2004 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

4-27-2004 

# B a mb a v . D i s t D ir IN S P hi l a

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de n t i al

D ocke t N o . 03-2275

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w
. v i l l a no va
. e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd 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 l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2004 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w
. v i l l a no va
. e du

. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" B a mb a v . Di s t Dir I N S P hi l a" (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s

. P ape r 736. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w
. v i l l a no va
. e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/736PRECEDENTIAL

UNIT ED STA TES C OURT OF

APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT

No

. 03-2275

KARI M BAMBA,

Appellant

v.

W ILL IA M F. R ILE Y, J R.,* INT ER IM DIS TRI CT DI RECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF IMMI GRATI ON AND CUST OMS ENFOR CEMENT

* (Ame nded Per Clerk’s Order dated 07/ 02/03)

On Appeal from the United St ates

District Cou rt for the Easte rn D istrict of P enns ylvania (D ist. C t. No

. 02-cv-08430 ) Distri ct Judge: Honorable Jan E . Du Bo is

Submitte d March 25, 2004

Before: ROTH , AMBRO and CHERTO FF , Circuit

Judges

. (Fil ed: April27, 2004) ANN A. RUBEN DEREK W. GRAY Steel, Rudnick & Ruben 160 8 W alnut S treet Suite 1500 Philadelphia, PA 19103
Counsel for Appell ant

PATRI CK L. MEEHAN United Stat es Attor

ney VIR GINI A A. GIB SON Assist ant Unite d States Attorney Chief, Civi l Divis ion SUSAN R. BECKER Assist ant Unite d States Attorney O ff ice of U ni ted St ate s A tto rn ey 615 Ch estnu t Street Philadelphia, PA 19106
Counsel for Appell ee

OPI NION

CHERTO FF , Circuit

Judge

. Congress has provi ded that alie ns “not l a wfully

admitt ed for permanent resi dence” who c ommi t cert ai n “aggravat ed” felonies are deportab le under expedit ed re mova l p ro cedur es . 8 U.S .C. § 1228(b ). Appellant Karim Bamba has been co nv ict ed of

an ag gr av ate d felo ny, but argues i n this habeas corpus appeal that the expedi tedprocedures do not apply be cause he was not lawful ly admitt ed a t all, but m erely “pa roled” into the Unite d States for a li mited purpos e. For t he

reasons el abo rated b elow , we re ject this

### 2

argumentand h old B amb a sub ject to expedit ed removal. Accordingly , the Dis tri ct Court’s order deny ing the ha beas petition and vacati ng the order staying Bamba’s deportation wil l be affi rmed.

I.
Bamba is a native and cit izen of the Rep ublic of

th e I vo ry C oast. He is the husband of a U.S. ci tize n and has a son who was b orn in the United States. Bamba origina llyente red t

he Unit ed St ate s as a visi toron July

1, 1987. 1 I n 1993, he briefly left th e United States fo r approximat ely one m onth to visit his fam ily in the Ivo ry Co ast.
In 1995, Bamba again r eturned to the Ivory C oast b ecau se of the de ath of

his mother. Prior to his de pa rtur e, Bamba soughtand recei ved from the I mmigrati on and Nat ural izat ion Se rvi ce (“ INS” ) advanced parole to re-enter t he United States upon h is return

. B amba was paroled back int o the Unite d States on October 25, 1995. 2 On De cem ber 24, 1 997 , B amba wa s chargedin the Un ited States District Co urt for th e Ea st ern Di stri ct of P enns ylvania with one countof bank fraud i n violation of 1 8 U.S .C. § 1 344 , for alleg edly transm itt ing two stol en checks i n the

amo unts of $10,055. 13 and $ 14,792.52. He subse qu ently

pled guilty

to an Informati on on March 16, 1998, and was sentence d on July

17, 1998, to ti me served, three ye ar s of supervi sed rel ease, 3 and a fine of $500. 00.
On Mar ch 2, 200 1, th e INS detai ned Bam ba an d plac ed him in expedit ed rem ova l pro cee din gs. On Ap ril 18, 200 1, 4 the INS iss ued a Final Admi nistrati ve Remov al Order pursu ant t o § 238 of the Imm igration and N ationa lity Act (“ INA” ) , 8 U.S.C. § 1228, finding by “clear, convinci ng, and unequi vocal evidence” that Bamba w as deportabl e as

1 There is som e discr epancyin the briefs and record r egarding t he actu al dat e of

en try. The im m igration court ’s tr anscript include s test imony s uggesti ng dat es of both January

1, 1987, and July

1, 1987. See Ap p. V ol. II at 7. The D istrict Court credit ed the Jul y dat e. For the purpose of this appeal, any di scr epa ncy in da tes is imm ateri al.

