### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T D e c e m be r 19, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L E RK

Honora ble L loyd D. Georg e, United States District Judge f or the District of N evada , * sitti ngby designation. [ P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 03- 16317

________________________ A ge nc y N o. A 35- 557- 998 M A R L E N E J A G G E RN A U T H , P e titio n e r , v ersu s U .S . A T T O RN E Y G E N E R A L , R e s p o n d e n t.

________________________ P e t i t i on f orR e vi e w of

a D e c i s i on of

the B o a r d o f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls

_________________________ ( D e c e m b e r 19, 2005) B ef ore B A R K E T T and M A R C U S , C i rc ui tJudg es , and G E O R G E , D i stri ctJudg e. *2

P E R C U R I A M: M a r l e ne J a gge rna uth pe t i t i ons f orr e vi e w of

the B oa r d of

I m m i gr a t i on A p p ea ls’ (“B IA ”) N o v em b er1 4 , 2 0 0 3 o rd eraf firm in g th e I m m ig ra ti o n Ju d g e’s ( “ I J ” ) or de rof

r e m ova l ba s e d on a f

i ndi ng tha tJ a gge rna uth’ s c onvi c t i on i n 2001 for gra nd theftun der F l ori da S t atut es § 8 12 . 01 4(1) const i tut ed an aggravat ed f e lo n y u n d e r§ 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 3 ) ( G ) o f th e I m m ig r a tio n a n d N a tio n a lity A c t ( “I N A ” ) , 8 U . S . C . § 1 10 1(a) (43)(G ) ( 20 00 ), subj ec t i ng her t o d eport at i on un der § 2 3 7 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( A ) ( iii) o f

th e I N A , 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 7 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( A ) ( iii) . J a g g e rn a u th a r g u e s th a t F lo r id a S ta tu te s § 8 1 2 .0 1 4 ( 1 ) is a d iv is ib le s ta tu te e nc om pa s s i ng s om e of

f e ns e s tha tc ons t i tut e de por t abl e a ggr a va t e d f e l oni e s a nd som e thatdo no t , and thatbecause the re cord i s uncl ea r a s t o w hether s he w as co n v i ct ed u n d er th e p o rt i o n o f § 8 1 2 . 0 1 4 (1 ) th aten co m p asses d ep o rt ab l e fel o n i es, the B IA erre d i n fi nd i ng her r em ov abl e. Ja gg ernauth further a rgues thatthe B IA e rr e d i n f a i l i ng t o r e ve r s e the I J ’ s f i ndi ng tha ts he ha d be e n c onvi c t e d of tw o or m ore c ri m es i nv ol vi ng m oral turpi tud e, subj ec t i ng her t o d eport at i on un der § 2 3 7 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( A ) ( ii) o f

th e I N A , 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 7 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( A ) ( ii) . T he go vernm enthas m ov ed t o d i sm i ss the appeal , ar gu i ng thatw e l ac k ju r is d ic tio n to r e v ie w th e B I A ’s N o v e m b e r1 4 , 2 0 0 3 o r d e ro f r e m o v a l b e c a u s e it is no l on ger “ fi nal . ” T he go vernm entm ai nt ai ns thatthe order of re m ov al w as r e nde r e d non- f

i na l by a J a nua ry 21, 2004 B I A or de rgr a nt i ng J a gge rna uth’ s m ot i on3

f orr e c ons i de r a t i on. T he gove rnm e nta r gue s tha tthe gr a ntof r e c ons i de r a t i on “im p lic itly v a c a te d ” th e o r d e ro f r e m o v a l, a n d th a t b e c a u s e J a g g e rn a u th f a ile d to ap p e a l th e o r d e rg r a n tin g r e c o n s id e r a tio n , w e m u s t r e f u s e to h e a rth is ap p e a l. F o rth e r e a s o n s e x p la in e d b e lo w , w e c o n c lu d e th a t w e h a v e ju r is d ic tio n to c ons i de rthi s appe a l , a s the B I A ’ s r e c ons i de r a t i on or de rdoe s nota l t e rthe N ove m be r14, 2003 or de rof r e m ova l ora f

f e c ti t s f i na l i ty . T hus , the N ove m be r14, 2003 or de ri s a “ f

i na l or de rof

r e m ova l ” f

orj ur i s di c t i ona l purpos e s . I n a ddi t i on, w e a gree w i th Jaggernauth thatthe B IA erre d i n con cl ud i ng thatshe w as r e m ovabl e be c a us e s he ha d be e n c onvi c t e d of a n “ a ggr a va t e d f

