FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT Jul y 20, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 13830 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ B I A N o. A 36- 545- 160 A N D R E W L E E D Y E R , P e titio n e r , v ersu s U .S . A T T O RN E Y G E N E R A L , R e s p o n d e n t.

________________________ P e t i t i on f orR e vi e w of

aD e c i s i on of

the B o a r d o f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls

_________________________ ( Ju l y 20, 2006) B efo re T JO F L A T , B L A C K an d B A R K E T T , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

P e t i t i one ri s ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of J am a i c a . A s the r e s ul tof hi s c onvi c t i ons i n the P ol k C ounty , F l or i daC i r c ui tC ourton F e brua ry18, 1991, M a y24, 1991, a nd Jul y 1, 19 94 , the Im m i grat i on and N atural i za t i on S ervi ce (“ IN S ”) com m ence d r e m o v a l p r o c e e d i n g s a g a i n s tp e t i t i o n e r , a l l e g i n g th a th e h a db e e n c o n v i c t e do f two cr i m es of m oral turpi tud e ( on F ebruary18 and M ay24 , 19 91 ) and an aggravat ed fe l on y ( on Jul y 1, 19 94 ). O n D ec em ber 15, 19 98 , an Im m i grat i on Judg e ( “ IJ ”) f o u n d th a t n o r e lie f

f r o m r e m o v a l w a s a v a ilab le to p e titio n e ra n do r d e r e dh im re m ov ed t o Jam ai ca . O n M ay6, 19 99 , the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s ( “ B IA ”) a f f irm e d th e I J ’s d e c is io n , a n d o n M a y1 2 , 1 9 9 9 , p e titio n e rw a s r e m o v e dto Jam ai ca . In June 20 03 , pet i t i on erre ent er ed the U ni t ed S t at es i l l egal l y. In F ebruary 2004, he w a s c onvi c t e d the U ni t e d S t a t e s D i s tr i c tC ourtf orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F lo r id ao f

v io la tin g 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 2 6 ( a ) ( r e e n tryo f d e p o rte da lie n p r e v io u s ly c o n v i c t e d o f

a n a g g r a v a t e d f

e l o n y ) a n ds e n t e n c e dt o p r i s o n f o r5 7 m o n th s . On D e c e m b e r1 6 , 2 0 0 4 , h e p e titio n e d th e U n ite dS ta te s D is tr ic t C o u rt f o rth e M id d le D i s tr i c tof

P e nns y l va ni a( the di s tr i c ti n w hi c h he w a s i n f e de r a l c us t ody ) , s e e ki ng re li ef fr o m h is co n v icti o n an d th e B IA ’s M ay 6 , 1 9 9 9 d ec isio n af firm in g th e I J’s r e m o v a l o r d e ro f

D e c e m b e r1 5 , 1 9 9 8 . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt d is m is s e dth e p e titio n to the e xt e nttha ti tc ha l l e nge d hi s § 1326( a ) c onvi c t i on a nd tr a ns f e rr e d the pa rtof

the3

pe t i t i on s e e ki ng r e vi e w of the r e m ova l or de rt o thi s c ourt . S e e R E A L I D A c tof 2 0 0 5 ( “R I D A ” ) , P u b .L .N o . 1 0 9 - 1 3 , § 1 0 6 ( c ) , 1 1 9 S ta t. 2 3 1 , 3 1 1 . In h i s h ab eas p et i t i o n , p et i t i o n er co n t en d s ( 1 ) th a t I Jf

a ile d to in f

o rm h im o f

“h is r ig h t to e lig ib le r e lie f ” f r o m r e m o v a l, i n v i ol at i on of hi s r i gh tt o d ue process ; spec i fi ca l l y, the IJfa i l ed t o i nform hi m that he w a s e l i gi bl e f

ordi s c r e t i ona ryr e l i e f

f r om r e m ova l pur s ua ntt o I m m i gr a t i on a nd N at i on al i ty A ct(“ IN A ”) § 2 12 (c ), 8 U . S . C . § 1 18 2(c) (r epea l ed), because hi s pl ea of gu i l ty t o o ne of hi s three P ol k C ou nty off ense s occ urre d b ef

ore § 21 2(c) w as r e pe a l e d; ( 2) tha thi s c ouns e l w a s i ne f f e c t i ve be c aus e he f

a i l e d t o pr e s e nte vi de nc e of p e titio n e r ’s m e n ta l illn e s s a t th e r e m o v a l h e a r in g a n df a ile dto “o f

f e rp lau s ib le grou nd s of r el i ef

w hi ch m i gh thave been avai l abl e” ; ( 3) tha the e s t abl i s he d apr i m af a c i e c a s e f

ora s y l um a nd w i thhol di ng of rem o v al u n d er th e IN A , an d rel i ef u n d er th e U n i t ed N at i o n s C o n v en t i o n A g ai n st T ortur e a nd O the rC rue l , I nhum a n, orD e gr a di ng T r e a tm e ntorP uni s hm e nt ( “ C A T ” ) ; a nd ( 4 ) th a t th e B I A ’s d e n ia l o f d is c r e tio n a ryr e lie f

w a s av io la tio n o f

h is r ig h ts un der the R ehabi l i t at i on A ct , 29 U . S . C . § 7 94 , and the A m er i cans w i th D i sabi l i t i es A c t, 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 2 1 0 1 , e t s e q .In its brief, the Government raises two additional jurisdictional issues: (1) whether the 1 petition wa s time ly, a

nd (2 ) whether w eareba

rre d f ro m exerc isingsu

bje c t- matter j urisdic tio n to review the petition pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231. The petition was timely pursuant to RIDA § 106(c) , which provide s that the customary 30-day time period for