2 A “paroled” al ien is one w ho is tem pora rilypermitt ed to remai n in the UnitedStates pending a deci si on regardi ng his app licatio n fo r ad mis sion

. S ee 8 U.S .C. § 11 82( d)(5 ). “In the c ontext of an ali en’s initi al entry , this amounts t o permissi on by t

he Attorney

General for ingress into t

he country

but is not a formal ‘admiss i on.’” Chi Thon Ngo v. INS. ,192 F.3d 390, 392 n.1 ( 3d Cir. 1999) (citing 8 U.S .C. § 118 2(d )(5)( A) ).

3 The term o f sup ervis e d relea se was
com plete d on Jun e 10 , 200 1.

4 Wh il e both the briefs and t he Distr ict Cou rt’s opin ion p rovid e a da te of A pril 23, 2001, the I NS’s order l ist s the dat e as “April 18, 2001.”

### 3

an alie n convict ed of an aggravat ed felony pursuant to INA § 237(a) (2 )(A )(iii), 8 U.S .C. § 1227(a)( 2)(A)(i ii) , and ordering Ba mb a rem ove d.
Bamba subsequent ly

file d an

a pplicationfor withhol ding of r emoval an d for reli ef under the United Nati on s Convention Against Tort ure andO ther C ruel, Inhuman o r Degr adi ng Tr eatment o r Punishm e nt (“Conventi on Agains t Tortur e”). The INS asylum o ffice r initially denie d h is re quest; however, the matter

was re fer

re d t o anImm igr ation J udge (“IJ” ) who found Bamba’s fear was

s uffic iently re as onabl e t o al lo w hi m t o proce ed with an appl icat ion fo r wit hho ldin g an d pr otec tion

. Following a h earing on J une 10, 2002, the IJfound Bamba inel ig ible f or withholding of removal or reli ef under the Convention Ag ains t To rture

. The IJ noted that Bamba was subject t o expedit ed removal following hi s conviction o f the “aggravat ed felony ” of b ank f raud in which the los s invol ved was over $10,000. The IJ det ermined, however, that alt hough the offe nse c onstitu te d an aggravat ed fe lo ny, it “i s sti ll t

he ty pe of offense which

wo uld allow him to apply for withhol ding of remov al.” App . Vol. II at 33

. Yet the IJ went on to conc lude th at Ba mb a failed to

mee t the stan dard nece ssary to esta bli s h withholding of

removal or r elie f under the Convention Against

Torture.
On November 6, 2002, t he Board of Immigrat ion Ap peals (“BIA”) aff irmed the decisi on of th e IJ. T he BIA agree d w ith the IJ that Bamba fai led to meet his burde n of

proof for withholding eligibili ty or protection under the Convention A gainst Torture. Moreover, the BIA reject ed Bam b a’s content ion that as a parol ee he shou ld not have been pl aced in expedi ted removal pro cee din gs u nde r 8 U .S.C . § 1228(b ). The B I A reasoned t hat “[n]othing in thatprov ision p rohib its its applic ationto parol ees, and c onstruing the provisi on to forbi d its applic at io n to parolee s would provi de mo re fav orab le treat ment for p arolee s than for law fully admitt ed alie ns.” App. Vol. IIat 52 (ci ting Baran-Rey es v. INS , 256 F.3d 600 (7 th Cir. 2001) [sic ]). Finally, the BIA noted that it did not have j urisdi ction to co nsi der Bam ba’s con tenti on t hat 8 U.S .C. § 1228(b) violat es his right t o d ue pr oce ss.
On November 12, 200 2, Bamba f iled a Petition for Habeas Corpus in th e Distri ct Court pursuan t t o 28 U.S .C. § 224 1. Bam ba ad vanc ed tw o prin cip a l arguments: (1) as a person par oledinto t he UnitedStates , he is not

