A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi 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 tt he 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. T h is o rd e r a n d ju d g m e n t is notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . T he courtgener al l ydi s favor s t he ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; neverthel es s , an or derand j udgm entm aybe ci t ed undert he t erm s and condi t i ons of 10th C i r . R . 36. 3. 

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

### S e p t e m b e r6,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT AN TON I O G AR CI A- OR TI Z, P eti ti o n er, v. A L B E R T O R . G O N Z A L E S, A t t or ney G e n e ra l, R e sp o n d e n t. N o. 05- 9575 ( N o. A 23 187 158) ( P e t i t i o n fo rRe v i e w)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e HENR Y , B RI S CO E , and M UR P HY , C i rcui tJudg es.

A nt oni o G ar ci a- O r t i z 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 ) . T he B I A ’ s or ders um m ar i l yadopt ed and a ffi r m ed a deci s i on of an i m m i gr at i on j udge ( I J ) t hatfound M r . G ar ci a- O r t i z i nel i gi bl e forT he A l amosa Count y , C ol or ado form comm i t m entor deri ndi cat es t haton 1 A u g u s t 5 , 1 9 9 4 , M r. “ O rt iz G a rc ia ” w a s “ fo u n d g u ilty o f, ort he courtacc ept ed [ h is ] p le a o f

g u ilty o r n o lo c o n te n d e re to ” c o n s p ir a c yto d is tr ib u te m a riju a n a . A d m in . R . a t 6 9 (e m p h a s is a d d e d ).

- 2- r el i ef unde rform ers ect i on 212( c) of the I m m i gr at i on and N at i onal i tyA ct , and o r d e r e d h i m r e mo v e d t o M e x i c o . We d e n yth e p e t i t i o n fo rr e v i e w. M r. G arc ia-O rt iz i s a n ati v e a n d cit izen o f M ex ico. H e e n tered this co u n try atE l Pas o, T exas on O ct ober17, 1986, as an i m m i gr ant . O n A ugus t5, 1994, he wa s c o n v i c t e d i n a Co l o r a d o s t a t e c o u r to f c o n s p i r a c yt o d i s tr i b u t e ma r ij u a n a . On N o v e m b e r 1 4 , 1 9 9 4 , h e re c e iv e d a 4 5 -d a yja il s e n te n c e a n d th re e y e a rs ’ p ro b a tio n . A lth o u g h th e d o c u m e n tar ye v id e n c e in th e re c o rd is u n c lea r o n th is p o in t, 1 M r . G ar ci a- O r t i z cont ends thathe w as convi ct ed af t era j uryt r i al r athert han as th e re s u lt o f

a g u ilty p le a . M r. G arci a-O rt i z con cedes t hat he i s r em ov able fr om t his cou ntryas a r es ul tof hi s drug tr aff i cki ng convi ct i on. H e has , how ever , r eques t ed di s cr et i onaryw i thhol di ng of deport at i on r el i ef unde rform er8 U . S. C . § 1182( c) ( 1994) , know n as “s ect i on 212( c) r el i ef. ” For m er§ 212( c) author i zed “ any perm anentr es i dental i en w i th a l aw ful unr el i nqui s hed domi ci l e of s even cons ecut i ve y ear s t o appl yfora di s cr et i onaryw ai verfr om depor t at i on. ” I NS v. St . C yr , 533 U . S. 289, 295 ( 2001) ( quot at i on om i t t ed) . A n al i en w ho had bee n “convi ct ed of one orm or e aggr avat ed fe l oni es and has s erved fors uch fe l onyor- 3-

