A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, thi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l ythator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tthe det erm i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### O c t ob e r5,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT J E FFR E Y B R U E , al s o know n as H ung V an Li ederbach,

P eti ti o n er, v. A LB ER TO R. G O N ZA LES, A tto rn e yG e n e ra l,

R e sp o n d e n t. N o. 05- 9569

ON P ET I TI ON F OR RE VI EW F ROM THE BOAR D

OF I M M I GR ATI ON APP EALS ( B I A N o. A 31- 272- 715) S ub m i t t ed o n the bri efs: * L au ra L . L ichter, L ichter a n d A sso ciates, P.C . , D en v er, C o lorad o , fo r P eti ti o n er. Pet erD . K ei s l er , A s s i s t antA t t orneyG ener al ; M ark C . W al t er s , A s s i s t ant D i r ect or ; St ephen J . Fl ynn, Seni orL i t i gat i on C ouns el , O ffi ce of I m m i gr at i on L i t i gat i on, U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof J us t i ce, W as hi ngt on, D . C . , for R e sp o n d e n t. B efor e B RI S CO E , M c KAY , and BROR BY , C i rcui tJudg es.-2-

M c KAY , C i r cui tJ udge. Pet i t i onerJ eff

r eyB rue, al s o know n as H ung V an Li ederbach, pet i t i ons for re v iew o f

a fin a l o rd e r o f

re m o v a l issu e d b yth e B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( B I A ) , w hi ch affi r m ed the dec i s i on of an i m m i gr at i on j udge ( I J ) , thathe i s an al i en and r emovabl e bec aus e he c om m i t t ed an a ggr avat ed fe l ony . E xer ci s i ng j ur i s di ct i on under8 U . S. C . § 1252, w e DE NY th e p e t i t i o n fo rr e v i e w. I. Pet i t i onerw as born i n V i etnam i n 1968. H e has been t ol d thathi s m other abandone d hi m atan ea r l yage be caus e of hi s A m er as i an cha r act er i s t i cs . I n 1973, he emi gr at ed t o the U ni t ed St at es and w as admi t t ed as a l aw ful perm anent re sid e n t. H e w a s p lac e d w ith a fo ste r fa m ily , the V a n L ied e rb a c h s, a n d liv e d w ith them unt i l 1977. Pet i t i oneral l eges thathe w as phy s i cal l y , s exual l y , and e m o tio n a lly a b u s e d b yM r. V a n L ie d e rb a c h a n d a n o ld e r a d o p te d s is te r. P e tit io n e r w a s n e x t p lac e d w ith K e ith a n d M a d o n n a B ru e , w h o a d o p ted h im i n 1978. Pet i t i onerl i ved w i th the B rues i n W i s cons i n unt i l appr oxi m at el y1982 w h e n h e w a s p lac e d fo r a y e a r in a ju v e n ile fa c ili tyk n o w n a s L a d d L a k e d u e to b e h a v i o r a l p r o b l e ms i n c l u d i n g fi g h t s a ts c h o o l a n d t e mp e rt a n tru ms a th o me . He r ece i ved medi cat i on and ther apyatL add Lake, butw as expos ed t o othertr oubl ed y outh and s exual advanc es . Pet i t i onerthen r eturned t o the B rues , att empt ed s ui ci de af

t erhi s bes tfr i end w as ki l l ed, and w as pl ace d ata j uveni l e r es i dent i al“O n M arc h 1 , 2 0 0 3 the IN S ce ase d to ex ist , an d it s resp o n sibil it ies w ere 1 di vi ded among t hr ee di s t i nctagenc i es form ed w i thi n the new D epart m entof H om el and Secur i ty . ” B errum -G arci a v. C om f ort , 3 9 0 F .3 d 1 1 5 8 , 1 1 6 0 n .1 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). -3- tre a tm e n t fa c ili ty , O d y ss e yH o u se , w h e re h e re c e iv e d th e ra p y . In c o n n e c tio n w ith th is p lac e m e n t, th e B ru e s s u rre n d e re d leg a l cu sto d yto th e D a n e C o u n ty D e p a rt m e n t o f