“deporta ble” under th e e xpedite d removal proc eedings of 8 U. S. C. § 1228(b); and (2) even i f he i s subject to expedited removal proceedings, applic ationof the statute in his case violat es his due pro ces s righ ts. On appeal before this Court, however, Bamba do es not chall enge the st atute as viol ative of due process. T herefore, we limit our di scuss ion to the issue of the statute’s applicabili ty t o parolees.
The Distric t C ourt r eject e d Bam ba’s argument t hat § 12 28(b)’s expedit ed remo val pro ceed ings a re on ly

a pplica ble to “admit

ted ” alie ns who a r e convict ed of

an ag gr av ate d felo ny, and

### 4

therefore as a parole e Bamba is not subj ect to the provi sion. Rather, the Dist rict Cour t, re ly ing on the l anguage of the statute and case law of other circuit courts, concludedthat t

he prov ision is applic able to all aliens conv icte d of an aggravat ed felony who are not lawfully

ad mitt ed for permanent r esidence , inc luding parolees. 5

Notice of appe al wa s ti mely f iled on Ap ril 29, 20 03. T his Cou rt has jur isdi ction under 28 U. S. C. §§ 12 91 , 22 53

. “We review de novo the Dist rict Court’s de nial of habeas c orpus re lief and i t s inter pretation of th e ap plica ble s tatut es.” Stee le v. Blackman , 236 F.3d 130, 133 (3d Cir . 200 1).

For the reaso n s e la

bor at edbe lo w,
we agree that the Distri ct Court proper l y rejec tedB am ba’s i nterpr etat ion of the sta tute as being i napplic able t o parolee s

. Rather, the District

Court’s c onclu sion that the stat ute appl ies to ali ens convict ed of an aggravat ed felony

who are no t l aw fully admitt ed for permanent resi dence i s supporte d by t

he p la in langua ge of the stat ute, context

and legi slat ive his tory of th e INA , and c ase law of o ther cir cui t

cou rts.

II. “[T]he Imm i grati on Act has never been a model of clar ity ,” Chi Thon Ngo v. INS , 192 F.3d 390, 394 (3d Cir. 199 9), and the provisi ons ati ssue in t his cas e are no excepti on. Neverthel ess, we conclude that th e better interpretation of the statute’s pl ain langu age is th at the e xped it e d removal proc eedin gs ap ply to allalie ns not admitt ed fo r permanent resi de nce , including parol ee s such as B amba , who a re
con victe d of

an a ggr ava ted felon y.
8 U .S.C. § 122 8(b) p rovid es, in pertine nt part: (b) Removal of ali ens who

are no t perm anen t residen ts (1) The Attorney

General

m ay, in the c ase of an al ien described in paragrap h (2), determi ne the de portab ility of s uch alien u nder secti on 122 7(a ) (2)(A)(iii) of this title (rel ating to convict ion of an aggravat ed fe lo ny) and issue an order o f re mo val pursuant to the procedures

se t forth i n this subsect ion

or secti on 122 9a of

this title. (2) An a lien is descri be d in this parag raph if

the alie n— (A) was not law

fully

a dmi tted for permanen t 5 Bamba does n ot dis pu te the Distri ct Cou rt’s conclusi on that ( 1) as a parolee he

was not “lawfully

admitt ed” for permanent resi dence in the Unit ed State s at th e t ime expedit ed r emov al proceed ings we re commenced against

him, and ( 2) he was

conv ic ted of an “aggravat ed felony ” as definedin 8 U.S.C . § 1227(a )(2)(A)(iii). Rather, as alr eady not ed, the only issue on appeal is whether

the Dist rict Court err ed in its in terp retat ion of th e sta tute.

### 5

reside nce at the t ime at which proceedi ngs under this secti on commenced; or (B) had p ermanent r esident stat us on a c ond itional b asis (as described in section 1186a of this title) at the ti me that proceedings under this secti on commenced.
8 U.S .C. § 122 8(b) (emp hasis adde d). 6

S e ction 122 7(a)(2 )(A)(iii) provides :

“ Any alie n who is convict ed of a n aggravat ed felony

at any time after admission is deportable .” ( emp hasis add ed)

. The Distri ct Court c oncluded that the plain l anguag e of § 1228(b) and § 122 7(a)(2 )(A)(iii) dictates a conc lusi on that the e x pedite d removal provi sion applie s to allalie ns convict ed of a n aggravat ed fel ony wh o are n ot law fully admitt ed for permanentresi dence , including par olee s. See Bamba v. Elwood , No. 02-8430, at

