W e g ran ted the p arties’ joint m otio n to w aiv e or al arg u m en t.  S eeF ED . R. A PP . P . 34 (f); C IR . R. 34 (f ). Th u s, t h e a p p e a l is su b m itt ed o n th e b ri efs an d th e r ec o rd
.



## In the 

# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 08

- 1260 E MM ANUEL E. O BI, P etitio ner, v. E R I C H. H OLDER, J R ., A tt or n ey G en er al ofthe U ni ted S tat es, R es pond ent
.

Pe tition fo r Review o f anOrd er of the Bo ard of Immigration App eals
. No . A28-636- 542
S UB MI TT ED F EB RU AR Y 18, 2009

— D ECI DE D M AR CH 3, 2009 

Befo re B AUER, R IPPLE, a nd K ANN E , C ircu it Judges . P ER C UR I AM . Facing r em ova l pro ceedi ngs, Em m anuel Obi, a nati ve ofN i ger i a, appli ed for c ancel l ati on o fr e-2 N o. 08

- 1260

m ova l
. The i m m i gr ati on j ud ge concl ud ed that because Obi had b e e n c o nv i c t e d o f mar r i a g e fr a ud i n 1 9 9 6 , he was i nel i gibl e forr el i efunder I I RI RA , wh i ch did notta ke effect un t i l1 9 9 7
. T he Bo a r d o fI mm i gr ati on App e a l s a ffi r med , and Obi pet i ti ons f orr evi ew , ar gui ng as a m attero ffi rs t i m press i on that the IJ er re d i n apply i ng the I I RI RA barto a c o n v i c t i o n th a tp r e c e d e d th a tl a w’ s e ffe c t i v e d a t e . We den y the pe ti ti o n. Obi, w ho i s a ci ti zen o fN i ger i a, ente re d the Un i ted S tat es o n a s t ud e ntvi s a i n 1 9 8 4
. T ha ts a me y e a r, h e ma r r i e d a U n ite d Sta te s c itiz en w h o filed a n I-1 30 p et itio n on h is behal f
. The m ar ri age ended in 1986, and a few weeks l ate r th e I m m igrati on an d N atu rali zati o n Serv ice den ied O bi’s r e qu e s tt o a dj us th i s s t a t us b a s e d o n the mar r i a g e , c o nc l ud

in g t h at h e h ad m ar rie d so lely for im m igr at ion be n efit
. In 1988, O b i m ar ri ed a s eco nd U ni ted S tat es ci ti zen a nd was gr an te d p er m an en t re sid en c y b as ed on th e m ar ria ge . T h is m ar ria ge w as al so a s ham , however, and i n 199 6 Obiwas f ound gui l ty of tw o counts of vi sa fra ud f orusi ng the f ake m ar ria ge t o s ta y in th e U n ite d Sta te s. See 18 U
. S. C. § 1 546. O b i a b sc on d ed p en d in g s en te n c in g a n d , w h en offic ials caught hi m in 1 99 8, he was convi cted o ff ai l i ng to appear f o r s e n te n c in g a s p ar t o f th e c on d itio n s o f h is re lea se . See 18 U .S.C . § 31 46 (a ) (1). A fte r se rv in g h is s en te n c e fo r all thre e charg es, Obi ( w hose seco nd m ar ri age di d not s urvi ve hi s cr i m in alco nvi cti ons) m ar ri ed a thi rd U ni ted S tat es c itiz en in 2 00 1. Tw o yea rs l ate r, im m i gr ati on offi ci al s charge d Obi with re m ovabi l i ty bas ed o n hi s v i sa- fra ud co nvi cti ons. Obi c on c ed ed th at h e w as rem o v a b l e, bu t a sk ed th at h isN o. 08

