2008 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 5-16-2008 

# Ro drigue z -T

orres 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 . 07-1215

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_2008

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 2008 D e c i sion s b y an author i 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
" Rodri guez -T

orr e s v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1217. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1217NOT 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. 07- 1215

___________ J U STO J A CI EN TO RO D RI G U EZ- TO RR ES, 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 37 158 303) I m m i gr at i on J udge: H onor abl e H enryS. D ogi n

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

A pr i l 23, 2008 B efor e: M C K E E , N Y G A A R D and R O T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: M ay16, 2008)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM J us t o J aci ent o R odr i guez- T orr es pet i t i ons forr evi ew of a Boar d of I m m i gr at i on A p p e a ls (“ B IA ” ) d e c is io n d e n y in g h is m o tio n to re o p e n h is im m ig ra tio n p ro c e e d in g s . We wi l l d i s mi s s t h e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.2

R o d rig u e z -T o rre s is a n a tiv e a n d c iti z e n o f th e D o m in ica n R e p u b lic. H e c a m e to the U ni t ed St at es i n 1981 as an i m m i gr ant . I n 1997, R odr i guez- T orr es appl i ed for admi s s i on t o t he U ni t ed St at es as a r eturni ng r es i dent . A tthatt i m e, an or dert o s how caus e w as i s s ued cha r gi ng t hathe w as s ubj ectt o deport at i on bas ed upon a 1988 co n v ict ion in N ew Y o rk state c o u rtfo r crim inal p o sses sion o f a w ea p o n in the thir d degr ee. In 2 0 0 0 , the Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e (“ IJ” ) d e n ied R o d rig u e z -T o rre s’ m o tio n to t erm i nat e the pr ocee di ngs and or der ed hi s depor t at i on. T he I J found hi m i nel i gi bl e for s us pens i on of deport at i on beca us e he ha d notm ai nt ai ned a c ont i nuous phy s i cal pr es ence h ere fo r t en y ea rs fo ll o w ing the c o m m issi o n o f h is cri m e, as req u ir ed b ystatu te. T h e IJ al s o found hi m i nel i gi bl e fora w ai verunderSect i on 212( c) of the I m m i gr at i on and N ati o n ali tyA ct. In 2 0 0 3 , the B IA af firm ed the IJ’s d ec isi o n w ith o u t op inion . T h e B IA al so den i ed R od ri gu ez-To rr es’ subsequ ent m oti on t o reope n the proceedings. I n 2004, t he B I A gr ant ed a j oi ntm ot i on byR odr i guez- T orr es and the D epart m ent of H om el and Secur i t yt o r eopen a nd r emand t he pr ocee di ngs t o det erm i ne R odr i guezT o rre s’ e lig ib ili tyf

o r su sp e n sio n o f

d e p o rta tio n b a se d u p o n a B IA d e c isio n h o ld in g th a t a fi r earm s offe ns e does nots t op t he ac crual of cont i nuous r es i dence forpurpos es of that form of r el i ef. O n r emand, how ever , R odr i guez- T orr es admi t t ed thathe had a 2004 fel onyconvi ct i on i n N ew J er s eys t at e courtfortheftof m ovabl e pr oper t y , w hi ch made hi m i nel i gi bl e fors us pens i on of deport at i on. R odr i guez- T orr es s oughtcanc el l at i on of“R epape r i ng” r efe r s t o an el ect i on bythe A t t orneyG ener al t o t erm i nat e deport at i on or 1 e x c lu sio n p ro c e e d in g s p e n d in g o n th e IIR IR A ’s e n a c tm e n t d a te, a n d to re in iti a te p roc ee d ing s u n d er the IIR IR A . S ee R o jas-R ey es v . IN S , 2 3 5 F . 3 d 1 1 5 , 1 2 5 (2d C ir . 2000) ( expl ai ni ng r epape r i ng) . T he ef fec tof bei ng r epape r ed i s t o m ake a n al i en w ho w as i nel i gi bl e fors us pens i on of deport at i on pot ent i al l yel i gi bl e forcanc el l at i on of re m o v a l. I d . 3 r emoval , buthe ac know l edged that , unl es s the G overnm ent“r epape r ed” hi s cas e, he w as notel i gi bl e fort hi s form of r el i ef. T he G overnm ents t at ed thati tw as unabl e t o r epape r 1 the ca s e bec aus e the appl i cabl e r egul at i ons w er e noti n eff ect . T he I J agai n or der ed R odr i guez- T or r es ’ depor t at i on. I n M ar ch 2006, t he B I A di s m i s s ed R odr i guez- T orr es ’ appea l . A l t hough R odr i guez- T or r es as s ert ed thatt he r epape r i ng r egul at i ons had now been i s s ued, and he w as el i gi bl e forcanc el l at i on of r emoval , the B I A found thati tcoul d notaff or d r el i ef i nvol vi ng t he di s cr et i on of the D epart m entof H om el and Secur i t y . T he B I A al s o not ed th a t R o d rig u e z -T o rre s w a s n o t in a f a v o ra b le p o sitio n to a sk th e D e p a rtm e n t to a g re e to hol d the pr ocee di ngs i n abey ance gi ven hi s 2004 t heftconvi ct i on. T he B I A fur t hers t at ed thatr epape r i ng w as notavai l abl e t o R odr i guez- T orr es , and thatthe I J ’ s deni al of su sp e n sio n o f

