2009 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 6-22-2009 

# Oli veira, et al 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 . 08-3240

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_2009

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 2009 D e c i sion s b y an authori 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 " Ol iveir a, e t al v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1157. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1157NOT 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. 08- 3240

___________ CA RL OS CE S AR DE OL I VE I RA ; KAT I A OL I VE I RA , P eti ti o n ers 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 os . A 70 105 085, A 97 480 680) Im m i grat i on Judg e: H on orabl e E ug ene P ug l i ese

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

J une 17, 2009 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , ST A PL E T O N and C O W E N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed : J une 22, 2009)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM C a rlo s a n d K a tia O liv e ira p e tit io n f o r re v iew o f

a B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( “B I A ”) deci s i on di s m i s s i ng thei rappea l of the I m m i gr at i on J udge’ s ( “I J ”) deci s i on d e n y in g th e ir a p p lica tio n s f o r a d ju stm e n t o f

sta tu s a n d c a n c e llatio n o f re m o v a l. W e w ill2

d i s mi s s i n p a r ta n d d e n yi n p a r tth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. C ar l os O l i vei r a and hi s w i fe, K at i a, ar e nat i ves and ci t i zens of B r azi l . C ar l os O l i vei r a fi r s tent er ed the U ni t ed St at es i n 1986 as a vi s i t or . H e depa r t ed i n 1989 and tr i ed t o r e- ent erthe countr yi n 1991 w i th a fr audul entvi s a. C ar l os O l i vei r a w as deport ed, but h e re -e n ter e d th e U n ited S tate s a g a in w ith o u t in sp e c tio n in 1 9 9 5 . K a tia O liv e ira c a m e to the U ni t ed St at es i n 1996 as a vi s i t or . T he coupl e mar r i ed i n N ew J er s eyi n 1999, and th e yh a v e tw o y o u n g c h ild re n , w h o a re U n ite d S ta te s c itiz e n s . C ar l os O l i vei r a’ s empl oy erappl i ed for , and w as gr ant ed, a l aborcert i fi cat i on on hi s behal f. T he I m m i gr at i on and N atur al i zat i on Ser vi ce a l s o appr oved a pe t i t i on foral i en w or kerfi l ed byhi s empl oy er . C ar l os O l i vei r a then appl i ed foradj us t m entof s t atus t o a l aw ful perm anen tres i den t . K at i a O l i veir a al so app l i ed fo r adj ust m ent of st atus as a der i vat i ve bene fi ci aryof herhus band’ s adj us t m entof s t atus appl i cat i on. I n 2005, the D epart m entof H om el and Secur i ty( “D H S”) deni ed the appl i cat i on, fi ndi ng C ar l os O l i vei r a s t atut or i l yi nel i gi bl e foradj us t m entof s t atus beca us e he w as i nad m i ssi ble due t o h i s ear l i er entryw i th a fraud ulentvis a and dep ort at i on . D H S al so f o u n d C a rlo s O liv e ira sta tu to rilyin e lig ib le f o r a w a iv e r o f

in a d m iss ib ili tyu n d e r § 2 1 2 (i) o f th e Im m ig ra tio n a n d N a tio n a lityA c t, w h ich re q u ire s a sh o w in g o f e x tre m e h a rd sh ip to a ci t i zen orl aw ful l yr es i dents pous e orpar ent . D H S not ed thathe di d nothave a qual i fy i ng r el at i ons hi p. D H S al s o deni ed K at i a O l i vei r a’ s der i vat i ve appl i cat i on foran adj us t m entof s t atus . T he O l i vei r as uns ucce s s ful l yappea l ed the dec i s i ons t o the3