11 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 31, 2003). The plain l anguage of 8 U.S .C. § 12 28(b) does appe ar to su ppo rt th i s inter pretation. Section1228(b)(1) applie s “in the case of an ali en described i n paragraph(2)” who i s convict ed of an aggravat ed felo ny, 8 U.S .C. § 1228 (b)(1), and paragraph 2 de scri bes such an ali en as
on e who “was not lawfull y admit ted for pe rm anentresi dence at t he time at

which proceedi ngs un der this sectio n
comm enced,” 8 U.S.C . § 1228(b )(2).
The wrinkle, however, is that t he language of § 122 7(a)(2 )(A)(iii) a rgua bly sugge sts a contraryresul t. I n support of his inter pretation that

§ 1228(b) does not apply to parol ees, Bamba argu es that § 1 228(b)(1) expressly r equires that t he “d ep or tab ilit y” of an ali en be deter mined by8 U.S.C. § 1227(a )(2)( A)(ii i), which provides that to be deporta ble an al ien must be “co nvicte d of an aggravat ed felony any time after admission .” 8 U.S .C. § 12 27( a)(2 )(A )(iii) (e mp has is ad ded ).
The Dis tr ic t Co urt rejec te d Bam ba’s reading of

the sta tute. In particular, the D istrict C our t expres sed

concern that

under Bamba’s inte rpret ation the stat ute w ould be rendered meaningless,

as no alie n would qual i fy for expedit ed removal proceedi ng s. “Ex pedite d removal under § 1228(b) i s appli cable onl y to alie ns not lawful ly

ad mi tted who are convict ed of an ag grava ted fel ony. If, as petitioner

argues, adm ission is re quired in orderto authorize expedi tedremoval as an aggravat ed felony , § 1228( b) would be a

nu ll ity —no alie n would qualif y for

e xpe dited

removal. ” Bamba v. Elwood , No. 02 -8430, at 11 (Ma r. 31, 2003).
Bamba cont e nds that

the Dist

rict Cou rt erroneou sly conc luded that his 6 “The terms ‘ admissi on’ and ‘admit ted’
mean, with res pect t o an ali en, the lawful

en tr yof the al ien into the Unite d States after inspection and autho riza tion by an immigrat ion officer .” 8 U .S.C . § 1101(a )(13)(A). “An alien who is par oled under secti on 1182 (d)( 5) o f this title . . . shall not be consi dered to have been admitted.” 8 U .S.C. § 110 1(a)(13)(B ).

### 6

inter pretation wou ld render § 1 228(b) a nullity. He argu es that § 122 8(b) a ctually

sa ys that i t appli es to al iens who are “not lawf ully adm itt ed for permanen t reside nce ,” and that

there are many a liens lawf ully admitted fo r r easons other than permanentres ide nce. Th u s, under Bam ba’s interp retation, § 1228’s expe dite d removal process wou ld app ly only to admitt ed alie n s who are not admit ted for permanentresi dence, suc h as visitor s , stud ents , and tem por ary res iden ts. See 8 U.S .C. § 110 1(a )(15 )(B ),(F) ,(H ),(L ).
Wh ile Bam ba is co rrect th at his inter pretation of the st atute would not literally render t he expedit ed removal proceedi ng a “null ity”—that is, the provisi on wo uld still ap ply in certain circum stance s— his inte r pretatio n w ould still creat e the a n omalous res ult t hat the expedi ted removal proceedi ngs w ould only apply to a limited clas s of admitted aliens. As the Gov ernment poi nts out , such a reading wo uld cre ate the perv erse re sult that hypotheti cal accomplices of Bamba who had be e n admitted as students, tourists , or another tem porary class wo uld be sub ject to exp edite d re mo val, w hil e Bamba would not be s u bject to such procedur es p recisely

because he was not legal ly admitt ed. 7 W e rejec t such an i llogi cal in terpr etat ion of

th e s tatute . R athe r, we agree with th e Government and District Cou rt that t he b etter read ing of 8 U.S .C. § 1228(b )’s plain l anguage is t hat it applie s to alie ns convict ed of

an aggravat ed felony who are no t la wfully admitt ed for per ma nen t resid enc e.
The Gov ernmen t’s inter pretation is easily r econcil able with the language of § 1227(a )(2)(A)(iii), as inc o rporat ed in § 1228(b )(1). Section 12 27(a)(2)(A )(iii)’s

7 Bamba argues tha t the I NA contains two se parate expedi ted remova l proceedi ngs—one for ali ens who have not b een admitted, 8 U .S.C. § 122 5(b), an d

one for al ien s w ho h ave bee n ad mitte d, 8 U.S .C. § 1228 (b). He argu es that there are

cases where ali ens who have not been admitt ed, suchas parol ees, would r eceive less favorab le treatment. For exa mple, Bamba argues, under § 1225(b) , if a paro lee is de termine d to hav e misrepr esented

a materi al f

act, false ly clai med U.S. citizenship, or lacks proper documentati on, he can be or dered removed with no hearing or rev iew

