2010 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 3-22-2010 

# D ori val D a S i l va 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 : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-1871

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_2010

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 2010 D e c i sion s b y an authori 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 " D orival D a S i lva v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1679. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1679NOT 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. 09- 1871

___________ DOR I VAL L UI S DA S I L VA, 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 the B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( A gencyN o. A 028- 957- 769) Im m i grat i on Judg e: H on orabl e E ug ene P ug l i ese

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ar ch 10, 2010 B efor e: A M B R O , C H A G A R E S and A L D I SE R T , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: M ar ch 22, 2010 )

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM D or i val L ui s D a Si l va, a ci t i zen of B r azi l , ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es w i thout i nspecti on on M arch 28 , 19 88 . T he G ov ernm ent s erved h i m w i th an order t o sho w cause2

the v eryn ex t day(M arc h 2 9 , 1 9 8 8 ). W h en D a S il v a d id n o t app ea r fo r his h ea ri n g b ef o re an I m m i gr at i on J udge ( “I J ”) the fol l ow i ng A ugus t , the or dert o s how caus e w as r eturned to th e a g e n c ya n d h is c a s e w a s a d m in is tr a tiv e ly cl o s e d . I n February2006, D a Si l va, r epr es ent ed bycouns el , m oved t o r eca l endar p ro c e e d in g s s o th a t h e c o u ld “ a p p lyf o r c a n c e llatio n o f

re m o v a l.” R . 9 7 . D a S ilv a , w ith hi s couns el , fi r s tappea r ed bef or e the I J i n A pr i l 2006, and conc eded the cha r ge of r emovabi l i ty . H i s couns el i ndi cat ed thatD a Si l va w i s hed t o s eek c ance l l at i on of r emoval o r sus p en sion o f d ep o rt ati o n , b u t he d id n o t prese n t an a p p li ca ti o n . A t th at t im e, th e IJ not i fi ed D a Si l va’ s couns el thathe w as t o pr es ent“[a ] nyand al l appl i cat i ons ” atthe next a p p e a ra n c e o r “ th e y [ ] [ w o u ld ] b e a b a n d o n e d .” R . 5 0 . Subse quent l y , D a Si l va, thr ough hi s couns el , fi l ed an appl i cat i on fors us pens i on of d e p o r t a t i o n ( n o tc a n c e l l a t i o n o f r e mo v a l ) a n d a n a p p l i c a t i o n f o rv o l u n t a ryd e p a r tu r e . He a p p e a re d b e f

o re th e IJ in M a y2 0 0 7 w ith o u t h a v in g f iled a n yd o c u m e n ts in su p p o rt o f h is s us pens i on appl i cat i on. T he G overnm entoppos ed the appl i cat i on beca us e D a Si l va, w ho r ece i ved an or dert o s how caus e one da yaft erhi s entryi nt o the U ni t ed St at es , di d not acc rue the s even y ear s of cont i nuous pr es ence nece s s aryt o qual i fyfors us pens i on of depor t at i on ( underthe s t op- t i m e rul es ) . D a Si l va’ s couns el ’ s r es pons e w as t o r egi s t er su rp rise a t th e G o v e rn m e n t’s p o sitio n a n d to su g g e st th a t, ha d h e k n o w n so o n e r, h e w o u ld have r eques t ed thatthe G overnm ent“r epape r ” D a Si l va s o thathe w oul d be el i gi bl e forR epape r i ng i s the pr oces s byw hi ch the G overnm entt erm i nat es the or dert o s how 1 c a u s e a n d is s u e s a n e w n o tic e to a p p e a r i n c a s e s w h ic h a re n o t a d m in is tr a tiv e ly f in a l. See R odr i guez- M unoz v. G onzal es , 419 F. 3d 245, 247 n. 4 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . A s D a Si l va e x p l a i n s , i n h i s c a s e r e p a p e r i n g wo u l d s e r v e t o c h a n g e th e d a t e th a two u l d i n t e rru p tDa Si l va’ s pr es ence i n t he U ni t ed St at es . A ppel l ant ’ s B r . , 8 n. 1. I f the dat e w er e cha nged, he p o te n tia lly w o u ld b e e lig ib le f o r c a n c e lla tio n o f

