T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptunderthe doctr i nes of * law o f th e c a se , res ju d ica ta, a n d c o llate ra l es to p p e l. Itm a yb e c ited , h o w e v e r, f o r its per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t entw i th Fed. R . A pp. P. 32. 1 and 10th C i r . R . 32. 1.

## F I LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### A p r i l4, 2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT M A R T IN R IN C O N R IV A S an d M A R IA CA S T RO DE RINC ON, P et i t i on ers , v. N o. 06- 9545 A L B E R T O R . G O N Z A L E S, A tt orney G e n e ra l, R e sp o n d e n t. (A g e n c yN o s . A 78- 891- 449, A 78- 891- 450) ( Pet i t i on forR evi ew fr om an O r derof T he B oard of

Im m i grat i on A pp eal s)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e B R I S C O E , M c W I L L I A M S , andTY M KOVI CH , C i rcui tJudg es.

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 u n a n im o u slyth a t o ra l ar g u m e n t w o u ldn o t m a ter iallya ss ist in th e d e ter m in a tio n o f th is appea l . See Fed. R . A pp. P. 34( a) ( 2) ; 10th C i r . R . 34. 1( G ) . T he ca s e i s , ther efor e, o rd e re d s u b m itte d w ith o u t o ra l a rg u m e n t. M art i n R i ncon R i vas ( R i ncon) and M ar i a C as tr o D e R i ncon ( C as tr o) pet i t i on for-2-

r evi ew of an or derr emovi ng them from the U ni t ed St at es t o M exi co. C as tr o cont ends th a tth e i mm i g r a t i o n j u d g e ( I J ) e rr e d i n a l l o wi n g th e Att o rn e yGe n e r a l t o wi th d r a w a c h a rg e f iled a g a in st h e r f

o r f a lse re p re se n tatio n . F u rth e r, R in c o n a n d C a stro jo in tly cont end thatthe I J s houl d have gr ant ed thei rr eques tt o cont i nue the r emoval pr ocee di ngs b e c a u se R in c o n h a d f

iled alab o r c e rtific a tio n re q u e st th a t co u ldre su lt i n a n e m p lo ym e n tbas ed vi s a. W e exe r ci s e j ur i s di ct i on under8 U . S. C . § 1252( a) and di s m i s s the pet i t i on for la c k o f ju ri s d ic tio n . I. R i ncon and Castr o, a marr i ed coupl e, ar e ci t i zens of M exi co w ho ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es i l l egal l yi n ear l y1997. T he A tt orneyG ener al i ni t i at ed r emoval pr ocee di ngs agai ns tthem i n 2004. I n addi t i on t o char gi ng both w i th unauthor i zed e ntry , the A tt orney G ener al al l eged thatC as tr o had al s o fal s el yr epr es ent ed her s el f t o be a U ni t ed St at es c iti z e n . O v e r C a stro ’s o b jec tio n , the IJ s u b se q u e n tlya llo w e d th e A tto rn e yG e n e ra l to w i thdr aw the fa l s e r epr es ent at i on char ge bef or e the I J had made anyfi ndi ngs r egar di ng th e c h a rg e . B efor e the I J rul ed on r emoval , R i ncon and Castr o’ s couns el r eques t ed a co n ti n u an ce to aw aita d ec isi o n b ythe U n it ed S tat es D ep artm en t of L ab o r on R inco n ’s pendi ng appl i cat i on foral i en empl oym entcert i fi cat i on. T he pet i t i oner s as s ert ed thatthe cert i fi cat i on w oul d al l ow R i ncon t o r eques tan empl oym ent - bas ed vi s a. T he I J deni ed thei rr eques tbecaus e i tw as unknow n how l ong the ce rt i fi cat i on pr oces s w oul d t ake a nd th e lik e lih o o d o f

c e rt if ic a tio n w a s s p e c u la tiv e a t b e s t.-3-

T he I J ther eaf

t eror der ed the r emoval of R i ncon and Castr o fr om the U ni t ed St at es b e c a u se th e yh a d n o t p ro v id e d e v id e n c e sh o w in g th e ir law f u l en try . T h e IJ s p e c if

ica lly n o ted th a t h e h a d m a d e “ n o f in d in g ” o n th e w ith d ra w n f a lse re p re se n tatio n c h a rg e . A p lt. A p p . at 39 . T h e B o ard o f Im m igrati o n A p p ea ls ( B IA ) af firm ed , w ith o u t op inion , the IJ’s ru lin g s . R in c o n a n d C a s tr o n o w p e titio n f o r r e v ie w o f