e l ony ” a s de f

i ne d by th e I N A . I. R el evan t F acts an d P roce d u ral H i st ory J a gge rna uth i s a 39- y e a r - ol d na t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of T r i ni da d a nd T oba go w ho l a w f ul l y e nt e r e d the U ni t e d S t a t e s on N ove m be r18, 1977 w he n s he w a s tw e l ve ye ar s ol d. S he w as a l aw ful perm anentre si dentun t i l 20 03 , w hen she w as ordered r e m ove d i n the pr e s e ntpr oc e e di ngs . T he r e m ova l or de ra ti s s ue c onc e rns Ja gg ernaut h’ s A pri l 19 97 no l o con t endere pl eaand con vi ct i on for gra nd theft u n d e rF lo r id a S ta tu te s § 8 1 2 .0 1 4 ( 1 ) . T h a t s e c tio n p r o v id e s th a t: A pe r s on c om m i t s the f

ti f he ors he know i ngl y obt a i ns orus e s , or e nde a vor s t o obt a i n orus e , the pr ope r ty of a nothe rw i th i nt e ntt o, ei th er t em p o rari l y o r p erm an en t l y:4

( a ) D e p r iv e th e o th e rp e r s o n o f a r ig h t to th e p r o p e r ty o ra b e n e f it fro m th e p ro p erty. ( b) A ppr opr i a t e the pr ope r ty t o hi s orhe row n us e ort o the us e of a ny p erso n n o ten t i t l ed t o th e u se o f th e p ro p erty. F l a. S t at . § 8 12 . 01 4(1). F or thi s c on vi ct i on , Ja gg ernauth w as i ni t i al l y s ent ence d t o p robat i on , tho ug h she w as l at erse nt ence d t o si x m on ths’ i m pri sonm entaf t era pr oba t i on vi ol a t i on. O n M a y 2 9 , 2 0 0 1 J a g g e rn a u th p le a d e d n o lo c o n te n d e r e a n d w a s a g a in c onvi c t e d of

gr a nd the f

tunde rF l or i da S t a tut e s § 812. 014( 1) a s w e l l a s the m is d e m e a n o ro f

f e n s e o f r e s is tin g a m e r c h a n t u n d e rF lo r id a S ta tu te s § 8 1 2 .0 1 5 ( 6 ) . T he 20 01 Inform at i on char gi ng Ja gg ernauth w i th g ra nd thefttra cked the general l a ngua ge of

§ 812. 014( 1) . T he I nf

or m a t i on di d nots pe c i f

y unde rw hi c h s ubs e c t i on J a gge rna uth w a s c ha r ge d orw he the rthe a l l e ge d de pr i va t i on w a s t e m por a ry or p e r m a n e n t. F or her grand theftconv i ct i on , Ja gg ernauth w as se nt ence d t o a suspended one - y e a rt e r m of

i m pr i s onm e nta s w e l l a s pr oba t i on. F orhe rm i s de m e a nor c onvi c t i on f

orr e s i s t i ng a m e r c ha nt , s he w a s s e nt e nc e d t o 132 da y s of im p r is o n m e n t. J a g g e rn a u th h a s n o o th e rc o n v ic tio n s . T he I N S i ns t i tut e d r e m ova l pr oc e e di ngs a ga i ns tJ a gge rna uth on J a nua ry 16, 2003 ba s e d on he r1997 c onvi c t i on f orgr a nd the f

ta nd he r2001 c onvi c t i on f or gr a nd the f

ta nd r e s i s t i ng a m e r c ha nt . T he I N S c ha r ge d tha tJ a gge rna uth’ s 20015

grand t heftconv i ct i on re nd er ed her r em ov abl e und er8 U . S . C . § 1 22 7(a) (2)( A )( i i i ), a s a n a lie n c o n v ic te d o f a n a g g r a v a te d f

e lo n y a s th a t te r m is d e f in e d in 8 U .S .C . § 11 01 (a )( 43 )( G ). A s ase para t e bas i s f or re m ov al , the IN S al so char ged that Ja gg ernaut h w as subj ec tt o rem ov al un der 8 U . S . C . § 1 22 7(a) (2)( A )( i i ), as an al i en c onvi c t e d of