d e p o rta tio n d u e to h is 2 0 0 4 c o n v ictio n w a s c o rre c t. I n N ovember2006, R odr i guez- T orr es s oughtt o r eopen the pr ocee di ngs bas ed upon a pendi ng pet i t i on foran al i en r el at i ve fi l ed on hi s behal f byhi s daught er , w ho had tu rn e d tw e n ty -o n e y e a rs o ld in A p ril 2 0 0 6 . R o d rig u e z -T o rre s a ss e rte d th a t h e w a s e lig ib le f o r a d ju stm e n t o f

sta tu s u p o n a p p ro v a l o f th e p e tit io n , an d th a t th e B IA sh o u ld su a sp o n te re o p e n th e p ro c e e d in g s s o th a t h e c o u ld p u rs u e re lie f f ro m re m o v a l.R odr i guez- T or r es di d fi l e a pe t i t i on forr evi ew of the M ar ch 2006 dec i s i on, butthat 2 pet i t i on w as di s m i s s ed forl ack of pr os ecut i on.

4 I n D ece m ber2006, t he B I A deni ed the mot i on t o r eopen a s unt i m el ybeca us e the 90- dayt i m e per i od forfi l i ng t he mot i on had expi r ed i n J une 2006. T he B I A concl uded thatno exce pt i onal s i tuat i on w arr ant ed r eopeni ng s ua s pont e, not i ng thatR odr i guezT orr es ’ daught erhad tur ned 21 y ear s ol d i n A pr i l 2006, and thats he coul d have f i l ed a v is a p e titio n o n h is b e h a lf b e f o re th e m o tio n d e a d lin e . R odr i guez- T or r es r ai s es fouri s s ues forourr evi ew . H e ar gues thathe i s now p rim a f a c ie e lig ib le to a d

ju st h is s tatu s b e c a u se th e p e tit io n f o r a lien re lativ e f

iled o n h is behal f w as appr oved on M ar ch 29, 2007. H e al s o ar gues thatthe B I A err ed i n i t s M ar ch 2006 deci s i on byfi ndi ng hi m i nel i gi bl e fors us pens i on of deport at i on bas ed on hi s 2004 convi ct i on. R odr i guez- T or r es fur t herar gues thatthe B I A abus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng h is m o tio n to re o p e n s u a s p o n te b e c a u s e e x c e p tio n a l c ir c u m s ta n c e s w a rr a n te d re o p e n in g . Fi nal l y , R odr i guez- T or r es cont ends thatthe B I A vi ol at ed the A dm i ni s t r at i ve Pr ocedur es A ct , t he I m m i gr at i on and N atur al i zat i on A ct , and hi s due pr oces s r i ght s beca us e the D epart m entof H om el and Secur i t ydeni ed hi m the abi l i t yt o r epape rhi s cas e. W e mustfi r s taddr es s ourj ur i s di ct i on t o ent ert ai n t he pet i t i on forr evi ew . T he G overnm entcorr ect l yar gues t hatw e l ack j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew the B I A ’ s M ar ch 2006 d ec isi o n . R o d ri g u ez -T o rres’ pe ti ti o n fo r rev iew is on lyti m elyw ith resp ec t t o the B IA ’s o rde r de n y ing h is m o ti o n to reo p en . S ee S ton e v . I. N . S . , 5 1 4 U . S . 3 8 6 , 4 0 5 -06 (19 9 5 ). 2 T h u s, w e lac k ju risd ictio n to c o n sid e r R o d rig u e z -T o rre s’ a rg u m e n ts th a t th e B IA e rre d in5