. See Appellant Br. a t 26

. This argument i s unpersuas ive. To begin, the pla in langua ge of § 1225(b) sugg ests that it is inapplicable to parol ees. Section1225(b )(1) i s entitled “Ins pecti on of ali ens arriving in the Unite d States and certain other al iens who have not be en adm it t ed or paroled .” 8 U .S.C . § 1225(b)(1) (emphasis added). Even assuming § 1 2 25 does apply to parolees, the mere fact t

hat under Bamba ’ s inter pretation there may

be a li mited number of circ um s tances where parolee s mightbe treat ed less f avorably than admitt ed aliens does not render appr opriate

a cons truction of the statute that illogic ally provides for g enera lly better treatm ent to par olee s tha n ad mitte es.

### 7

requir emen t th at the alie n must be “convict ed of an aggrava ted felony any ti me after

admissi on” is bes t read a s limit ing the appl icat ion of the expedit ed removal proceedi ngs to those ali ens who have committed an aggravat ed felony after entering the Un ited States. In other words, the word “admissi on” in this subparagr aph is n ot to be r ead as a t erm of art ref errin g to a class of ali ens formally admit ted, but rather as clarify ing that

the stat ute does not apply to alie n s who have committed an ag gravate d felon y prior to en tering th i s
cou ntry.
We al so d is agr ee wi thBamb a’ s content ion that

his interpre tation c om ports with the pla i n me an in g of th e s tatute . A t best, Bamba ha s establ ished t hat the statutoryscheme is ambi guous. To the extent that t he stat ute is sil ent or ambigu ous, we d efer to the ag ency’s inter pretation a nd “the question for t he court is whe ther the agen cy’s answ er is based on a permiss ible c onstruc tion of t he statu te.” See Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res . D e f. Council, Inc. , 467 U. S. 837 , 843 ( 198 4); see also United Stat es v. Hernandez-Vermudez , 356 F.3d 1011, 1014 (9 th Cir. 20 04) (c onclu ding that § 1228(b) is ambiguous and deferring to the Attorney Ge neral’s interpre tation). It i s well-es tabli shed that “ the BIA’s (and hence the IJ’s) interpre tation o f the IN A is subject to establ ished pr incipl es of deferen ce.” Coraggioso v

. Ashcroft , 355 F.3d 730, 733 (3d Cir. 2004) (ci ting INS v. Agu irre-Aguirre , 526 U.S. 415, 424- 25 (1999)). This include s affordi ng Chevron de fe rence to BIA decisi ons “giv[i ng] ambiguo us statutory term s ‘con crete meaning through a pr ocess of case-by-case adjudication.’” Agu irre-Aguirre , 526 U. S. at 42 5 (quoti ng INS v. Cardoza-Fonse ca , 480 U.S. 421 , 448 ( 198 7)); see also Ac osta

v. Ashcroft , 341 F.3d 218 , 222 (3d Cir. 2003).

In this cas e, in affir mi ng the IJ’s decisi on, the BIA inter

preted § 1228(b) as ap ply ing to par ol ees suc h as Bamb a : “Nothing in that

provisi on pr ohib its its applic ationto parol ees, and c onstruing the provisi on to forbid its ap plication to parolee s would provide m or e fav orab le treat ment for p arolee s than for law fully admitt ed aliens.” Ap p. V ol. II , at 53 (citing Baran-Rey es [s ic ]) . A s elaborated above, we bel ieve that thi s is a “perm issible con s truc tion of th e sta tute.” Chevron , 467 U.S. at 843.

Mo reover, regu lati ons prom ulg ated bythe Attorne y General imp licitly support an inte rpret ation of

§ 1228(b) as applying to parolee s. Congres s has del egat ed autho rityto the A ttorney G enera l to prom ulgate regulations for proceedi ngs under § 12 28 (b). See 8 U .S.C . § 1228(b )(4); see also He rnandez

Vermudez , 35 6 F.3d at 1 015-16 . In Hernandez-Vermudez , the N in t h C ircuit notedthat t

he Attorne y General has enactedregulations, 8 C.F.R. § 238. 1, providi ng for the applic ation of § 1228(b) to ali ens who are not admi tted or paroled. Hernandez-Vermudez , 356 F.3d at 1015 & n.6 (deferring to r egulat ion i n concludi ng that§ 122 8(b) e xpedite d remova l proc eedin g app lies to ill egal immigran ts). Wh ile th e regulation i s arguabl y not