th e B IA ’s d e c is io n . II. W h e n th e B IA “ ‘su m m a rilya f f irm s o r a d o p ts a n im m ig ra tio n ju d g e ’s d e c isio n , this courtr evi ew s the j udge’ s anal y s i s as i f i tw er e the B I A ’ s . ’ ” W i r ans ane v. A s hcr oft , 366 F. 3d 889, 897 ( 10th C i r . 2004) ( ci t at i on om i tt ed) . W e exa m i ne l egal det erm i nat i ons de novo and fi ndi ngs of fa ctundera s ubs t ant i al evi dence s t andar d. N i ang v. G onzal es , 422 F .3 d 1 1 8 7 , 1 1 9 6 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). F u rth e r, w e re v ie w ju ri s d ic tio n a l is s u e s d e n o v o . It ae v a v . IN S , 3 1 4 F . 3 d 1 2 3 8 , 1 2 4 0 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). R inco n an d C astro a rgu e tha t th e IJ err ed in tw o regards: w hen he all ow ed the A tt orneyG eneral t o w i thd raw the fa l se re p re s e n ta tio n c h a rg e , a n d w h e n h e d e n ie d th e irre q u e s t f o r a c o n tin u a n c e . A . C as tr o cont ends thatthe w i thdr aw al of the fa l s e r epr es ent at i on char ge pr event ed h e r f ro m re f u tin g it, th e re b yp re se rv in g th e a lleg a tio n a s “ f o re v e rm o re u n c h a llen g e a b le in a n yc o u rt o r a g e n c y .” P e t’r B r. at 2 1 . C a stro a rg u e s th a t sh e w ill b e u n a b le to re tu rn to the U ni t ed St at es s o l ong as thi s al l egat i on r emai ns unadj udi cat ed. W e a re w ith o u t ju ri s d ic tio n to c o n s id e r C a s tr o ’s a rg u m e n t. T itle 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (g ) d e p riv e s u s o f

ju risd ictio n to re v iew th e A tto rn e yG e n e ra l’s d e c isio n to-4-

c o m m e n c e o r a d

ju d ica te r e m o v a l p ro c e e d in g s: E xceptas pr ovi ded i n thi s s ect i on and notw i ths t andi ng anyotherpr ovi s i on of l aw ( s t atut oryornons t atu tory ) , i ncl udi ng s ect i on 2241 of t i t l e 28, U ni t ed St at es C ode, or any other habea s corpus pr ovi s i on, and sec t i ons 1361 and 1651 o f s u c h title , no cour t s hal l have j ur is di ct i on to hear any caus e or clai m by or on behal f of any al i en ar is i ng f

r om the dec is i on oract ion by the A t torney G eneralto com m ence pr ocee di ngs , adj udi cate cas es , orexe cute r em oval or ders agai ns tany al i en underthis A ct . ( emphasi s added) . T he thr ee e num er at ed ac t s – comm enci ng pr ocee di ngs , adj udi cat i ng cas es , and exe cut i ng r emoval or der s – “r epr es entthe i ni t i at i on orpr os ecut i on of var i ous s ta g e s in th e d e p o rt a tio n p ro c e s s .” R e n o v . A m e ri c a n -A ra b A n ti- D is c ri m in a tio n C o m m ., 525 U . S. 471, 483 ( 1999) , r eh’ g deni ed by , 526 U . S. 1081 ( 1999) . “Sect i on 1252( g) w as di r ect ed aga i ns ta part i cul arevi l : att empt s t o i m pos e j udi ci al cons tr ai nt s upon pr os ecut or i al di s cr et i on. ” I d. at485 n. 9. T he pr ovi s i on confi rm s that“[a ] teac h s t age the E xecut i ve has di s cr et i on t o abandon the ende avor ” w i thoutj udi ci al i nt er fer ence . I d. at 4 8 3 -8 4 ; se e a lso B a ra h o n a -G o m e z v . R e n o , 2 3 6 F .3 d 1 1 1 5 , 1 1 2 0 (9 th C ir. 2 0 0 1 ) (“ It is this verydecis i on t o either ‘ aban do n the end eavo r’ or t o ad j ud i cat e i tthat C on gress w is h e d to p re s e rv e f