A dm i ni s tr at i ve A ppeal s O ffi ce. D H S began r emoval pr ocee di ngs i n 2006, char gi ng thatC ar l os O l i vei r as w as s ubj ectt o r emoval beca us e he w as pr es entw i thouthavi ng been a dm i t t ed orpar ol ed, and thatK at i a O l i vei r as w as s ubj ectt o r emoval beca us e s he r emai ned i n the U ni t ed St at es l ongerthan author i zed. T he O l i vei r as conce ded thei rr emovabi l i tyand appl i ed for cance l l at i on of rem ov al and an ad j ust m ent of st atus. T he I J det erm i ned thatK at i a O l i vei r as w as s t atut or i l yi nel i gi bl e forcanc el l at i on of r emoval beca us e s he di d notdi d nothave t en y ear s of cont i nuous phy s i cal pr es ence i n t he U ni t ed St at es as r equi r ed by8 U . S. C . § 1229b( b) ( 1) ( A ) . T he I J fur therdet erm i ned that n e ith e r K a tia n o r C a rlo s O liv e ira s e sta b lish e d th a t th e ir re m o v a l w o u ld re su lt i n e x c e p tio n a l an d e x tre m e lyu n u su a l h a rd sh ip to a q u a lify in g re lativ e , in th is c a se th e ir chi l dr en, as r equi r ed by8 U . S. C . § 1229b( b) ( 1) ( D ) . T he I J al s o s t at ed thathe di d notfi nd C ar l os O l i vei r as w or thyof a f avor abl e exe r ci s e of di s cr et i on, not i ng thathe ca m e t o the U ni t ed St at es w i th a fr audul entvi s a, thathe had i l l egal l yr e- ent er ed af t erdeport at i on, and thathe had pr ovi ded a f al s e ans w eron hi s adj us t m entof s t atus appl i cat i on as t o w hether h e h a d e v e r b e e n d e p o rt e d . T he I J al s o det erm i ned thathe w oul d denythe appl i cat i ons foradj us t m entof s t atus beca us e C ar l os O l i vei r as had notfi l ed a Form I - 601, r equi r ed fora § 212( i ) w ai verof i nadmi s s i bi l i tybas ed on fr aud. T he I J fur thernot ed that , even i f C ar l os O l i vei r as had fi l ed the form , he w oul d denythe w ai verbeca us e C ar l os O l i vei r as had nots how n the4

re q u isite e x tre m e h a rd sh ip to a q u a lify in g re lativ e . F in a lly , the IJ s tate d th a t h e w o u ld denya § 212( i ) w ai veri n the exe r ci s e of di s cr et i on bas ed on C ar l os O l i vei r a’ s fl agr ant viol at i on of the i m m i grat i on l aw s. T h e B IA ad o p ted a n d af firm ed the IJ’s d ec isi o n , rejecti n g the O li v eiras’s a rg u m e n ts th a t th e IJ f

a iled to c o n sid e r th e p o sitiv e e q u iti e s in th e ir c a se , tha t K a tia O li v eira co u ld d erive the re q u isi te co n ti n u o u s p h y sical pre sen ce fro m h er h u sb an d ’s p re s e n c e , a n d th a t th e c u rr e n t v e rs io n o f § 2 1 2 (i ) h a s a n im p e rm is s ib le re tr o a c tiv e e f f e c t. T h is p e titio n f

o r r e v ie w f

o llo w e d . W e mustfi r s tdet erm i ne ourj ur i s di ct i on overthe pet i t i on forr evi ew . T he G o v ern m en t correc tl yarg u es th at w e lac k juri sd ict ion to rev iew d iscreti o n ary det erm i nat i ons under l y i ng the deni al of w ai ver s and ca ncel l at i on of r emoval . See C os pi t o v. A t t orneyG ener al , 539 F. 3d 166, 170- 71 ( 3d C i r . 2008) ( di s m i s s i ng por t i on of pet i t i on forr evi ew chal l engi ng § 212( i ) di s cr et i onaryw ai verdet erm i nat i on) ; M endez M or anche l v. A s hcr oft , 338 F. 3d 176, 179 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( hol di ng det erm i nat i on r egar di ng har ds hi p r equi r ementforcanc el l at i on of r emoval i s di s cr et i onaryand u n re v iew a b le) . T h e O liv e ira s a rg u e in th e ir b rie f th a t th e ysa tisf