filing a petition for review under I NA § 242(b) (1), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)( 1), does not apply to transferre d § 2241 petitions. Be causethereis no evidencein the rec ord to show that the De cember 15, 1998 order of removal was re instated, we ne ed not address the sec ond jurisdictional issue. 4 A ft erre ce i vi ng the i nst antpet i t i on , w e i nstruct ed the part i es t o add re ss three j u ri sd i ct i o n al q u est i o n s; 1 ( 1 ) W h e th e r[ I N A ] § 2 4 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( C ) , 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( C ) , lim its thi s c ourt ’ s j ur i s di c t i on t o r e vi e w the pe t i t i on. S e e D e l P i l a rv. A tt orney G ener al , 32 6 F . 3d 11 54 , 11 56 (11th C i r. 20 03 ). ( 2 ) I f I N A § 2 4 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( C ) ap p lie s , w h e th e rth e s p e c if ic c ons t i tut i ona l c ha l l e nge s orque s t i ons of l a w , i f a ny , r a i s e d by pet i t i on er , ar e r evi ew abl e. S ee 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2(a) (2)( D ); B rook s v. A shcr oft , 28 3 F . 3d 12 68 , 12 73 -75 (11 th C i r. 20 02 ). (3) If pet i t i on erse eks j ud i ci al re vi ew of the deni al of di sc re t i on ary re l i ef , do es IN A § 2 42 (a )( 2)(B ) , 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2(a) (2)( B ), pr e c l ude thi s c ourt ’ s j ur i s di c t i on i f the B I A di d note xe r c i s e a ny di sc re t i on i n d enyi ng the re qu es t ed re l i ef ? A s a m e nde d bythe I l l e ga l I m m i gr a t i on R e f orm a nd I m m i gr a nt R e s pons i bi l i tyA c t , I N A § 242( a ) ( 2) ( C ) , 8 U . S . C . § 1252( a ) ( 2) ( C ) , pr e c l ude s us fr om exer ci si ng “

j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew any f i nal order of re m ov al agai nstan al i en w ho i s r em ov abl e by r ea son o f havi ng com m i tt ed” an agg ravat ed fe l on y, as covered i n IN A § 2 37 (a )( 2)(A )( i i i ), 8 U . S . C . § 1 22 7(a) (2)( A )( i i i ). O ur re vi ew of a c ri m i nal a lie n ’s p e titio n is th e r e f o r e r e s tr ic te dto “w h e th e rh e is ( 1 ) a n a lie n ( 2 ) w h o is r e m ovabl e ( 3) ba s e d on ac onvi c t i on f ora n a ggr a va t e d f

e l ony . ” D e l P i l a rv. A tt orne yG e ne r a l , 326 F . 3d 1154, 1157 ( 11th C i r . 2003) ( quot a t i on a nd a l t e r a t i onPetitioner’s May 24, 1991 conviction was f or burglary

and possession of burglary 2 tools. He was sentence d to prison for a period of 36 to 42 months. His July 1, 1994 conviction wa s f or robb ery and c riminal mi schie f, for which h ewa s sentenc e d toprison f or nineye ars . 5 om i tt ed). A gg ravat ed fe l on i es i ncl ud e “ a theftoffe nse ( i ncl ud i ng re ce i ptof st ol en pr ope rty ) orbur gl a ryof f e ns e f orw hi c h the t e rm of

i m pr i s onm e nt[ i s ] a tl e a s tone ye ar . ” 8 U . S . C . § 1 10 1(a) (43)(G ). 2 D e s p ite th e ju r is d ic tio n a l lim ita tio n s o f I N A § 2 4 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( C ) , “[ n ]o th in g in s u b p a r a g r ap h ( B ) o r( C ) , o rin a n yo th e rp r o v is io n o f th is A c t ( o th e rth a n th is s e c t i on) w hi c h l i m i t s ore l i m i na t e s j udi c i a l r e vi e w , s ha l l be c ons true d a s pr e c l udi ng re vi ew of const i tut i on al cl ai m s or quest i on s of l aw ra i se d u po n a pet i t i on for r evi ew f i l e d w i th a n ap p r o p r i a t e c o u rto f ap p e a l s . ” I N A § 2 4 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( C) , 8 U . S. C. § 1 25 2(a) (2)( D ). S i m i l ar l y, IN A § 2 42 (a )( 2)(B ), 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2(a) (2)( B ) “ do es no tprec l ud e r evi ew of no n-di sc re t i on ary l egal deci si on s thatpert ai n t o st atut ory e l i gi bi l i tyf

ordi s c r e t i ona ryr e l i e f

. ” G onz a l e z - O r ope z av. A tt ’ yG e n. , 321 F . 3d 1 3 3 1 , 1 3 3 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . T he r e c or d i ndi c a t e s tha tthe B I A e xe r c i s e d no di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng pet i t i on er ’ s c l ai m s f

or re l i ef fr om re m ov al . T he B IA det erm i ned thatpet i t i on erw as in e lig ib le f

o rs ta tu to ryr e lie f

f r o m r e m o v a l d u e to h is s ta tu s a s a n a g g r a v a te df e lo n . B ec ause he w as re m ov ed fol l ow i ng a c on vi ct i on for an agg ravat ed fe l on y, w e l ac k j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew hi s pet i t i on and d i sm i ss i t . A l tho ug h w e r et ai n l i m i t ed j ur i s di c t i on t o r e vi e w a nyl e ga l orc ons t i tut i ona l que s t i ons r a i s e d i n hi s pe t i t i on, the6

le g a l a n d c o n s titu tio n a l c la im s in h is p e titio n a r e w ith o u t m e r it. W e a c c o r d in g ly d en y th e p et i t i o n as t o th ese cl ai m s. P E T I T I O N D I S M I S S E D , in p a rt, D E N I E D in p a rt.