H u m a n S e rv ic e s . T he B rues fi l ed For m N - 402, t i t l ed “A ppl i cat i on t o Fi l e Pet i t i on for N atur al i zat i on i n B ehal f of Chi l d” ( A ppl i cat i on) , A dm i n. R . at330, w i th the form er I m m i gr at i on and N atur al i zat i on Ser vi ce ( I N S) . T he B rues ’ s i gnatur es on 1 the A ppl i cat i on ar e dat ed A pr i l 21, 1985. A ccor di ng t o the A ppl i cat i on, M r . B rue i ndi cat ed thatpet i t i onerw as m ent al l ydi s turbed, w as noti n the B rues ’ l egal cu stod y , h ad b ee n li v ing at O d y sseyH o u se sin ce M ay1 9 8 3 , an d w o u ld n o t r eturn t o li ve w i th the B rues atanyt i m e i n the futur e. T he A pp l i cat i on con t ai ns a

“ N o n file d ” b o x , in w h ic h w a s w ri tte n “ n o t r e s id in g w ith p a re n ts in le g a l c u s to d y .” Id. at332. A ft erhi s di s char ge fr om O dy s s eyH ous e, pet i t i onerengage d i n a s er i es of cr i m i nal act s i n W i s cons i n r es ul t i ng i n a var i etyof arr es t s , char ges , and s ent ence s . I n 1990, he moved t o C ol or ado and, i n 1992, pl eade d gui l tyt o a vi ol at i on of C ol o. R ev. St at . § 18- 3- 403 ( r epea l ed 2000) , s exual as s aul ti n the s e c o n d d e g re e , b a s e d o n a s e x u a l e n c o u n te r w ith a tw e lv e -ye a r- o ld g ir l. Pet i t i onercl ai m s the gi r l t ol d hi m s he w as s i xt een a nd thatthe enc ount erw asA s a r es ul tof a mot i on forpos t convi ct i on r el i ef, pet i t i oner ’ s ei ght - y ear 2 s ent ence forthe 1992 offens e w as vaca t ed i n 2004 bas ed on i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el and r epl ace d w i th a s ent ence of t en mont hs w i th cr edi tfort i m e s erved. H i s four - y ears ent ence forthe 2000 offens e w as notal t er ed. -4- cons ens ual . H e w as s ent ence d t o ei ghty ear s ’ confi nementand s erved appr oxi m at el yfi ve y ear s , r ece i vi ng couns el i ng and ther apyforhi s di agnos ed b ip o lar d iso rd e r a n d h is s e x u a l m isc o n d u c t. In 2 0 0 0 , p e tit io n e r p lea d e d g u iltyto a vi ol at i on of C ol o. R ev. St at . § 18- 6- 701, contr i but i ng t o the del i nquencyof a m i nor , bas ed on offer i ng drugs t o a mi norm al e i n excha nge fors ex. H e w as se n ten c e d to fo u r y e a rs’ c o n fin e m e n t. 2 U pon hi s r el eas e i n 2003, the D epart m entof H om el and Secur i tys erved p e tit io n e r w ith a N o tice to A p p e a r (N T A ), ch a rg in g h im w ith re m o v a b ili ty p u r s u a n tt o 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 2 7 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( A) ( i i ) a n d ( i i i ) b a s e d o n h i s c o n v i c t i o n s o f two s epar at e cr i m es i nvol vi ng m or al turpi tude and on hi s convi ct i on of an a ggr avat ed fe lo n y , se x u a l ab u se o f a m in o r. P e tit io n e r d e n ied th e m ajo rityo f th e c h a rg e s in the N T A , as s ert ed thathe w as a U ni t ed St at es ci t i zen, and r eques t ed a va r i etyof form s of r el i ef f

r om r emoval , i ncl udi ng, as r el evanther e, r es tr i ct i on on r emoval u n d e r 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 3 1 (b )( 3 ). II. I ni t i al l y , D avi d C or dova w as the I J as s i gned t o the admi ni s tr at i ve p ro c e e d in g . T h e re c o rd re flec ts th a t h e h e ld tw o p re lim in a ryh e a rin g s, o n e in D ece m ber2003 and one on J une 17, 2004, atw hi ch pet i t i oner ’ s couns el ar gued-5-