- 1260 3

re m ov al b e c an c ele d
. See 8 U. S
. C. § 12 29 b( a)
. At a he ar i ng i n M ar ch 200 4, a gov er nm ent l aw yerargued that Obiwas sta tutor i l y inel i gibl e forthi s for m of dis cre ti onar y r el i ef : to be e l i g ibl e, Ob iha d t o s ho w tha t he h ad be ena l awful per m an en t r es i den t f o r fi ve y ea r s an d ha d r es i ded co nt i nuous ly in t h e Un i ted S tat es f orse ven y ear s, and hi s v i safra u d c onvi cti ons ter m i nated hi s a ccr ual o fr esi dency und erthe so- cal l ed “st op- ti m e rul e. ” See id
. § 1229 b(d )( 1). I m m i g r at i o n J udg e Craig Ze rbe r ej ec te d thi s co nt en ti o n, h ow ev er , bec au se a t a n ea rlier h ea rin g (on e th at is no t do cument ed i n the r ec o r d o n a ppea l ) a di ffer en t go ve rn m en t la w ye r h ad ag re ed th at th e s to p -tim e ru le appli ed onl y to the r equi re m ent o fa seve n-y earr esi dency, not the fi ve- yea r perm an ent r esi dency, and that Obi had ther ef or e a ccr ued enough ti m e under both rul es. A notherhear i ng was s c h ed ule d to add re ss Obi’ s r equest for reli ef. I n the m eanti m e I m m i gr ati on a nd Cu st om s Enfo rce m ent d et ained Obi and l odged thr ee m or e char ges o f r emov ab i l i ty : 1 ) that h e w as i na dm i ss ibl e atthe t i m e he becam e a per m anent r esi dent beca use he had “procur ed hi s a dm i ssi on byfra ud , ” see 8 U
. S. C . § 1 2 27(a)(1) (A ); 2) t h at h e had be en co nvi cted o ftwo orm or e cr i m es of m or al t u r p i t u d e, see id. § 1 22 7(a )(2) (A )(ii); an d 3) th at h is failu re -to -ap p ea r c on vic tio n w as an ag gr av at ed felon y, see id. § 12 27 (a)( 2)(A )(iii). O b i d en ied th at h e w a s r e m o v ab le o n the se a ddi ti o na lg r o unds , a nd pr o ce ede d t o heari ng w ith ne w cou ns el before I m m igrati on Jud ge Ro bert V inikoor. J u d ge Vini koo r rej ecte d the g ove rnm ent’ s a dd i ti onal theo ri es of re m ovabi l i ty but concl ud ed nonethel ess that4 N o. 08

- 1260 O b i rem ain ed rem ov ab le u n d er 8 U .S.C . § 12 27 (a)( 3)(B )(iii) ba se d o n th e vi sa - fr au d co nv i ct i o ns al o ne . The IJ ne xt dism i sse d Obi’s ar gum ent that the go ver nm ent had “s ti pul at ed” he was s ta tu to r i l y e l i g ibl e f o rr el i ef, no ting that ther e w as no re cor d o f any such agr eem ent and that even i f th ere w as, i t c o u ld n ot override th e statu tory r equi r ement s. S i nc e Obiha d o bt ai ne d hi s per m an en t re sid en c y b y frau d , he w as st at u to rily in elig ible for c an c ell a t i o n o f r e mov a l f o r pe r man e nt r e s i de nt s . Th e IJ not ed, how eve r, thatObi c ou ld app l y fora differ ent k i nd o f ca nc el l at i o n o f r emov al r es er ve d f o rc er ta i n n o npe r m an en t re sid en ts
. See 8 U .S.C . § 12 29 b (b )(1)
. At a fi na l he ar i ng, Obi pur su ed th at r el i ef
. T he IJ con cl ud ed that, under a sta tutory provi si on enacted as parto f th e Illeg al Im m igr at ion R efo rm an d Im m igr an t R e s p on sibi l i ty A ct o f19 96, O bi ’ s vi sa- fra ud co nvi cti on di squal i fi ed hi m f o rcan ce l l at i o n ofre m o va lf o rc er ta i n n o npe r m an en t re sid en ts
. See 8 U
. S. C
. § § 1229 b(b)(1)( C ), 1227(a)(3)( B )( ii i)
. Obi re sponded that hi s convi cti on shoul d not co unt aga i nst h im b ec au se it pr ec ed ed IIRIR A (h e w as co n vic te d on A p ril 10 , 199 6, n ea rly on e y ea r b efo re II R IR A to ok effe c t o n A p ril 1, 19 97 ) an d w ou ld giv e t h at law an “im p er m iss ibly retroact ive effect.” T he IJ rej ecte d th e argu m en t, how ever, bec au se althou gh Ob i’ s con viction p re c ed ed I I R I R A ’s effe c tiv e d at e, h is re m ov al p ro c ee d in gs (w h i c h b eg an in 2003 ) di d n ot. And , co nti nued the IJ, I I RI RA appli ed to al lr em ova lpro ceedi ngs ini ti ate d afterthe l aw ’ s effecti ve d at e. T h e IJ th er efo re ord er ed O b i rem ov ed , a n d t h e B IA a ffi r med
. Obi now appeal s t o thi s co urt, but b efo re w e ca n re ach th e me r i t s o f h i s a r g u me n t s we mu s tfi r s tc o n fi r m th a tweN o. 08