ied th e h a rd sh ip r equi r ementforcanc el l at i on of r emoval . B eca us e w e ar e w i thoutj ur i s di ct i on t o cons i der th is a rg u m e n t, th e G o v e rn m e n t’s m o tio n to d ism iss th e p e tit io n f o r re v iew is g ra n ted to the ext entthe O l i vei r as chal l enge the I J ’ s det erm i nat i on thattheydi d nots at i s fytheA l though t he O l i vei r as al s o s t at e i n thei rbr i ef thatthe I J deni ed them a fai rhear i ng by 1 f a ilin g to h e a r a ll o f

th e re le v a n t te s tim o n y , th e yd o n o t e x p la in o r d is c u s s th is a s s e rt io n . S im ilarly , the O liv e ira s h a v e n o t d e v e lo p e d a n a rg u m e n t as to w h e th e r th e IJ e rre d in concl udi ng thatK at i a O l i vei r a di d nots at i s fythe t en- y earcont i nuous phy s i cal pr es ence r equi r ementforcanc el l at i on of r emoval . T hes e i s s ues have notbeen pr oper l ypr es erved forourr evi ew and w e w i l l notaddr es s them. See K os tv. K ozaki ew i cz, 1 F. 3d 176, 182 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 3 ). 5 h ard sh ip req u ir em en ts fo r ca n ce ll ati o n o f re m o v al or the § 2 1 2 (i ) w aive r. 1 T h e O liv e ira s a lso a rg u e th a t th e B IA e rre d a n d v io late d th e ir d u e p ro c e ss rig h ts in concl udi ng thatthe appl i cat i on of § 212( i ) does nothave a n i m perm i s s i bl e r etr oact i ve eff ect . T he O l i vei r as ’ s ar gum enti s bas ed on the 1996 cha nges t o § 212( i ) , r equi r i ng C ar l os O l i vei r a t o s how thathi s r emoval w oul d r es ul ti n extr eme har ds hi p t o a U ni t ed St at es ci t i zen pa r entors pous e. See 8 U . S. C . § 1182( i ) . T he ver s i on of § 212( i ) thatw as i n eff ecti n 1991, w hen C ar l os comm i t t ed fr aud i n ent er i ng the U ni t ed St at es , di d not r equi r e s uch a s how i ng. U nl i ke the curr entver s i on of § 212( i ) , the pr e- I I R I R A ver s i on a ls o a llo w e d p a re n ts o f

U n ite d S ta te s c itiz e n s to o b ta in a w a iv e r. Al th o u g h we h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e v i e w t h i s c o n s t i tu t i o n a l q u e s t i o n , s e e 8 U. S . C. § 1252( a) ( 2) ( D ) , w e dec l i ne t o do s o i n thi s cas e. E ven i f w e w er e t o concl ude thatthe O liv e ira s’s a rg u m e n t h a s m e rit, th e IJ f u rth e r f o u n d th a t th e O liv e ira s w e re n o t elig ib le forthe w ai verbeca us e C ar l os O l i vei r as di d notfi l e the r equi s i t e For m I - 601. T he O l i vei r as have notchal l enged thi s rul i ng. M or eover , the I J concl uded thathe w oul d not exer ci s e hi s di s cr et i on t o gr anta w ai verbas ed on C ar l os O l i vei r as ’ s di s r egar d of the i m m i gr at i on l aw s , and w e l ack j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew thi s deci s i on. T hus , a dec i s i on6

r egar di ng the appl i cat i on of § 212( i ) w oul d notaff ectthe out come of t hi s cas e. Ac c o r d i n g l y , we wi l l d e n yi n p a r ta n d d i s mi s s i n p a r tth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.