thatpet i t i onerl acke d the ment al compet encyt o under s t and the natur e of the char ges agai ns thi m oras s i s ti n hi s ow n defe ns e. I m m i gr at i on J udge C or dova expr es s ed conc ern aboutpet i t i oner ’ s compet encyand i ndi cat ed thathe w oul d s i gn a n o rd e r fo r a n e v a lu a tio n if c o u n se l fo r b o th p a rties c o u ld a g re e o n its c o n ten ts a n d p e titio n e r’ s c o u n s e l p ro v id e d a p ro p o s e d o rd e r. See, e. g. , A d m in . R . a t 6 5 -6 6 . T he r ecor d cont ai ns a pr opos ed or derthatacc om pani es an uns i gned copyof a m o tio n re q u e s tin g th e Im m ig ra tio n C o u rt to o rd e r a m e n ta l h e a lth e v a lu a tio n . See A d m in. R . at 62 1 -24 . Itis un clea r w h ethe r th e m o ti o n o r th e p rop o sed o rde r w ere e v e r file d . I m m i gr at i on J udge C or dova then s t opped hea r i ng cas es , and a ne w i m m i gr at i on j udge as s i gned t o the ca s e, J . P. V andel l o, hel d fi ve hea r i ngs betw een J une 30 and D ece m ber7, 2004. Pet i t i onert es t i fi ed abouthi s hi s t oryatl ength, i ncl udi ng m anyof the det ai l s s etfor th above, i n part i cul arthos e s urr oundi ng the 1992 and 2000 fe l onyoffe ns es . Pet i t i oneral s o cal l ed a ps y chol ogi s t , D r . K i m , as a w i tnes s . D r . K i m had r evi ew ed pet i t i oner ’ s r ecor ds and conduc t ed a tw o- hour m e n tal s tatu s e x a m in Ju ly2 0 0 4 . H e tes tifie d th a t p e tit io n e r h a s a n IQ sc o re in the mi l d m ent al r et ar dat i on r ange a nd a gamutof ps y chi atr i c s ym pt om s , i ncl udi ng tr ans i t orys ui ci dal thought s ; depr es s i on; bi zarr e thi nki ng and beha vi or , i ncl udi ng per s ecut oryi deat i on; ps y chot i c orform al thoughtdi s or ders ym pt om s s uch as audi t oryand vi s ual hal l uci nat i ons on an i nt erm i t t entbas i s ; and bi pol arand pos t - tr aumat i c s tr es s di s or der s . D r . K i m al s o t es t i fi ed thatpet i t i onerbel i eves-6-

s om eone ha d puta chi p i n hi s earand s om ethi ng i n hi s food. D r . K i m opi ned that p e tit io n e r w o u ld b e n e fit fro m tre a tm e n t in a re sid e n tial g ro u p h o m e a n d is n o t a th re a t to p h y s ic a lly a s s a u lt o th e rs . I m m i gr at i on J udge V andel l o i s s ued a w r i t t en dec i s i on i n w hi ch he found thatpet i t i onerw as nota U ni t ed St at es ci t i zen, w as r emovabl e bec aus e hi s 1992 and 2000 offens es w er e aggr avat ed fe l oni es orcr i m es i nvol vi ng m or al turpi tude, and w as notel i gi bl e fororent i t l ed t o anyof the r eques t ed r el i ef. H e di d not m ake a nyfi ndi ng conce rni ng pet i t i oner ’ s compet ency , butdi d not e thatpet i t i oner h a s a “ se rio u s m e n tal illn e ss ,” A d m in . R . at 5 7 . H e o rd e re d p e tit io n e r re m o v e d to V ietn a m . T h e B IA d e c lin e d to a d m in istra tiv e lyc lo se th e p ro c e e d in g s d u e to pet i t i oner ’ s al l eged i ncompet ence , s ubs t ant i al l yagr eed w i th the I J ’ s deci s i on, and di s m i s s ed the appe al . T hi s pet i t i on forr evi ew fol l ow ed. III . I n thi s court , pet i t i onerdoes notchal l enge the ca t egor i zat i on of hi s 1992 and 2000 offens es as aggr avat ed fe l oni es . I ns t ead, he r ai s es the fol l ow i ng ar gum ent s : ( 1) beca us e he metthe s t atut oryr equi r ement s fornatur al i zat i on w hen the B rues t ender ed the 1985 A ppl i cat i on on hi s behal f, he aut om at i cal l yacqui r ed ci t i zens hi p and i s ther efor e nots ubj ectt o r emoval ; ( 2) the r emoval pr ocee di ngs v io late d h is F if

th A m e n d m e n t d u e p ro c e ss rig h ts b e c a u se h e is m e n tally i ncompet ent ; and ( 3) the age ncyfai l ed t o cons i derthe appr opr i at e fa ct or s w hen-7-

fi ndi ng thathe had c om m i t t ed a “ part i cul ar l ys er i ous cr i m e” a nd ther efor e w as n o t e lig ib le fo r r e s tr ic tio n o n re m o v a l p u rs u a n t to 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 3 1 (b )( 3 ). W e have l i m i t ed j ur i s di ct i on under8 U . S. C . § 1252 t o r evi ew a fi nal or der of r emoval . O r di nar i l y , w e mayr evi ew ci t i zens hi p cl ai m s pr ovi ded ther e ar e no d is p u te d is s u e s o f

