2005 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 12-20-2005 

# U SA v . T ec at 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 . 05-1957

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_2005

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 2005 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 " U SA v . T e cat " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 76. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/76T he H onor abl e Loui s H . Pol l ak, D i s t r i ctJ udge, U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tforthe * E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f

P e n n s y lv a n ia , s ittin g b yd e s ig n a tio n . NOT 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. 05- 1957 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. OM AR ANT ONI O T E CA T

a /k /a OM AR T E CA T a /k /a NE S T OR OR T E GA O m a r A n to n io T e c a t, A ppel l ant APP EAL F ROM THE UNI TE D ST ATE S DI S TRI CT C OURT

FOR TH E DI STRI CT O F NEW J ERSEY D . C . C ri m . N o . 0 2 -cr-00 5 7 5 -1 D i s t r i ctJ udge: T he H onor abl e J ohn C . L i fl and Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

N ovember17, 2005 B efor e: B A R R Y and A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udges , and PO L L A K , D i s t r i ctJ udge * ( O pi ni on Fi l ed: D ece m ber20, 2005 )2 OP I NI ON

B A R R Y , C i r cui tJ udge A ppel l antO m arT eca tappea l s hi s convi ct i on fori l l egal r eentr yi nt o t he U ni t ed St at es . Fort he r eas ons s t at ed bel ow , w e w i l l aff i r m the j udgm ent s of convi ct i on and s ent ence . I. O n F e b ru a ry2 9 , 1 9 9 6 , a ju ryc o n v icte d T e c a t o f p o ss e ss io n o f

h e ro in w ith in ten t to d istrib u te w ith in o n e th o u sa n d f e e t o f a sc h o o l. H e w a s s e n ten c e d in A p ril o f th a t y e a r to fi ve- y ear s i n pr i s on. T he convi ct i on r ender ed Tecatel i gi bl e fordepor t at i on, and the I m m i gr at i on and N atur al i zat i on Ser vi ce ( “I N S”) i ni t i at ed pr ocee di ngs agai ns thi m i n the s pr i ng of 1999. A deport at i on hear i ng w as hel d on A pr i l 23, 1999 befor e an i m m i gr at i on jud g e (“ IJ”). A t th e h e a rin g , the IJ r e c e iv e d f ro m th e g o v e rn m e n t “F o rm s I- 6 1 8 , the leg a l aid s heet , t he N ot i ce t o A ppear , ” al ong w i t h copi es of appe l l ant ’ s cr i m i nal convi ct i on r ecor ds w hi ch the I J det erm i ned w er e pr oper l ycert i fi ed. A ft erT eca tw as s w orn and w i t hout o b j e c t i o n f r o m c o u n s e l , t h e I J p u tt h r e e q u e s t i o n s t o h i m: Q . . . . . Si r , do y ou admi tt haty ou’ r e nota ci t i zen ornat i onal of the U ni t ed St at es , butt haty ou’ r e a na t i ve and c i t i zen of the D om i ni can Republ i c? A . Y es, Y o u r H o n o r. Q . Si r , do y ou admi tt haty ou w er e admi t t ed t o t he U ni t ed St at es atN ewT he B I A al s o concl uded he w as s t atut or i l yi nel i gi bl e forr el i ef unde r§ 212( c) of the 1 IN A , 8 U . S . C . § 1 1 8 2 (c) (19 9 4 ). I n i t s br i ef, t he governm entcont ends thatT eca tpl ed gui l t yon February27, 2002, but 2 pr ovi des a r ecor d ci t at i on i ndi cat i ng t hatthe pl ea he ar i ng occurr ed on Sept ember27, 2002. ( A pp. 109. ) A ppel l ant ’ s br i ef pr ovi des both t he February27, 2002 and Sept ember 2 7 , 2 0 0 2 d a te s . ( C om

par e A ppel l ant ’ s B r . at7 w i th i d. at3. ) G i ven the fa ctthatthe i ndi ctm entw as r etur ned i n J ul y2002, the pl ea c oul d nothave be en i n t he pr ece di ng F e b ru a r y. 3 Y or k, N ew Y or k, on oraboutJ ul y29, 1991, as an i m m i gr antw i t h y our gr een c ar d? A . Y es, Y o u r H o n o r. Q . A n d , sir, d o y o u a d m it th a t y o u w e re o n F e b ru a ry2 9 , 1 9 9 6 , co n v icte d in P a ss a ic C o u n ty , N e w Je rse yf o r p o ss e ss io n o f

h e ro in w ith in ten t to d istrib u te w ith in 1 ,0 0 0 f e e t o f a sc h o o l? A . Y es, Y o u r H o n o r. (T r. at 11 -12 , A p p . 8 4 -85 . ) T h e IJ f o u n d T e c a t re m o v a b le a n d a lso f o u n d h im in e lig ib le f