fe lon ies a term o f im p ri so n m en t of at l ea st 5 y ea rs, ” h o w ev er, w as in eli g ible fo r § 2 1 2 (c ) r e lie f. 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 8 2 (c ). T h e An t i t e r r o r i s m a n d E ffe c t i v e De a th P e n a l tyAc to f 1 9 9 6 ( AE DP A) id e n tifie d a b ro a d c a teg o ryo f o ffe n se s th a t w o u ld c a u se a n a lien to fo rfe it el i gi bi l i tyfor§ 212( c) r el i ef, i ncl udi ng aggr avat ed fe l oni es and contr ol l ed s ubs t ance offe ns es . T he I l l egal I m m i gr at i on R eform and I m m i gr ant R es pons i bi l i tyA ctof 1996 ( I I R I R A ) s ubs equent l yabol i s hed § 212( c) r el i ef al t ogether , and r epl ace d i tw i th a s i m i l arform of r el i ef know n as “ca ncel l at i on of r emoval . ” S e e Mo n ten eg ro v . A sh c ro ft , 3 5 5 F . 3 d 1 0 3 5 , 1 0 3 6 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 4 ) . As an al i en convi ct ed of a n “aggr avat ed fe l ony , ” M r . G ar ci a- O r t i z i s i nel i gi bl e for II R IR A ’s cance l l at i on of rem ov al , even tho ug h h e ser ved l ess than fi ve y ears ’ im p ri s o n m e n t fo r h is o ffe n s e . See i d. H is dru g co n v ict ion w o u ld n o t, h o w ev er, di s qual i fyhi m fr om § 212( c) r el i ef a s i texi s t ed atthe t i m e of hi s convi ct i on, pr ov i de d tha ts uc h r e l i e f r e mai ns a va i l a bl e t o h i m notw i ths t a nd i ng the A ED PA m o d ifica tio n a n d th e IIR IR A re p e a l. M r . G ar ci a- O r t i z cont ends thathe r emai ns el i gi bl e for§ 212( c) r el i ef for tw o r eas ons . Fi r s t , he cont ends thatthe pr es um pt i on agai ns tr etr oact i ve l egi s l at i on appl i es i n hi s cas e, beca us e al i ens w ho w entt o tr i al pr i ort o the enac t m entof I I R I R A had a r eas onabl e r el i ance i nt er es ti n the cont i nued a v a ilab ili tyo f

§ 2 1 2 (c ) re lief. S e c o n d , h e c o n ten d s th a t d e n y in g § 2 1 2 (c ) re lief toW hi l e affi r m i ng s um m ar i l yt he I J ’ s deci s i on i n thi s cas e, t he B I A added a 2 s u c c in c t r e fe re n c e to § 1 2 1 2 .3 (h ) i n its o rd e r. See A d m in . R . a t 2 .

- 4- a l i e n s l i k e h i m s e l f, w h o e x e r c i s e d th e i rS i x th A m e n d m e n tr i g h tt o tr i a l b y j u ry, v io la te s th e E q u a l P ro te c tio n C la u s e . 1. P res um pt i on agai nst ret roact i ve l egi s l at i on I n St . C yr , the S u p rem e C o u rtad d resse d the issu e o f w h ethe r II R IR A ’s re p e a l o f

§ 2 1 2 (c ) re lief

a p p lied re tro a c tiv e lyto a lien s w h o p led g u iltyto aggr avat ed fe l oni es pr i ort o t he r epea l . T he C our tconcl uded thati n l i ghtof (1 ) th e a b se n c e o f

c lea rly -e x p re ss e d C o n g re ss io n a l in ten t to a p p lyth e re p e a l to s uch al i ens , and ( 2) the r eas onabl e r el i ance i nt er es ti n pr i orl aw pos s es s ed bys uch ali en s, d em o n str ated b ytheir de cisi o n to p lead g u il ty , theyrem aine d eli g ible fo r § 2 1 2 (c ) r e lie f. 5 3 3 U .S . a t 3 1 4 -2 6 . St . C yrdi d notaddr es s the s i tuat i on of al i ens l i ke M r . G ar ci a- O r t i z, w ho pr ocee ded t o t r i al . Fol l ow i ng the dec i s i on i n St . C yr , t he A t t or neyG ener al ad o p ted a reg u lat ion p erm itti n g ali en s w h o h ad p lead ed g u il tyo r no lo co n tend ere t o aggr avat ed fe l oni es pr i ort o A E D PA ’ s effect i ve dat e t o appl yfor§ 212( c) reli ef. 8 C . F . R . § 1 2 1 2 . 3 (h). T h is r eg u lat ion fu rth er p rov ides that “[ a]li en s are n o t elig ib le to a p p lyfo r se c tio n 2 1 2 (c ) re lief u n d e r th e p ro v isio n s o f th is par agr aph w i th r es