### 8

directly app lic able in this cas e bec ause it applie s to ali ens who are not a dm itt ed o r par oled , the lan guag e of th e regu lati o n sugg ests that the Attorney General has inter preted “de portabl e” to i nclud e “parole d” aliens. The regulation provides, in pertin ent pa rt:
PART 238—EXPEDITED REMOVA L O F AGGRAVATED FELON S

. . . . (b) Pr e limi nar y consider ationand Notice of Intent to Iss ue a Final Administr ative Deportati on Order; commencement of proceedings– (1) Basi s of

Service c harge. An issuing Service of ficer shall cause to be served upon an ali en a Form I-851, Notice of Intent

to Iss ue a Final Adm inist rativ e Deportati on Order (Noti ce of Intent), if

the officer is sati sfied that there i s suffici ent e v idence, based

u po n questi oning of the alie n by an im mi grati on office r a nd upon any ot her evid enc e obt aine d, t o
su p port a findi ng that t he individ ual: (i) Is an al ien; (ii) Ha s not b een la wf ully adm itt ed for permane n t resi dence, or h as conditional pe r manent resi dent st atus under secti on 216 of the Ac t; (iii) Has been convict ed (as defined i n s ectio n 101(a)( 48) of

the Actand as demonstrat ed by any

of the docu men ts or recor d s li sted in § 3 .41 of thi s chapter) of

a n ag gr av ate d felo ny a n d such convict ion has bec ome final ; and (iv) Is depo rtable under sectio n 237(a)( 2)(A)(i ii) of the Ac t , including an alien who has ne ither

bee n admitted nor paroled, but w h o i s conclus ivel y presumed d eportabl e under secti on 237(a)(2)( A )(i ii) by operati on of se cti on 238(c) of the Act (“Presumpt ion of Dep ortability”).
8 C.F.R. § 238. 1 (emphasis added). The

use of the phra se “ inclu d ingan ali en who has neither been admitted no r paro led” (emp hasis adde d) im p licitly suggests an inter pretation of “deport able” und er INA § 237(a)( 2 ) (A)(ii i), 8 U .S.C

. § 1227(a )(2)(A)(iii), that includes paroled alien s.
In su m, we read the plain l anguage of § 1228(b) t o apply

to p arolees. To the extent the st atute is ambiguous , we defer to the BIA ’s in terpreta tion, as o utlined in the BIA’s decisi on in thi s case and implic itlyin 8 C. F. R . § 238 .1, that § 1228(b )’s expedit ed removal pr oceedings

### 9

app ly to pa role es.

III.
The legis lati ve his tory an d framew ork of the INA furtherbolst ers our inter pretation of

the s tatut e. Ad mitte dly, a review of the l egisl ative hist orydo es not reveal Co ngre ss’s spe cific inte nt w ith

re spectto the application o f § 122 8(b) t o parolees. However, the l egisl ative history does evince a br oad Congressi onal int ent to expedit e the re moval of criminal ali ens. “[I]t is bey ond cavil that one of Con gress’s pr incipa l goals i n enacti ng [the Il leg a l Immigrat ion Reform Responsibil ity Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), Pub. L. No. 104-208, Div. C, 110 Stat. 30 09-5 46 (1 996 )] wa s to expe dite the removalof ali ens who have been convict ed o f ag gra vate d fe lon ies.” Zhang v . I

NS , 274 F.3d 103, 108 (2d Cir. 2001) (citing Mo ore v. Ashcroft , 251 F.3d 919, 925 (11th Cir. 20 01)); see also Hernandez-Vermudez , 356 F. 3 d at 1014 (“Congres s clearly int ended to expedi te the

remova l of crimi nal al iens who are not lawful permane nt res ident s.”)