m a te ri a l fa c t. See 8 U . S. C . § 1252( b) ( 5) . I n contr as t , w e l ack j ur i s di ct i on i f, as her e, a pet i t i oneri s s ubj ectt o r emoval forcomm i s s i on of an a g g ra v a te d fe lo n yu n d e r 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 7 (a )( 2 )( A )( iii) . See i d. § 1 2 5 2 (a )( 2 )( C ). H ow ever , thr ough the R E A L I D A ctof 2005, Pub. L . N o. 109- 13, 119 St at . 231 ( 2 0 0 5 ) , Co n g r e s s e x p r e s s l yg r a n t e d u s j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e v i e w c o n s t i tu t i o n a l c l a i ms an d q u esti o n s o f law raised in a p eti ti o n fo r rev iew n o tw ith stan d ing statu tory lim ita tio n s s u c h a s § 1 2 5 2 (a )( 2 )( C ). See 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2(a) (2) (D ). A s C on gress expl ai ned: [T]he purpos e of [ § 1252( a) ( 2) ( D ) ] i s t o perm i tj udi ci al r evi ew over tho se i ssues that w ere hi st ori cal l yrevi ew able on h abeas— co n sti tuti o n al an d statu tory -co n stru cti o n q u esti o n s, n o t discreti o n ary orfac tual ques t i ons . W hen a c our ti s pr es ent ed w i th a mi xed ques t i on of l aw and fa ct , the courts houl d anal y ze i tt o the ext ent there are l egal el em ents , bu tshou l d n ot r eview anyfactual el em ents . H . R . R ep . N o . 1 0 9 -72 , at 17 5 (20 0 5 ). W e conc l ude that , notw i ths t andi ng the aggr avat ed fe l onybar , w e have j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e rth e e n t i r e tyo f th e p e t i t i o n i n th i s c a s e p u r s u a n tt o 8 U. S . C. § 1252( a) ( 2) ( D ) . T o the ext entpet i t i onercl ai m s he aut om at i cal l yacqui r ed ci t i zens hi p beca us e he metthe s t atut oryr equi r ement s atthe t i m e the B rues fi l edW e n o te th at th e term ino log yasso ciated w ith the n atura li za ti o n p roc ed u re 3 i n 1985 has l ed t o s om e conf us i on on thi s i s s ue. Pr i ort o the I m m i gr at i on A ctof 1990, thos e s eeki ng natur al i zat i on w er e r equi r ed t o fi l e tw o document s , an a p p lic a tio n a n d a s e p a ra te p e titio n fo r n a tu ra liz a tio n . S ee 7 C h a rl e s G o rd o n e t a l., I m m i gr at i on L aw and Pr ocedur e § 96. 02[3] ( 2006) ( I L P) . I ndeed, thi s i s r efl ect ed i n the name of the form the B rues fi l ed, “A ppl i cat i on t o Fi l e Pet i t i on for N atural i zat i on i n B ehalf of C hil d. ” A dm i n. R . at33 0. T he ap pli cat i on w as a “nec es s aryant ece dent ” t o fi l i ng a pet i t i on. I L P § 96. 02[3] . T he fa ctthatthe “N onfi l ed” box w as fi l l ed i n on the A ppl i cat i on thatthe B rues fi l ed, ther efor e, i ndi cat es thata pet i t i on w as notfi l ed, notthatthe I N S cons i der ed the A ppl i cat i on to b e “ n o n file d ” o r t h a t th e IN S d e n ie d th e A p p lic a tio n o r a p e titio n . A ccor di ngl y , thi s cas e does noti nvol ve the deni al of a na tur al i zat i on pet i t i on, w hi ch now i s t erm ed s i m pl yan “A ppl i cat i on forN atur al i zat i on, ” s ee i d. § 9 6 . 0 3 [ 2 ] . I f