i t s M ar ch 2006 dec i s i on byfi ndi ng hi m i nel i gi bl e fors us pens i on of deport at i on, and that the B I A vi ol at ed the A dm i ni s t r at i ve Pr ocedur es A ct , the I m m i gr at i on and N atur al i zat i on A ct , and hi s due pr oces s r i ght s beca us e he w as deni ed the abi l i t yt o r epape rhi s cas e. B eca us e R odr i guez- T or r es i s r emovabl e under8 U . S. C . § 1227( a) ( 2) ( C ) bas ed on h is c o m m iss io n o f

a f ire a rm s o f

f e n se , w e a lso lac k ju risd ictio n to re v iew th e d e n ial o f h is m o tio n to re o p e n , e x c e p t to th e e x te n t it r a is e s c o n s titu tio n a l c la im s a n d q u e s tio n s o f la w . C ruz v. A t t or neyG ener al , 452 F. 3d 240, 246- 47 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . I n hi s br i ef, R odr i guezT orr es di s put es t he B I A ’ s fi ndi ng of no exc ept i onal ci r cumst ance s gi ven thathi s daught er c o u l d h a v e f

i l e d h e rv i s a p e t i t i o n b e f o r e th e t i me t o f

i l e a mo t i o n t o r e o p e n e x p i r e d . He cont ends thathi s daught ercoul d nothave f i l ed herpet i t i on ear l i erbeca us e s he had d if f ic u lty o b ta in in g a b ir th c e rt if ic a te re f le c tin g th a t h e is h e r f

a th e r. R odr i guez- T or r es ’ s ar gum entt hat t he B I A err ed i n fi ndi ng hi m l egal l yi nel i gi bl e forr el i ef is w ith i n o u r j u r i s d ic tio n . C r uz , 452 F. 3d at250. H ow ever , t o the ext entthatR odr i guezT orr es ar gues t hathi s daught er ’ s i nabi l i t yt o obt ai n a b ir th cert i fi cat e cons t i tut es an exce pt i onal ci r cumst ance , hi s cl ai m i s bas ed on evi dence noti n the adm i ni s t r at i ve r ecor d t hat is th e re f o re b e y o n d th e s c o p e o f o u r r e v ie w . McAl l is t erv. A t t or ney G ener al , 444 F. 3d 178, 190 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . T he evi dence i n the admi ni s t r at i ve re cor d s how s onl y t hathi s daught er fil ed a v isa ap p li ca ti o n af ter th e d ea d li n e t o reo p en h ad p asse d , an d w e c an fin d n o su p p o rt forthe cl ai m that the ex is t ence of a l at e- fi l ed pendi ng vi s a appl i cat i on cons t i tut es anW e need no tadd res s the G ov ernm ent’ s ot her j uri sdi ct i on al argum ents becau se 3 ju ri s d ic tio n is la c k in g o n th is b a s is . 6 exce pt i onal ci r cumst ance . 3 Fi nal l y , R odr i guez- T or r es ’ ar gum entthathe i s now el i gi bl e foran adj us t m entof s t atus bas ed on an a ppr oved pet i t i on foral i en r el at i ve i s notpr oper l ybefor e us . W e may n o t c o n s id e r e v id e n c e o u ts id e th e a d m in is tr a tiv e re c o rd . McAl l is t er, 448 F. 3d at190. Fort he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l denythe pet i t i on forr evi ew . T he G overnm ent ’ s m ot i on t o di s m i s s i s gr ant ed.