. “Sometimes legislativ e histor y is itself ambiguous. Not this time. T here simp ly is

no de nyi ng that in enacti ng the Viole nt Crime Controland Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 8 and [IIR IRA ], 9 Congress in te nded to expedi te the removal of crimina l alie ns.” H er nandez-Vermudez , 356 F.3d a t 1014 (citing H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 104-82 8, at 215 (19 96); H.R. Rep. No. 104

- 469(I), at 12, 107, 11 8-25 (19 96)). Bam ba’s inter

pretation of the stat

ute as apply ing to on lya narrow clas s of admitt ed alie ns is i nconsist ent with t his broa d Congressiona l in tent to expedit e the removal of crimi nal al iens

. Cf. Zhang , 274 F.3d at 108 ( holding in contex t of 8 U.S .C. § 1252 (a)(2)( C ) that “[i]n l ight of that goal [of

exp editing the removalof alie ns convict ed o f

aggrava ted felonies],

we think it is unlikely t

hat Congress meant to deny j udicia l revi ew of r emo val orders only for alie ns w ho h ad be en la wful ly admitt ed to the Unit ed State s and to al low such review for aggravated fel ons who had

n everbeen admitt ed”). Moreov er , Con gress’s intent

to apply

the exp e dited proceedi ngs to allalie ns who are not lawfull y admit

ted as permanentresidents, including paro lees, is reflected in § 1 228’s title—“Rem o val of Aliens Who Are Not Per ma nen t Re side nts.” 10

8 Pu b. L . No . 103 -32 2, T itle X III, § 13000 4, 108 S tat. 1796, 2026 -28 (199 4).

9 II RIRA § 304(c), Pub. L. No. 104- 208, Div. C , 110 Stat. 300 9-597 (1 996). 10 We acknowledge tha t “the title of a statute

. . . cannot l imit

the plain meaning of the te xt.” Brotherhood o f R. R. Train men v . Balt imore & O.R. Co. , 331 U .S. 519 , 528- 29 (1 947 ); see a ls o Sandoval v. Reno , 166 F.3d 225, 235 (3d Cir. 1999) (explaining that “a ti tle a lone is not controlling”). Ho we ver , a title can be examined “[f]or interp re tive p urp ose s . . . [to] she d l ig hton s ome ambiguous word or phr ase .” 331 U.S. at 529. In thi s case, to the extent

that t he clas s of ali ens covered by§ 12 28’s e xped ited rem oval p rovisio n is

### 10

Bamba c ontends that the framewor k of th e INA supp orts his inter pretation of 8 U.S. C. § 122 8(b). S pecif ically, he po ints to the fact while II RIRA united the bifurcated“ex cl usion” and “de portation” proceedi ngs into a s ingle “ remo val” proceedi ng, see Bakhtri ger v. Elwood , 360 F.3d 414, 415 n. 1 (3d Cir. 2004), t he Act still main tains so me d istincti on s between alie ns who h a ve been admitted an d are

“ deportabl e” and those al iens who ha v e not bee n ad mitte d an d ar e “in adm issib le.” See Appellant

Br. at 12- 14 ( citin g, e.g ., In

re Rosas-Ramirez , 22 I & N Dec . 616 (BIA 199 9) ; 8 U. S.C . § 1229a (e)(2)). 11 Ba mb a therefore argues that because Co ngress used the t erm “deport ab ilit y” an d not “inadmiss ibil ity” or “deport at io n and inadmiss ibil ity ,” i t must be pr esumed that Congr ess specifi call y i ntended § 1228( b)’ s expedit ed adm inistrati ve remov a l proceedi ngs to app ly only to “deport able” ali ens, andnot par ol ed a li ens li ke Bamb a who have not been “admitted. ”
The prob le m , however, is that Bam ba advances no rational e for why Congress wo uld have int ended to pres erve
a dist incti on between “deport able” and “inadmiss ible” aliens in the cont ext of expedit ed removal of aggr avated f el ons. As elaborated above, anysuch distincti on is irr ationa l, a

pp ly ing a le ss stringent standard to those alie ns who have not been admitt ed. Moreover, Bamba’ s argument fails to acknowledge t

he exist ence of other language in § 1228(b) indicating t hat the provisi on was intended t o app ly to inadm issible alien s. Recall t hat the provisi on explic itly pr ovides t hat “ [a]n alie n is de scri bed in thi s paragr aph if the al ie n—(A) w as no t la w fu lly admitted f o r permanent resid enc e.” 8 U.S .C. § 1228(b )(2)(A) (em phasis add ed).

IV.
Wh ile our Co urt has n ot prev iously addresse d the issu e in th is cas e, other circuit courts considering the qu es tion have uniformly

concluded t

hat § 122 8’s expedit ed removal provi sion appl ies to all al iens not

admi tted f

or permanen t resid enc e, inc lud ing par olee s.
As noted by the D istrict Co urt, in Bazan-Reyes v. IN S the S even th Circ uit consider ed and r ejected precis ely the sa me argumentthat Bamba now advances. 256 F.3d 600 , 6 04-0 5 (7th Cir. 2001 ). In support of its inter

pretation of § 1228 (b), the Seventh Circuit

explai ned: ambiguous, we find it persuasive t h at Congress entitledthe section “Removal of Aliens Who Ar e Not Permanen t Residents. ” 8 U.S.C. § 1228(b) (emp hasis add ed)

.