Bru e ’ s c l a i m o f

a u t o ma t i c c i t i z e n s h i p a r o s e f r o m s u c h a d e n i a l , we w o u ld la c k ju ri s d ic tio n . See Abi odun , 2006 W L 2501425, at* 5 ( hol di ng that § 1252( a) ( 2) ( D ) i s of ques t i onabl e r el evanc ybeca us e § 1252( b) ( 5) does not perm i tcons i der at i on of a c l ai m thatan appl i cat i on fornatur al i zat i on w as un l aw full yden i ed in a peti t i on for r eview of rem ov al orders ; such a c l ai m “m ust be br oughtbefor e the U ni t ed St at es di s tr i ctcourtforthe di s tr i cti n w hi ch the p eti ti o n er resid es” ). -8- the 1 98 5 A pp l i cat i on on his beh al f, w e hav e j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew this as a ques t i on of l aw beca us e the fa ct s ar e undi s put ed and r es ol ut i on turns on in te rp re ta tio n o f

th e a p p lic a b le s ta tu to ry se c tio n . See Abi odun v. G onz al es ,

___ F . 3 d ___ , N o s. 0 5 -95 8 5 an d 0 5 -96 0 3 , 2 0 0 6 W L 2 5 0 1 4 2 5 , at * 4 -5 (1 0 th C ir . A ug. 30, 2006) ( exer ci s i ng j ur i s di ct i on t o cons i derw hether , on undi s put ed m at er i al fac t s , a pet i t i onerw ho fi l ed a na tur al i zat i on appl i cat i on s at i s fi ed the publ i c ce r emonyr equi r ementof 8 U . S. C . § 1448 bys i gni ng an oath of al l egi ance and so becam e a U nit ed S t at es nati on al ). T o the ext ent that pet i t i on er m akes a 3 due pr oces s ar gum ent , he r ai s es cons t i tut i onal and s t atut ory - cons truct i on i s s ues th a t c le a rl yfa ll w ith in § 1 2 5 2 (a )( 2 )( D ). See Morgan v. A t t or ney G ener al ,-9-

432 F. 3d 226, 229 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . A nd as forthe age ncy ’ s det erm i nat i on that pet i t i onercomm i t t ed a pa r t i cul ar l ys er i ous cr i m e, w e conc l ude thati tdoes not p re s e n t, a s re s p o n d e n ts a rg u e , a c o m p le te ly u n re v ie w a b le d is c re tio n a ry d e c is io n . “W hi l e w e ca nnotr ew ei gh evi dence t o det erm i ne i f the cr i m e w as i ndeed p arti cu larl yseriou s, w e c an d eterm ine [ u n d er the R E A L ID A ct] w h ethe r th e B IA appl i ed the corr ectl egal s t andar d i n m aki ng i t s det erm i nat i on. ” A f r i div. G onz al es , 442 F. 3d 1212, 1218 ( 9th C i r . 2006) . W e r evi ew eac h of the i s s ues ra is e d in th e p e titio n d e n o v o . See Ni ang v. G onz al es , 422 F. 3d 1187, 1196 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) (l eg al qu esti o n s); Ag o s t o v . I NS , 436 U . S. 748, 753 ( 1978) (c itiz e n s h ip ). P e t i t i o n e ra r g u e s th a t , wh e n th e Bru e s p r e s e n t e d th e Ap p l i c a t i o n t o th e I NS i n 1985, he metal l the condi t i ons of 8 U . S. C . § 1434 perm i t t i ng the natur al i zat i on of adopt ed chi l dr en; ther efor e, he ar gues , he aut om at i cal l ybeca m e a U ni t ed St at es c iti z e n . A s re sp o n d e n ts c o rre c tlyp o in t o u t, ho w e v e r, § 1 4 3 4 w a s re p e a led in 1978, and C ongr es s amended 8 U . S. C . § 1433 s o thati tappl i ed t o adopt ed c h ild re n in s te a d . See Pub. L . N o. 95- 417, §§ 6- 7, 92 St at . 917 ( 1978) . A tthe t i m e the B rues pr es ent ed the A ppl i cat i on t o the I N S i n 1985, § 1433 perm i t t ed natur al i zat i on of an a dopt ed chi l d “onl yi f the chi l d i s r es i di ng i n the U ni t ed St at es , i n the cus t odyof the adopt i ve par entorpar ent s , pur s uantt o a l aw ful admi s s i on forperm anentr es i dence . ” 8 U . S. C . § 1433( b) ( 1982) ( amended 1986, 19 90 , 19 94 , 19 99 , 20 00 , 20 02 ). T his con dit i on cl earl yw as not m ethere becau seW e cons i derthi s i s s ue ful l yaw ar e that , al though the I J di d notm ake a ny 4 compet encyfi ndi ngs , the B I A found i ns uffi ci entevi dence t o es t abl i s h that p e tit io n e r c o u ld n o t co m p re h e n d th e n a tu re o f th e p ro c e e d in g s a g a in st h im . T h is ap p ea rs t o run afo u l of 8 C . F . R . § 1 0 0 3 . 1 (d)(3 )(i v ), w h ich p rov ides that the B IA “w il l no t eng ag e in fac tfi n d ing in the co u rse o f d ec iding ap p ea ls. ” H o w ev er, n e ith e r p a rtyh a s ra ise d th is iss u e , an d o u r d isp o sitio n d o e s n o t re q u ire u s to a d d re ss it. -10- pet i t i onerw as r es i di ng atO dy s s eyH ous e, noti n the l egal orphy s i cal cus t odyof the B rues . A ccor di ngl y , pet i t i onercoul d notaut om at i cal l yhave be come a U ni t ed S tate s c iti z e n b yv irtu e o f sim p lyten d e rin g th e A p p lica tio n to file a p e tit io n to natur al i ze e ven i f aut om at i c ac qui s i t i on of ci t i zens hi p w oul d be perm i s s i bl e under the s t atut e, an i s s ue on w hi ch w e expr es s no opi ni on. P et i t i on er nextargues that the rem ov al proceed i ng s vi olat ed h i s due p rocess r i ght s beca us e I m m i gr at i on J udge V andel l o el ect ed t o i gnor e the i s s ue of pet i t i oner ’ s m ent al compet ency , w hi ch he c ont ends pr event ed hi m fr om u n d e r s t a n d i n g th e n a tu r e o f th e p r o c e e d i n g s a n d a s s i s t i n g i n h i s d e fe n s e . We dis agree. A l i ens are not necessar i l yenti t l ed to the fu l l range o f du e process