o r re lief p u rsu a n t to § 2 1 2 (c) o f th e Im m igrati o n an d N atura li za ti o n A ct (“IN A ”), 8 U . S . C . § 1 1 8 2 (c), r epealed by I l l egal I m m i gr at i on R eform and I m m i gr antR es pons i bi l i t yA ct , Pub. L . N o. 104- 208, § 304( b) , 110 St at . 3009- 597. T eca tappea l ed t o t he B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A p p ea ls ( “B IA ”). O n O ctob er 2 1 , 1 9 9 9 , the B IA d en ied h is ap p ea l, af firm ing the IJ’s fi ndi ng t hathe w as r emovabl e. H e w as depor t ed on N ovember19, 1999. 1 T eca tr etur ned. A s a cons equenc e, on J ul y25, 2002 he w as i ndi ct ed pur s uantt o 8 U . S. C . §§ 1326( a) and 1326( b) ( 2) fori l l egal r eentr y . H e pl ed gui l t yon Sept ember27, 2002. O n J une 10, 2004, he moved t o w i t hdr aw hi s gui l t ypl ea, s uppr es s the or derof

2 depor t at i on under l y i ng t he i l l egal r eentr ychar ge, and di s m i s s the i ndi ctm ent . T he D i s tr i ctT h e g o v e rn m e n t als o c laim s th a t ap p e llan t h a d th e rig h t to ra ise h is d u e p ro c e ss c laim 3 in a § 2 2 4 1 p e tit io n a n d , the re f o re , w a s n o t “im p ro p e rlyd e p riv e d o f . . . the o p p o rtu n ity f o r ju d icia l re v iew .” T e c a t ar g u e d b e f o re th e D istric t C o u rt th a t th e law o f th e F if th C i r cui t– t he deport at i on hear i ng w as hel d i n O akdal e, L oui s i ana – w as l es s than cl earat t he t i m e of hi s depor t at i on hear i ng aboutthe ava i l abi l i t yof habe as r evi ew . H e does not p ress this arg u m en t on ap p ea l. In a n yev en t, as w il l be d iscu ssed , h e f alt ers a t th e third p rereq u isi te of

8 U . S . C . § 1 3 2 6 (d). C

f . U ni t ed Stat es v. Torr es , 383 F. 3d 92, 102- 03 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( as s um i ng, w i t houtdeci di ng, thatappel l ant“w as deni ed a meani ngful o p p o rtu n ityfo r j u d ici al rev iew ” w h ere h is “co ll ateral ch all en g e su ff ers f rom a m o re obvi ous defe ct– he ca nnotes t abl i s h t hathi s r emoval or derw as ‘ fundament al l yunfai r ’ as 4 C our tdeni ed the mot i on on February23, 2005. Soon t her eaf t er , T eca tw as s ent ence d and j udgm entent er ed. T hi s appea l fol l ow ed.

II. O u r ju risd ictio n a rise s u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . A lth o u g h T e c a t is a p p e a lin g h is convi ct i on, hi s appea l tur ns on hi s ar gum entthatthe under l y i ng depor t at i on hear i ng w as

“ f u n d a m e n ta lly u n f

a ir .” W e re v ie w th a t is s u e , th e p a rt ie s a g re e , de novo . U ni t ed Stat es v. Torr es , 383 F. 3d 92, 95 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . T o do s o, w e turn t o t he s t atut e of c onvi ct i on, w hi ch perm i t s a col l at er al at t ack upon a n under l y i ng depor t at i on or derw hen th e a lien d e m o n stra tes th a t – ( 1) t he al i en exha us t ed anyadmi ni s t r at i ve r emedi es thatm ayhave b ee n av ail ab le t o see k reli ef ag ains t th e o rde r; ( 2) t he deport at i on pr ocee di ngs atw hi ch the or derw as i s s ued i mp r o p e r l yd e p r i v e d th e a l i e n o f th e o p p o r tu n i t yf

o rj u d i c i a l r e v i e w; (3) the en tryo f th e o rde r w as f u n d am en tal lyu n fa ir . 8 U . S. C . § 1326( d) . I ti s t he thi r d pr er equi s i t e thati s ati s s ue her e. I n T eca t ’ s es t i m at i on, 3req u ir ed b ysec ti o n 1 3 2 6 (d)(3 ). ”).