11 For example, while the alie n has the burden in an appl icat ion foradmi ssion of establ ishi ng that he is “cl early and beyond doubt entitled to be admitt ed and is not inad mis sible ,” 8 U. S. C. § 1229 a(c)(2)(A), t he government has “ the burdeno f

es t ablis hing by cl ear and convi ncing evi dence that, in the c ase of an al ien w h o has been admitted to the United States, the alie n is d epo rtab le,” 8 U.S .C. § 122 9a( c)(3 )(A ).

### 11

Nothing in that

secti on proh ibits its applic ation to parolees, and, as th e gove rn ment points out , constr uing the statu te to forb id its applic at ion to parolee s would p rov id e
more f avor able treatment for p arolee s than for law fully adm itted alien s. We cannot belie ve that Congres s intende d such a r es ul t

. We findit more pl ausibl e that the ref e rence t o § 122 7(a)(2 )(A)(iii) si mp l y operate s to incor

porate t he defini tionof aggravat ed felony set out in that s ecti on to eluci date which nonlawful resi dent al iens may be placed i n expedit ed proceedings.
Id. at 605. 12

In a sli ghtly

differe nt conte xt, t

he Nin th Circu it has rec entl y j oined the approach takenbyth e Se ven thCi rcu it , rejectin g t he arg um ent tha t imm igrants who are not “ admitt ed” ar e ex empt fr om § 1228 (b)’s expedit ed removal o f aggravat ed felons. See Hernandez -V ermudez , 356 F.3d 1011

. 13 While ackn o wledging that the stat ute “can be read” to exempt ali ens who are not a dmitt ed, the Nin th Circ uit concluded thatsuch a reading is at odds with t he l anguage and the l egisl ative histo ry of th e sta tute. See id. at 1014. 14

B amba points to no authority fr o m

12 Bam ba’s atte m pt to distinguish Bazan-Reyes on th e gro und that it has been overrul ed by subs eque nt Se venth Circu it cas e law is un per sua sive

. The case
c ited by Bamba in suppor t of thi s proposition— Dimenski v. I NS , 275 F.3d 574 ( 7 th Cir. 2001) —not only does not explic itlyo verrul e Bazan-Reyes but is ba se d on immigrat ion law pri or to t he

en ac tm en t o f I IRI RA. 13 In Hernandez-Vermud ez , th e N inth Circu it examined the meaning of the statute in the c ontext of a clai m that an ill egal immigrant , rat

her than a pa rolee,

was exempt from the e xpedite d removal provisi on because he wa s no t “ad mitte d.” The analysis with res pectto int erpret ation of the sta t utory sch eme , how ever, is equa llypersuasive in the cont ext of parolees.

14 T he posit ion of the Seventh and Nin th Circu it s i s also s upported by the Seco nd Circuit ’s deci sion i n Zhang v. INS

. In Zhang , the court examined the scope of § 12 25(a)(2)( C) ’s jurisdi ctionstripping provision fo r agg ravated felons. The appell ant argue d, as her e, that §1225 (a)(2 )(C)’ s referenc e t o § 1 227(a)(2)(A )(iii) limited th e ju risdi ction- stri pping provisi o n ’ s app licationto alien s wh o w ere ad mitte d

. The cour t rejected this inter pre tatio n. 274 F.3d at 10 7-0 8. Rath er, the S econ d C ircuit concludedthat t

he referenc e was included “not for it s description of pe rsons but solely for its catal oguing of crimes.” Id. at 108.

### 12

o ther circuit courts sugg esting a con trary inter pretation of

the statute. W e now join the approach taken by

the Sev enth C ircuit in Bazan- Rey es and th e N inth C ircuit in Hernandez-Vermudez , and h old tha t § 1228(b )’s exped ited re mov al prov ision is applic able to allalie ns convi cted of an aggravat ed felon y who are no t la wfu lly ad mitt ed for per manent resi dence , including parolees.

V.

For th e f

or eg oi ng r ea so ns , w e
a f firm the Dist

rict Court’s order deny ing the habeas petition and vacating the order staying Ba mb a’s d epo rtatio n.