4 p ro te c tio n s a ffo rd e d to c ri m in a l d e fe n d a n ts . See INS v. L op ez-Mend oza , 46 8 U. S. 1 0 3 2 , 1 0 3 8 (1 9 8 4 ); Ne e Ha o Wo n gv . I NS , 5 5 0 F .2 d 5 2 1 , 5 2 3 (9 th C ir . 1 9 7 7 ). “R ather , the pr ocedur al s afe guar ds ar e mi ni m al beca us e al i ens do nothave a cons t i tut i onal r i ghtt o ent erorr emai n i n the U ni t ed St at es . ” Schr oeckv. G onz al es , 4 2 9 F .3 d 9 4 7 , 9 5 1 -5 2 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( q u o ta tio n o m itte d ). A c c o rd in g ly , w e h a v e h e ld th a t, “w h e n fa c in g re m o v a l, alien s a re e n tit led o n lyto p ro c e d u ra l d u e p ro c e ss , w h ich p ro v id e s th e o p p o rtu n ityto b e h e a rd a t a-11-

m eani ngful t i m e and i n a meani ngful m anner . ” Id. a t 9 5 2 (q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ). T hus , contr aryt o the s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s pr ot ect i on fr om tr i al and convi ct i on to w h ic h a m e n ta lly in c o m p e te n t c ri m in a l d e fe n d a n t is e n title d , s ee Sm i th v. Mu lli n , 3 7 9 F . 3 d 9 1 9 , 9 3 0 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ), rem o v al pro ce ed ing s m ayg o fo rw ard a g a in s t in c o m p e te n t a lie n s , Nee Hao Wong , 550 F. 2d at523. R emoval pr ocee di ngs agai ns tm ent al l yi ncompet ental i ens , how ever , ar e not w i thoutcons tr ai nt . C ongr es s has pr ovi ded that , “[i ] f i ti s i m pr act i cabl e byr eas on of an a l i en’ s m ent al i ncompet encyforthe al i en t o be pr es entatthe pr ocee di ng, the A t t orneyG ener al s hal l pr es cr i be s afe guar ds t o pr ot ectthe r i ght s and p ri v il eg es o f th e a li en . ” 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 2 9 a(b )(3). P u rsua n t t o this st atuto ry d ire c tiv e , the A tto rn e yG e n e ra l h a s p re sc rib e d th e fo llo w in g : W hen i ti s i m pr act i cabl e forthe r es pondentt o be pr es entatthe hear i ng beca us e of ment al i ncompet ency , the att orney , l egal r epr es ent at i ve, l egal guar di an, nearr el at i ve, orfr i end w ho w as se rv e d w ith a c o p yo f

th e n o tice to a p p e a r sh a ll b e p e rm itt e d to appea ron behal f of the r es pondent . I f s uch a pe r s on cannot r eas onabl ybe found orfai l s orr efus es t o appea r , the cus t odi an of the re sp o n d e n t sh a ll b e re q u e ste d to a p p e a r o n b e h a lf o f th e re sp o n d e n t. 8 C . F. R . § 1240. 4. T he r egul at i on s ugges t s that , w hen ment al i ncompet ence m akes an al i en’ s pr es ence ata r emoval pr ocee di ng i m pr act i cabl e, an I J m ay conductthe pr ocee di ng pr ovi ded thatthe al i en i s r epr es ent ed byan att orneyor otherper s on; a cus t odi an i s r equi r ed onl yw hen the al i en has no other re p re s e n ta tiv e .-12-