re m o v a l. 3 ca n ce ll ati o n o f re m o v al. T h e IJ stated o n the re co rd th at he w as d en y ing a re q u est fo r a 1 cont i nuance , t o t he ext entthatD a Si l va’ s couns el coul d be s een t o be r eques t i ng one. T he IJ th e n d e n ied th e su sp e n sio n a p p lica tio n b e c a u se D a S ilv a c o u ld n o t sh o w th e re q u isite s even y ear s of cont i nuous pr es ence i n the U ni t ed St at es . T he B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A p p e a ls (“ B IA ” ) d ism iss e d D a S ilv a ’s s u b se q u e n t ap p e a l. W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 8 U . S. C . § 1252. W e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew overthe l egal ques t i on D a Si l va r ai s es , s ee G erbi erv. H ol m es , 280 F. 3d 297, 302 n. 2 ( 3d C i r . 2002) , namel yw hetherthe I J vi ol at ed hi s due pr oces s r i ght s bydecl i ni ng t o cont i nue h is c a s e . U p o n re v iew , w e c o n c lu d e th a t D a S ilv a ’s d u e p ro c e ss rig h ts w e re n o t v io late d in the age ncypr ocee di ngs . Fi r s t , i ti s noteven c l earthatD a Si l va’ s couns el r eques t ed a cont i nuance atD a Si l va’ s m er i t s hear i ng. T o the ext entthathe r eques t ed a c ont i nuance , the deni al of the cont i nuance w as nota due pr oces s vi ol at i on. A s the B I A emphasi zed, th e b u rd e n w a s o n D a S ilv a to p ro v e th a t h e w a s e lig ib le f o r s u s p e n s io n o f

d e p o rt a tio n . H e , o r ra th e r, h is c o u n se l, sh o u ld h a v e re a lize d lo n g b e f o re th e G o v e rn m e n t b ro u g h t itto hi s att ent i on thatD a Si l va w as notel i gi bl e fors us pens i on of deport at i on. A s the I J not ed,4

i ti s we l l e s t a b l i s h e d th a tth e s e r v i c e o f a n o r d e rt o s h o w c a u s e s t o p s th e a c c ru a l o f t i me thatcount s t ow ar d t he nec es s arys even y ear s of cont i nuous pr es ence fors us pens i on el i gi bi l i ty . See I n r e N ol as co, 22 I & N D ec. 632, 635 ( B I A 1999) . A 10- dayortw o- w eek per i od forr es pons e t o t he G overnm ent ’ s ar gum entw oul d nothave c hanged the fa ct s of h is case (or the ch o ice o f se ek ing reli ef fo r w h ich D a S il v a w as n o t el igible). D a Si l va al s o m akes the ar gum entthathe w oul d have s oughtr epape r i ng i f gi ven m or e t i m e. A l though t he B I A s t at ed thatther e i s no evi dence i n the r ecor d thatD a Si l va has a qual i fy i ng r el at i ve forcanc el l at i on, ther e i s hi s s el f- r eport ed i nform at i on thathe has tw o chi l dr en w ho ar e U ni t ed St at es ci t i zens . R . 80. H ow ever , ther e i s no evi dence i n t he r ecor d thatot herw i s e s uppor t s hi s as s ert i on thathe w oul d have be en gr ant ed ca ncel l at i on of r emoval i f hi s cas e had be en r epape r ed. See 8 U . S. C . § 1229b( b) ( 1) ( D ) ( r equi r i ng a s how i ng “thatr emoval w oul d r es ul ti n exce pt i onal and extr emel yunus ual har ds hi p” t o a U n it ed S tat es c it izen ch il d ). A lso, as the B IA n o ted, th ere ap p ea rs t o h av e b ee n n o ef fo rt byhi s couns el t o have the ca s e r epape r ed, even w hi l e the ca s e w as on admi ni s tr at i ve appea l . M or eover , ther e i s no i ndi cat i on thatthe G overnm entw oul d be w i l l i ng t o r epape r the ca s e. Forthes e r eas ons , the B I A w as notw r ong w hen i tconcl uded thatD a Si l va coul d nots how pr ej udi ce f r om anydeni al of a c ont i nuance . See K han v. A t t orneyG en. of the U ni t ed St at es , 448 F. 3d 226, 236 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( hol di ng thata pet i t i onercannot s how pr ej udi ce w hen he pr es ent s onl ya s pecul at i ve pos s i bi l i tythathe coul d be found el i gibl e t o rem ai n in the co un try ). In the ab sence o f prej ud i ce, there i s no d ue p rocessv iolati o n . S ee W il so n v . A sh cro ft, 3 5 0 F . 3 d 3 7 7 , 3 8 1 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ).

F o r t h e s e re a s o n s , w e w ill d e n yth e p e titio n f o r r e v ie w .

5