pectt o convi ct i ons ent er ed af t ertr i al . ” Id. (em p h asis ad d ed ). 2 I n Hem v. Maur er , N o. 05- 9555, 2006 W L 2383281 ( 10th C i r . A ug. 18, 2006) , how ever , w e hel d t hatan al i en w ho pr ocee ded t o tr i al r athert han pl eadi ngT h e T h ir d C ir c u it h a s h e ld th a t a lie n s w h o c h o s e to g o to tr ia l, and w ho 3 decl i ned a pl ea bargai n of f er ed t o them , demonstr at ed a s uffi ci entr el i ance in te re s t to a v o id re tr o a c tiv e a p p lic a tio n o f th e re p e a l. P o n n ap u la v . A sh c ro ft , 3 7 3 F . 3 d 4 8 0 , 4 9 6 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). M r. G arc ia-O rt iz ca n d idlyad m it s, h o w ev er, thathe does notr eca l l w hetherhe dec l i ned a pl ea ba r gai n. A pl t . O peni ng B r . at (c o n tin u e d ...)

- 5- gui l tycoul d s t i l l pos s es s a s uffi ci entobj ect i ve r el i ance i nt er es ti n § 212( c) r el i ef to a v o id re tr o a c tiv e a p p lic a tio n o f II R IR A ’s re p e a l o f

§ 2 1 2 (c ). Id. at*15. U nder the obj ect i ve r el i ance t es t , w e foc us on w hetherthe cl as s of al i ens t o w hi ch an al i en bel ongs had an obj ect i vel yr eas onabl e r el i ance i nt er es tthatw oul d be adver s el yaffect ed bya r etr oact i ve appl i cat i on of I I R I R A , notw hethera part i cul ar a lie n a c tu a lly re lie d o n th e a v a ila b ility o f § 2 1 2 (c ) r e lie f. Id. at*14. T he pet i t i oneri n Hem m etthi s obj ect i ve r el i ance s t andar d, beca us e he be l onged t o t he cl as s of al i ens w ho for ew entan appe al fr om thei rconvi ct i on aft ertr i al , thus e v id e n c in g a re lia n c e in te re s t in § 2 1 2 (c ) r e lie f. Id. a t * 1 5 . M r . G ar ci a- O r t i z ar gues thathe bel ongs , forpurpos es of thi s obj ect i ve r el i ance i nqui r y , t o the cl as s of al i ens convi ct ed of a n aggr avat ed fe l onyw ho w e n t to trial ra th e r th a n p lea d in g g u ilty . H e d o e s n o t affirm a tiv e lya rg u e th a t h is fai l ur e t o appea l demonstr at es obj ect i ve r el i ance on the ava i l abi l i tyof § 212( c) re lief. M r. G a rc ia- O rtiz c ites n o a u th o rityin d ica tin g th a t ex e rc isin g o n e ’s S ix th A m endmentr i ghtt o go t o t r i al , byi t s el f, cons t i tut es a s uffi ci ents how i ng of an obj ect i ve r el i ance i nt er es tt o for ecl os e a r etr oact i ve appl i cat i on of the § 212( c) re p e a l. See i d. a t * 1 5 (sta tin g a lien s in H e m ’s c las s, w h o fo re w e n t ap p e a l, w o u ld

3( . . . cont i nued) 3 1 3 , 2 4 . M r . G ar ci a- O r t i z al s o ci t es the Four th C i r cui t ’ s opi ni on i n O lat unj iv. A sh c ro ft , 387 F. 3d 383 ( 4th C i r . 2004) , w hi ch s t at es that“r el i ance ( w hether s ubj ect i ve orobj ect i ve) i s nota r equi r ementof i m perm i s s i bl e r etr oact i vi ty . ” Id. at 388. I n adopt i ng an obj ect i ve r el i ance appr oach i n Hem , w e i m pl i ci t l yr ej ect ed the no- r el i ance appr oach di s cus s ed i n O la tu n ji . See Hem , 2006 W L 2383281, at * 3 -* 4 . B yi t s t erm s , the Four t eenth A m endmentdoes notappl yt o thi s cas e, w hi ch 4 i nv olves federal rather than st at e act i on . A s M r. G arci a-O rt i z corr ect l yno t es, how ever , the Fi fth A m endment ’ s D ue Pr oces s C l aus e al s o i ncl udes an equa l p ro te c tio n e le m e n t. See, e. g. , Johns on v. R obis on , 4 1 5 U . S . 3 6 1 , 3 6 4 n . 4 (19 7 4 ).