A ppel l antal s o ar gued t o t he D i s t r i ctC our tthatthe B I A i ncorr ect l yconcl uded thathe 4 w as statuto ri lyineligible f o r reli ef u n d er § 2 1 2 (c) o f th e IN A , 8 U . S . C . § 1 1 8 2 (c), r epealed by I l l egal I m m i gr at i on R eform and I m m i gr antR es pons i bi l i t yA ct , Pub. L . N o. 104- 208, § 304( b) , 110 St at . 3009- 597. W hi l e appe l l ant ’ s m ot i on w as pendi ng befor e the D i s t r i ctC our t , how ever , w e det erm i ned that“‘ fundament al fai r nes s i s a ques t i on of pr ocedur e. ’ ” Torr es , 383 F. 3d at103 ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) . W e made i tcl earthat“[w ] i thout m or e, an err orof l aw w i l l or di nar i l ynotr i s e t o t he l evel of a due pr oces s vi ol at i on. ” I d. at104. W e furt herfound thatan al i en has no “due pr oces s l i ber t yi nt er es ti n bei ng cons i der ed for212( c) r el i ef. ” I d. In s u m , al t hough t he I J err oneous l yconcl uded thatT orr es w as i nel i gi bl e t o be cons i der ed fordi s cr et i onaryr el i ef, the I J di d i nform T orr es of the r eas ons fort he G overnm ent ' s char ge thatT orr es w as r emovabl e, di d pr ovi de hi m an op po rtun i t yt o p res ent a defense, did secure the w ai ver of T orr es' s defen se and appe al r i ght s , and di d gr antT orr es ' s r eques tt o be deport ed t o hi s nat i ve c o u n tr y . T h e IJ ' s c o n d u c t in to ta lity d id n o t d e n yT o rr e s d u e p ro c e s s . I d. a t 1 0 6 . Torr es for ecl os es anyar gum entturni ng s ol el yon t he B I A ’ s al l eged l egal e rro r. A p p e llan t h a s a c c o rd in g lya b a n d o n e d th a t ar g u m e n t o n a p p e a l. 5 t he I J i m pr oper l ydeni ed hi m a “f ai roppor tuni t yt o be hea r d” w hen he “ s t epped i nt o the governm ent ’ s s hoes byconduct i ng t he ent i r e exa m i nat i on, ” ther eby“ef fec t i vel ym ak[i ng] th e g o v e rn m e n t’ s c a s e .” 4 T he I J ’ s eff

or t s t o confi r m t he s ubs t ance of the r ecor d, an ende avori n w hi ch Tecat vol unt ar i l ypar t i ci pat ed, does notcons t i tut e a de ni al of a f ai roppor tuni t yt o be hea r d. T he IJ w a s f re e to in q u ir e o f

T e c a t. See 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 9 (b )(1 ) (“ T h e im m ig ra tio n ju d g e sh a ll admi ni s t eroaths , r ece i ve evi dence , and i nt err ogat e, exami ne, and cr os s - exami ne the al i en and anyw i t nes s es . ”) . T he ques t i ons as ked w er e bas i c and r el evantt o t he i s s ue bef or e the I J , t he ans w er s el i ci t ed w er e otherw i s e i n t he r ecor d, and Tecatoffe r s no count ervai l i ng e v id e n c e w h ic h h e w o u ld h a v e o f f e re d b u t w a s p re v e n te d f ro m o f f e ri n g .T e c a t p led to th e f a c tu a l u n d e rp in n in g s o f th e ill e g a l re e n tryc h a rg e a n d th o se f a c ts 5 w er e i ncl uded i n hi s pr e- s ent ence r epor t . A l s o, i n addi t i on t o “the evi dence i n t he form of [appe l l ant ’ s ] ow n admi s s i ons [and] t es t i m ony , ” the I J r el i ed upon “doc um ent s s ubm i t t ed b yth e IN S .” (O ra l D e c . o f th e IJ a t 1 , A p p . 8 7 ).

6 G i ven t he fo regoi ng , T ecathas no tm ade an yshow i ng of p rej ud i ce. C f. T orr es, 3 8 3 F .3 d a t 1 0 3 n .1 3 (n o tin g , w ith o u t d e c id in g , tha t “ every C i r cui tt o have c ons i der ed the r equi r ement s fora s ucce s s ful col l at er al chal l enge t o a r emoval or derhas hel d t hatthe al i en mustm ake s om e s how i ng t hatpr ej udi ce ha s r es ul t ed – i . e. , w h e th e r th e a lien c o u ld r eal i s t i cal l yhave e xpect ed thatt he A t t orneyG ener al w oul d exer ci s e di s cr et i on t o gi ve the al i en r el i ef f

r om r emoval ”) ( emphasi s i n or i gi nal ) . T eca thas abandone d on appea l any ar gum entar i s i ng outof the deni al of § 212( c) cons i der at i on and, i n s o doi ng, has abandone d anyar gum entt hathe had a r eal i s t i c expe ct at i on thatthe A tt orneyG ener al w oul d have e xer ci s ed di s cr et i on on hi s behal f. M or eover , t o t hi s dayhe has notcont es t ed t he fa ct s under l y i ng t he I J ’ s deci s i on. T her e i s , i n s hor t , no r eas on t o bel i eve thatthe 5 under l y i ng depor t at i on hear i ng w as unfai ri n anyw ay , m uch l es s “funda m ent al l yunfai r . ” I V. Fort he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m the j udgm ent s of convi ct i on and s e n te n c e .