. In st ead , he a rg ue s t ha t t he Att orne y Gene ral ’s dec is io n v io la te d g en eral pre cep ts of fai rn es s. Bu t t ha t cl ai m

do es no t warran t re li ef u nd er t he Due P ro ces s C la us e in th is cas e. Se e, e.g . , Dan da n v . Ash cr of t , 33 9 F .3d56 7, 5 75 (7t h C ir. 2 00 3) (“ [T]he d eci si on when to co m m en ce d ep or ta ti on pro ceed in gs is wit hi n t he
The notice to appea

r issued by

the Depa rtment of Homela

nd secur ity

also stated Da

ria 1 was re moveable be cause (1) he committed two crimes of mora l turpitude—the 1991 conviction for se x ual batter

y and a 2007 c onviction for unemploy ment compensation fraud; and ( 2) he committed ag g ravated-fe lony burg lary in 2000. The F lorida cour ts vacated the burg lary conviction in 2008, and Da ria e ntere d into a new guilty plea, whic h resulted in a se ntence of less than one year

of imprisonment. Acc ording ly , it was no long er a n independe nt gr ound for remova l. Ultimately , the Immigration J udg e and B oard of Immigration Appeals denie d relief based on the sexual battery conviction. 2di sc ret io n o f th e Att orne y Gene ral an d d oe s n ot , th eref or e, in vo lv e a p ro te ct ed pr op erty or l ib erty in te res t.”) . Accor di ng ly, we de ny his pe ti ti on forrev ie w. PETI TI ON DENI ED.

3