A s re sp o n d e n ts p o in t o u t, th e sta tu te a n d th e re g u latio n fa c iallya p p e a r to r equi r e no pr ocedur al s afe guar ds i f an unr epr es ent ed, m ent al l yi ncompet ental i en i s neverthel es s abl e t o be pr es entathi s r emoval pr ocee di ng. W e nee d notdel ve i nt o thi s i s s ue bec aus e, even a s s um i ng pet i t i onerw as i ncompet entatthe t i m e of hi s r emoval pr ocee di ngs , an i s s ue w e expr es s l ydo notdeci de, he w as r epr es ent ed bycouns el . A ccor di ngl y , the I J had no obl i gat i on underei therthe s t atut e orthe r egul at i on t o cons i derpet i t i oner ’ s m ent al compet encybeca us e the pr ocedur al s a fe g u a rd s th e ye n v is io n w e re a lr e a d yin p la c e . A d d iti o n a lly , p e tit io n e r re c e iv e d th e p ro c e ss h e is d u e u n d e r th e F if th A m e n d m e n t b e c a u se h e h a s n o t sh o w n th a t th e re m o v a l p ro c e e d in g s c a u se d h im p reju d ic e , a re q u ir e m e n t fo r a s u c c e s s f u l d u e p ro c e s s c h a lle n g e , s ee B errum -G arci a v. C om f ort , 3 9 0 F . 3 d 1 1 5 8 , 1 1 6 5 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). P eti ti o n er’s c o u n se l as se rts th a t, du e to p e tit io n e r’s m e n tal s tatu s, p e tit io n e r w a s u n a b le to i dent i fyfac t s , evi dence , orpot ent i al w i tnes s es thatw oul d s uppor thi s appl i cat i ons forr el i ef. H ow ever , pet i t i oner ’ s cl ai m of ci t i zens hi p and mostof hi s r eques t s for re lief f ro m re m o v a l tu rn e d o n u n d isp u ted fa c ts o r le g a l issu e s u n a ffe c ted b yh is c o m p e ten c e . A lth o u g h h is te stim o n yo c c a sio n a llyd rif ted o ff p o in t, he lar g e ly w a s a b le to a n sw e r th e q u e stio n s p o se d to h im a n d p ro v id e h is v e rsio n o f th e fa c ts s urr oundi ng hi s pas t , part i cul ar l ythe det ai l s of hi s convi ct i on forthe 1992 offe ns e, s econd de gr ee s exual as s aul t . T he det ai l s of thatconvi ct i on ar e ce ntr al t o hi s ar gum ent , di s cus s ed bel ow , thati tw as nota “pa r t i cul ar l ys er i ous cr i m e”W e norm al l yr evi ew the B I A ’ s deci s i on w hen, as her e, i ti s author ed byone 5 B o a rd m e m b e r p u rs u a n t to 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .1 (e )( 5 ). See Uanr er or o v. G onz al es , 443 F. 3d 1197, 1204 ( 10th C i r . 2006) . H ow ever , w e mayl ook t o the I J ’ s deci s i on to u n d e rsta n d th e B IA ’s d e c isio n b e tter if th e B IA ’s d e c isio n “ e x p licitly inco rpo rates o r refe ren ce s an ex p an d ed v ersion o f th e sa m e re aso n ing ” tha t th e IJ g a v e , i d. , and w e do s o her e. A l though a “pa r t i cul ar l ys er i ous cr i m e” i ncl udes aggr avat ed fe l oni es for 6 w hi ch an a l i en has been s ent ence d t o an aggr egat e t erm of i m pr i s onm entof fi ve y ear s orm or e, thi s does not“pr ecl ude the A t t orneyG ener al fr om det erm i ni ng that , notw i ths t andi ng the l ength of the s ent ence i m pos ed, an al i en has been convi ct ed of a part i cul ar l ys er i ous cr i m e. ” 8 U . S. C . § 1231( b) ( 3) ( B ) . T he (c o n tin u e d ...) -13- beca us e, acc or di ng t o hi m , the tw el ve- y ear - ol d vi ct i m cons ent ed and no for ce w as i nv olved. H ow ever, his m ental st at e did not precl ud e him from rel at i ng these d e t a i l s , a n d th e I J s p e c i fi c a l l yr e c o u n t e d th e m i n h i s d e c i s i o n . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we c o n c lu d e th a t th e re m o v a l p ro c e e d in g s p ro v id e d p e tit io n e r w ith th e o p p o rtu n ityto b e h ea rd a t a m ea n ing fu l t im e a n d in a m ea n ing fu l m an n er. P e tit io n e r’s fin a l ar g u m e n t co n c e rn s h is re q u e st fo r re stric tio n o n re m o v a l, w h ich h e is e n tit led to if h e c a n sh o w th a t re m o v a l to V ietn a m w o u ld th re a ten h is l i fe orfr eedom bas ed on hi s r ace , r el i gi on, nat i onal i ty , m ember s hi p i n a part i cul ar s oci al gr oup, orpol i t i cal opi ni on, s ee 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 3 1 (b )(3 )(A ). H o w e v e r, th is r el i ef i s notavai l abl e t o an al i en w ho has comm i t t ed a “ part i cul ar l ys er i ous cr i m e. ” Id. § 1231( b) ( 3) ( B ) ( i i ) . T he I J det erm i ned thatpet i t i oner ’ s 1992 and 2 0 0 0 o ffe n s e s e a c h q u a lif ya s a “ p a rt ic u la rl ys e ri o u s c ri m e .” 5 T he s t atut e pr ovi des no hel pful gui dance i n defi ni ng “part i cul ar l ys er i ous cr i m e” a s i tr el at es t o pet i t i oner . I n Mat t erof Fr ent es cu , the B IA se t fo rth 6( . . . cont i nued) 6 a g g re g a te s e n ten c e fo r p e tit io n e r’s tw o a g g ra v a ted fe lo n ies w a s, a f ter h is po st -convict i on m oti on , fou r y ears and t en m on ths. -14- fac t or s t o w hi ch i tl ooks i n j udgi ng the s er i ous nes s of a c r i m e: ( 1) the natur e, ci r cumst ance s , and under l y i ng fac t s of the convi ct i on, ( 2) the type of s ent ence , a n d ( 3 ) “ mo s ti mp o r t a n t l y , wh e th e rth e typ e a n d c i r c u ms t a n c e s o f th e c r i me i ndi cat e thatthe al i en w i l l be a da ngert o the comm uni ty . ” Mat t erof Fr ent es cu , 1 8 I. & N . D e c . 2 4 4 , 2 4 7 (B IA 1 9 8 2 ), s upers eded i n par ton othergr ounds by sta tu te , T h e Im m ig ra tio n A c t o f 1 9 9 0 , P u b . L . N o . 1 0 1 -6 4 9 , § 5 1 5 , 1 0 4 S tat. 4 9 7 8 , 5 0 5 3 (19 9 0 ). T he IJ, full yaw are of t he fa ct s of t he 1 99 2 o ffen se, con cl ud ed thati tw as a part i cul ar l ys er i ous cr i m e bec aus e the vi ct i m of the s exual as s aul tw as a chi l d of tw el ve and pe t i t i onerw as a dange rt o the comm uni ty . T he B I A , al s o aw ar e of the ful l fac tual backgr ound of thatoffe ns e, r eci t ed tw o of the Fr ent es cu fact ors, i ncl udi ng the mosti m por t antone, dangert o the comm uni ty , and agr eed w i th the IJ. W e a re sa tisfied th a t b o th th e IJ a n d th e B IA c o n sid e re d th e a p p ro p ria te fac t or s i n r eac hi ng thei rconcl us i ons as t o the 1992 offens e. T he B I A di d not re a c h th e q u e s tio n o f

w h e th e r t h e 2 0 0 0 o ffe n s e w a s a p a rt ic u la rl ys e ri o u s c ri m e . A s the s t atut e r equi r es a convi ct i on of onl yone part i cul ar l ys er i ous cr i m e i n or der to re n d e r a n a lien in e lig ib le fo r re stric tio n o n re m o v a l, th is w a s a n a p p ro p ria te d is p o s itio n . Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e DE NY th e p e t i t i o n fo rr e v i e w.