- 1260 5 ha v e j ur i s di c t i o n t o h e a rh i s c a s e . C o ng r e s s h a s e xc l ud ed from our j urisd iction de nials ofdiscret ionary reli ef, i ncl ud i ng ca n c ellat i on o fr em ova l, unl ess the peti ti oner ra ise s a co n st itu tio n al c laim or a q u es tio n of law
. See 8 U .S.C . § 12 52 (a)( 2)(B ), (d ); Step a no vic v. Filip , N o. 07

- 3883 , 2009 W L 1877 90, at *3 ( 7th C i r. Jan. 28 , 20 09)
. Obi ’ s a pp eal pr es en ts t wo l eg alque st i o ns , and so w e m aypr o ce ed to the m er i ts ofhi s ca se. Obi fi r s t a r g u e s th a t th e IJ e r r e d i n r u l i n g th a t th e g o ve r n me n twa s n o tb o u n d t o i t s “ s t i p u l a t i o n ” th a tt he st o p- ti m e r ul e di d no t ba r hi s r eque st f o r r el i ef
. Acco r di ng to O b i, th e IJ sh ou ld h av e d ee m ed th e s t op -tim e ru le agree m ent s uffi ci ent t o est abl i sh hi s s tatutor y e l i gibi l i ty, eve n though the re cor d c ontained no evi dence of the a gr eem ent. W e are unconvi nced. To begin w i th, Obi d i d n o tme e th i s b u r d e n o fs u b mi t t i n ge v i d e n c e o fa ny s tip u lat ion or w rit te n ag re em en t t h at su p p or te d h is elig ibilit y for relie f. See 8 C .F.R . § 12 40 .8; Bakar i an v. M uk a sey, 541 F.3d 775 , 782 (7th C ir. 2008). M ore i m p orta n tly , th e a gr ee m en t, as O b i ch ar a c te riz es it, d id not com p le t e ly resolve the qu estion of his statu tory el i gibi l i ty because i t dispos ed of onl y one elem en t O bi ha d t o pro ve

— nam el y, thatthe sto p-ti m e r ule di d not tr uncate hi s a ccr ual o fr esi dency. A nd that gr ound p ro ved not to be the basi s up on w hi ch the IJ ult i m ate l y d en ied re l i ef
. Rather, the IJ co rr ectl y rule d that Obihad never been l aw fully a dm itt ed as a perm anent r esi dent at th e ou ts et
. See M ejia -O rellan a v. G o nz a les, 502 F. 3d 13, 16

- 17 ( 1stCi r. 20 07) ( al i en i nel i gibl e forcance l l at ion o fr em ova l when he had n ev erb ee n l awful l y a dm i tt ed as pe r m an en t r e s i d en t); In re Ko lo a m a ta ng i, 23 I
. & N
. Dec. 54 8, 55 16 N o. 08