ro m ju d ic ia l r e v ie w .” ). C as tr o’ s cl ai m cl ear l yfal l s w i thi n s ubs ect i on ( g) ’ s pr ohi bi t i on on j udi ci al r evi ew o f th e At t o rn e yGe n e r a l ’ s d e c i s i o n t o c o mme n c e o ra d j u d i c a t e a n i mmi g r a t i o n c a s e . By chal l engi ng the A tt orneyG ener al ’ s deci s i on t o abandon the fa l s e r epr es ent at i on char ge, C as tr o i s as ki ng us t o r evi ew the A tt orneyG ener al ’ s pr os ecut or i al deci s i on r egar di ng w hatchar ges w i l l orw i l l notbe pur s ued aga i ns ther . Subse ct i on ( g) pr ohi bi t s us fr om e n g a g in g in p re c ise lyth is typ e o f re v iew b e c a u se b yra isin g th is iss u e C a stro isC as tr o ci t es t o C ol m enarv. I N S, 210 F. 3d 967 ( 9th C i r . 2000) , t o s upporther 1 cont ent i on thatthe w i thdr aw al of cha r ges w i thouta hea r i ng vi ol at es due pr oces s . A s the A tto rn e yG e n e ra l p o in ts o u t, ho w e v e r, th a t ca se in v o lv e d a n a sy lu m ap p lica n t’s rig h t to have hi s cl ai m s hear d byan i m m i gr at i on j udge, notthe r i ghtof a r emovabl e al i en t o have a hea r i ng on wi th dr a wn cl ai m s . See i d. at968- 71. A l though the pet i t i oner s m ent i on, atvar i ous poi nt s , otherpet i t i ons thatm ay 2 j us t i fyadj us tm entof s t atus , the bas i s forthei rr eques tfora cont i nuance w as the pendi ng a p p lic a tio n f

o r c e rt if ic a tio n . S e e A .R . a t 6 7 .

-5- att em pti ng t o im po se j ud i ci al con strai nts on the A tt orneyG eneral ’s dis cret i on t o ch oo se w hi ch cha r ges w i l l be pur s ued. T he A tt orneyG ener al ’ s deci s i on t o “aba ndon the 1 e n d e a v o r” re g a rd in g th e f a ls e re p re s e n ta tio n c h a rg e is b e y o n d o u r j u ri s d ic tio n a l p u rv ie w .

B . T h e p eti ti o n ers a lso a ssert th at th e IJ e rred in d en y ing their req u est fo r a cont i nuance of the pr ocee di ngs pendi ng the out come of R i ncon’ s l aborcert i fi cat i on r eques t . A gai n, w e mustfi r s taddr es s w hetherw e have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew the deni al

2 o f a re q u e s t f

o r a c o n tin u a n c e . W e h a v e p re v io u s ly h e ld th a t “ 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (a)(2)(B )(i i) b ars rev iew o f [ an ] IJ’s discreti o n aryd ec isi o n d en y ing [a ] pe ti ti o n er’s m o tio n f o r a c o n tin u a n c e .” Y e rk o v ic h v . A s h c ro f t, 3 8 1 F .3 d 9 9 0 , 9 9 5 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). O u r prior ru li n g in Y erk o v ich is co n tr o ll ing h ere . T it le 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 (a)(2)(B )(i i) b ars ourr evi ew of the I J ’ s deci s i on t o denya cont i nuance . A ft erw e dec i ded Y erkovi ch, C ongr es s pas s ed the R E A L I D A ctof 2005. Sect i on 1252 w as amended t o pr ovi de that8 U . S. C . § 1252( a) ( 2) ( B ) s hal l not“be c ons trued as pr ecl udi ng r evi ew of cons t i tut i onal cl ai m s orques t i ons of l aw r ai s ed upon a pe t i t i on for r evi ew fi l ed w i th an appr opr i at e courtof appe al s i n acc or dance w i th thi s s ect i on. ” See 8-6-

U . S. C . § 1252( a) ( 2) ( D ) . W e have i nt erpr et ed thi s pr ovi s i on as gr ant i ng court s j ur i s di ct i on to rev iew co n sti tuti o n al claim s an d “‘a n arro w ca tego ryo f issu es re g ard ing statu tory cons truct i on. ’ ” D i al l o v. G onzal es , 447 F. 3d 1274, 1282 ( 10th C i r . 2006) ( quot i ng C hen v. U ni t ed St at es D O J , 434 F. 3d 144, 153 ( 2d C i r . 2006) ) . “H ow ever , chal l enges di r ect ed s ol el yatthe age ncy ’ s di s cr et i onaryand fa ctual det erm i nat i ons r emai n out s i de the s cope of j udi ci al r evi ew . ” I d. at1281 ( ci t at i on om i tt ed) . T he pet i t i oner s do notr ai s e any c o n stitu tio n a l cla im o r q u e stio n re g a rd in g sta tu to ryin terp re tatio n , rely in g in ste a d o n th e ir ar gum entthati tw as an abus e of the I J ’ s di s cr et i on t o denythei rm ot i on. See Pet ’ rB r . at 2 6 -2 8 . III . W e D IS M IS S th e p e titio n f o r r e v ie w f

o r l a c k o f

ju ri s d ic tio n . E n tered fo r th e C o u rt M aryB eck Bri s coe C i r cui tJ udge