- 6- s uffe rnew l egal cons equenc es fr om r etr oact i ve appl i cat i on beca us e “the a v a i l a b i l i tyo f

§ 2 1 2 ( c ) r e l i e f

wo u l d r e a s o n a b l yi n fo r m thei rdecis i on t o f or ego a cons t i t ut i onalr ight ”) ( emphasi s added) . W e ther efor e conc l ude thathe has fai l ed t o demonstr at e obj ect i vel yr eas onabl e r el i ance on the cont i nued ava i l abi l i tyof § 2 1 2 (c ) r e lie f. See Hem , 2006 W L 2383281, at*15 ( ci t i ng w i th appr oval Mon t eneg ro , 355 F. 3d at1037, t o t he effec tthat§ 212( c) r epea l w as not i m perm i s s i bl yr etr oact i ve w i th r es pectt o al i ens “w ho di d notabandon r i ght s or ad m itg u il t i n reli an ce o n co n ti n u ed eli g ibil ityfo r § 2 1 2 (c) reli ef. ”). 2. Equal Pro t e c t i on i s s ue M r . G ar ci a- O r t i z al s o ar gues t hatt he age ncy ’ s deci s i on i n hi s cas e, and/ or the r egul at i on i m pl ement i ng St . C yr , 8 C . F. R . § 1212. 3( h) , vi ol at es t he Equal Pr ot ect i on C l aus e beca us e i tbur dens t he exe r ci s e of a fundament al r i ghtby 4 p e n a lizin g th o se a lien s w h o c h o o se to e x e rc ise th e ir S ix th A m e n d m e n t rig h t to- 7-

trial b yju ry . H e c o n ten d s th a t sin c e th e S u p re m e C o u rt h a s g ra n ted re lief to a lien s w h o p lea d e d g u ilty , the sa m e re lief m u st b e g ra n ted to th o se w h o c h o se to g o to tr ia l. M r . G ar ci a- O r t i z’ s equal pr ot ect i on cl ai m fai l s , beca us e he ha s not d e mo n s tr a t e d a n ya c tu a l v i o l a t i o n o f h i s r i g h t s . Ne i th e rAEDP A n o rI I RI RA m akes anydi s t i nct i on betw een a l i ens w ho have pl eade d gui l tyand thos e w ho chos e t o go t o tr i al . T he di s t i nct i on has been c r eat ed s ol el ybyj udi ci al deci s i ons th a t h a v e fo u n d a re lian c e in ter e st in th e fo rm e r c a se , an d n o t in th e latte r. T h is di s t i nct i on actual l ypr ot ect s the val ues as s oci at ed w i th the r i ghtt o j urytr i al , by forbi ddi ng r etr oact i ve l os s of a be nefi tr eas onabl yant i ci pat ed bythatcl as s of al i ens w ho gave up thei rval uabl e r i ghtt o j urytr i al . M r . G ar ci a- O r t i z ci t es no c a se fin d in g a n e q u a l p ro tec tio n v io latio n b a se d o n th is s o rt o f re tro a c tiv ity a n a lysis , a n d w e h a v e fo u n d n o n e . T h e e x iste n c e o f

8 C .F .R . § 1 2 1 2 .3 (h ), d o e s n o t ch a n g e o u r a n a ly sis . T h is r egul at i on m er el ycodi fi es t he dec i s i on i n St . C yr , byext endi ng t o al i ens w ho pl eade d gui l ty( and, hence , demonstr at ed an obj ect i vel yr eas onabl e r el i ance i nt er es t ) , an expl i ci toppor tuni tyt o appl yfor§ 212( c) r el i ef. T he fa ctthati tdoes notperm i tal i ens w ho w entt o tr i al t o appl yfors uch r el i ef “ underthe pr ovi s i ons o f th is pa rag rap h , ” § 1 2 1 2 . 3 (h), does notaff i r m at i vel yfor ecl os e s uch al i ens fr om seeki ng § 2 12 (c) rel i ef byargui ng that a s uffi ci ent obj ect i ve rel i ance int eres t- 8-

re q u ire s th a t th e re p e a l sh o u ld n o t b e a p p lied to th e m . In d e e d , M r. G a rc ia- O rtiz has m ade s uch an a r gum ent , al bei tuns ucce s s ful l y , i n thi s cas e. T h e p e titio n fo r r e v ie w is D E N IE D . E n tered fo r th e C o u rt M aryB eck Bri s coe C i r cui tJ udge