- 1260 (BIA 2003 ) (sam e). Obi doe s no t ch al l en g e tha t co nc l us i o n, and s o eve n i fwe concl ud ed that the IJ sho uld have en for c ed an y s u c h a gr ee m en t, h e w ou ld st ill be in elig ible for reli ef. T h e o th e rqu e s t i o n o fl a w th a tO b ir a i s e s i s o ne th a twe h av e n otp re vio u sly a d d r e ss ed : w h et h er th e IJ err ed in d en yin g h im relie f ba se d on a p re -IIRIR A co n vic tio n . In su p p or t, O b i relie s o n th e Su p re m e C ou rt ’s d ec isio n in La ndgra f v. U SI F ilm P rod s., 511 U
. S. 244, 280 ( 1994 ) , wh i ch est abl i shed a tw o-p rong t estf oras ses si ng wh ethera l aw c ou ld be ap p lied ret ro ac tiv ely
. Se ei d. Fi rs t, the cour t m ust disc er n w hether C ongres s intended fo r the l aw have to re tr oa c tiv e im p ac t. Id. I f Congre ss’ s i ntent i s cl ear, th at ends the anal ysi s. But i fi t i s a m bi guous, the cour t m ove s to the s ec o nd pr o nga nd de te r m i ne s whethe ra ppl y i ngthe l aw i nj ures a partyby“i m pai r[ i ng] r i ghts [h e] pos ses sed w hen he a cted, i ncre as[ i ng] [ hi s] l i abi l i ty f orpast conduct, o ri m po s[ i ng ] ne w duti es wi thr es pec t to t r an sa ct i o ns al re ady co m ple ted. ” Id
. A c c or d in g t o O b i, C on gr es s d id not i ntend f orthe § 1 229b ( b) ( 1) ( C) ba r to apply to convi cti ons occur ring be f or e I IR IRA ’ s e ffecti ve date o fA pri l1, 19 97, see I I RI RA , Pub. L. N o. 10 4- 208, § 30 9( a) , 11 0 S tat
. 3009

- 625 ( 1996 ) , and m or eov erapply i ng the bar i n hi s ca se wo u l d i nj u r e h i m. A dd re ssing Lan dgraf’s firs t p ro n g, w e h av e p re vi ou sly ex p lain ed in a d iffer en t c on te x t t h at C on gr es s c lea rly i ntended to apply I I RI RA ’ s ca ncel l ati on- of

- re m oval p r o vis ion s t o a ll pr o c e e di ng s b r o ughta ft e rApr i l1 , 1 9 97, r eg ar dl es s o fwhena n a l i enc o m m i tt ed a d isqu al i fy i ng c rim e. Lara-Ru iz v . INS , 241 F.3d 934 , 9 4 5 ( 7 t h C ir. 2001).N o. 08

- 1260 7 Obi m ai ntai ns that Lara- Ruiz i s no t co ntro l l i ng her e be cause the per ti nent I I RI RA pro vi si on in hi s ca se i s drafted di ffer en tly . T he r el ev an t pr o vi sion i n Lara-Ru iz appli es a b ar to alien s “ c on vic te d of an y a gg ra va te d felon y,” w here as § 1 229b ( b) ( 1) ( C), the provi si on a t i ssue here , appl i es t o a l i en s “c o nv i ct ed o fan offen se unde r[ di ffer en t s u b s e c t i o n s o f I I R I R A]
. ” B e i n gc o n v i c t e d “ u n d e r ” I I R I R A, in O bi ’ s vi ew, mean s th ato ne ’ s co nv i ct i o n h ad to o cc ur afterI I RI RA ’ s p ass age , and therefor e onl y convi cti ons that oc c u r p os t-IIR IR A are go ve rn ed b y § 12 29 b (b )(1) (C ). T h is ar gum en t ca nno t he l p Obi
. I t i s i l l o g i ca l to spe ako fb eing convi cted o f a cri m i nalo ffense “und er ” I I RI RA , as i t i s no t a c rim in al s ta tu te
. T h e s ta tu to ry se c t i o n s list ed in § 1 229b ( b) ( 1) (C ) m er el y c ro ss- re fer ence offenses i n thr ee sta t ut e s o fthe c r i mi na lc o de
. T he s e c r i mi na ls t a t ut es, i ncl ud i ng the o ne under which Obiwas convicte d of vi sa fra u d , pr ed at e IIR IR A
. See 18 U. S
. C. § 1 54 6 ( no te s) ( dat i ng vis a-fr au d st at u te ’s c re at ion to 19 48 ); s e eal s o G o nzal ezG o nz a lez v. A shc rof

t, 3 9 0 F
. 3 d 6 4 9 , 6 5 2 ( 9 th Ci r . 20 04) ( r ej ec tingr ea di ng o f § 12 29 b(b) ( 1) ( C) s i m i l art o Ob i ’ s)
. T he dist i ncti on Obipro poses does notper suade us that La raR uiz is in ap p lica b le t o h is c as e. B ut even i f C ong ress’s inten t regard ing § 1229b (b)( 1)(C) ’s re tr oa c tiv ity w er e a m b igu ou s, O b i’s a rg u m en t w ou ld sti l lf ai lbec ause he ca nnot m eet Lan dgraf’ s se co nd pr o ng

— th atr et r o ac ti ve a ppl i ca ti o n o fa n a m bi g uo us sta tute i s i m perm i ssibl e o nl y i fi t i m p airs r i ghts that ex isted un d er pr i o r l aw o r i nc reases a party ’s liab ility for p rior ac ts
. Lan dgraf , 51 1 U .S. at 2 80 ; U nited Sta tes v. Ho rta- G a rcia, 51 9 F
. 3d 65 8, 66 1 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 8)
. T o sa tis fy t h i s t es t, O b i m u st sh ow th at h e “ affir m at ive ly8 N o. 08

- 1260 abandoned ri ghts oradm i tte d gu i l t in re l i ance o n [ preI I RI RA l a w ]
. ” Horta-Garcia , 51 9 F
. 3d at 661. Obii nsi sts that the s tatu to ry bar“a tta ches a new l ega ldi sabi l i ty to [ hi s] pri orco nd uct and ta kes away . . . o ne affi rm ati ve d efe n se to be in g d ep or te d ,” b u t h e d oe s n otex p lain what th at “n ew l eg aldi sabi l i ty ” i s o rfur th erde ve l o p the poi nt. I n any eve nt, Obi cannot show that h e has been har m ed by hi s r el i ance o n pre- I I RI RA la w . H e would have bee n rem ov abl e a nd i nel i gibl e forr el i efbas ed on hi s m ar ri age fra u d u n d er th e p re -IIRIR A reg im e, s e e, e .g., Savo ury v . Att ’y Ge n. , 449 F. 3d 1307, 1314 ( 11th Cir
. 2006 ) , and so I I RI RA di d not change the consequences of hi s cri m i nalact
. (In d ee d , Ob i co n c ed es th at h e w o u l d h av e b ee n ine ligib le f orr el i efunder § 212( c) , the predeces sorst atute to cance l l ati on o fr em ova l
. ) Nor has he pointed to any affi rm ati ve st eps he t oo ki n r el i an ce o n the abs en ce o fthe § 12 29 b(b) ( 1) ( C) b ar, s ucha s pl ea di ngg ui l tyo rc ha ng i ng h is litig at ion st ra te gy . See La ra- R uiz , 9 4 1 F
. 3 d a t9 4 5
. A s s uc h, Ob i ’ s c l a i m r e s e mbl e s a l i ne o fc a s e s fr o m other ci rcui ts concl ud i ng tha t r et roacti vi ty concerns ar e no t tr i g g er ed by appl i ca ti o n o f th e st o p- ti m e r ul e to pr e- I I RI RA c rim es . S e eM a r t i n ez v . INS , 523 F.3d 365 , 374-75 (2d Cir. 20 08 ); Heav en v . Go nz a les, 473 F. 3d 167, 175-76 ( 5t h C ir. 20 06 ); P inh o v. IN S, 24 9 F .3d 18 3, 18 8 (3 d C ir. 20 01 ); Tang v. IN S, 22 3 F
. 3d 71 3, 7 19 ( 8th Ci r . 2 00 0)
. T ho se c as es c o ncl ud ed that a ba r to re l i efcr eat ed by I I RIR A c ou l d be ap p lied to co n d u c t p re c ed in g t h at law , bec au se th e p et iti oner s had notsho w n that they detri m ental l y r el i ed on pre- I I RI RA l aw o r that I I RI RA change d the l ega lco nseq u e n c e s o fa p r i o ra c t
. T h e s a me h o l d s t r u e f o r O b i
. WeN o. 08

- 1260 9 ther ef or e ho l d that § 12 29 b (b ) ( 1) ( C) m ay be a pp l i ed re tr oa c tiv ely
. D ENI ED .

3- 3- 09