tw o c r i m e s of

m or a l turpi tude nota r i s i ng outof a s i ngl e s c he m e of cr i m i nal m i sc on du ct . Ja gg ernauth, appeari ng pro se bef ore the IJ , adm i tt ed that s he ha d be e n c onvi c t e d of a nd s e nt e nc e d f

orthe c r i m e s f

or m i ng the ba s i s of

the r e m ova l pr oc e e di ngs . H ow e ve r , s he di d notc onc e de tha ts he w a s r e m ovabl e f r om th e U n ite d S ta te s o n a c c o u n t o f th e s e c o n v ic tio n s . T he I J or de r e d J a gge rna uth r e m ove d a nd de por t e d t o T r i ni da d a nd T oba go on the grou nd s thatshe had been conv i ct ed of: (1) a n agg ra vat ed fe l on y und er8 U . S . C . § 1101( a ) ( 43) ( G ) , w hi c h w a s ba s e d on he r2001 gr a nd the f tc onvi c t i on; a nd (2) tw o cri m es i nv ol vi ng m oral turpi tud e bas ed on her 199 7 and 20 01 grand t heft c o n v ic tio n s . J a gge rna uth t i m e l y appe a l e d the I J ’ s de c i s i on t o the B I A . O n N ove m be r14, 2 0 0 3 th e B I A d is m is s e d th e ap p e a l, a f f ir m in g th e I J ’s c o n c lu s io n th a t J a g g e rn a u th i s a n agg ra vat ed fe l on and u ph ol di ng the IJ ’ s orderof re m ov al . T he B IA order s t a t e d th a t§ 8 1 2 . 0 1 4 ( 1 ) ap p e a r e d t o b e a d i v i s i b l e s t a tu t e , e n c o mp a s s i n g s o me of f e ns e s tha tc ons t i tut e de por t abl e a ggr a va t e d f e l oni e s a nd s om e tha tdo not , but co n cl u d ed th atth e reco rd o f co n v i ct i o n est ab l i sh ed th atth e g ran d th efto ffen seThe re cord of conviction includes the charg ing document, plea, verdict or judgment, and 1 sentenc e . Se eIn reAj ami, 22 I . &N. De c . 9 49 , 9 50 (B IA 1 99 9) . In this c a se , th eB IA l oo ke d to the19 98 Inf

or matio n f or gra nd the ft and re sis tinga

mercha nt, whic h alle g e s th at Jag g e rn a uth “ did un lawf ully , whil ec ommittingor a ft e r c ommittingthe ft

of prop e rt y , re sis t th ere a so na

ble eff ort of a mercha

nt or merc hant’s employee to recover the property which the merchant or merc hant’s employee had probablecauseto believe the said defendant had c oncealed or remove d from its placeof display or elsewhere .” Nov. 14, 2003 Order, at 2.

6 w i th w hi c h s he w a s c ha r ge d w a s i n f a c ta n a ggr a va t e d f

e l ony . T he B I A di d not

1 addres s the i ss ue of w hether or notJa gg ernauth w as i nd ependent l y r em ov abl e a s a n al i en conv i ct ed of tw o cri m es of m oral turpi tud e. O n D e c e m be r12, 2003 J a gge rna uth f i l e d the i ns t a ntpe t i t i on f orr e vi e w of th e B I A ’s N o v e m b e r1 4 , 2 0 0 3 o r d e ru p h o ld in g th e I J ’s o r d e ro f r e m o v a l in th is court . O n D ec em ber 13, 20 03 Ja gg ernauth al so fi l ed a t i m el y m ot i on t o rec on si der the N ov em ber 14, 20 03 order t o the B IA . O n January 21 , 20 04 the B IA grant ed J a gge rna uth’ s m ot i on t o r e c ons i de r , a nd uphe l d a nd a f f i r m e d the I J ’ s or de rof r e m o v a l a n d th e B I A ’s N o v e m b e r1 4 , 2 0 0 3 o r d e r , w ith o u t c h a n g in g th e le g a l b a s is for the deci si on : thatJa gg ernaut h h ad com m i tt ed an aggravat ed fe l on y. T he B IA a ga i n di d nota ddr e s s the I J ’ s de t e r m i na t i on tha tJ a gge rna uth ha d be e n c onvi c t e d of tw o c r im e s o f

m o r a l tu rp itu d e . O n F ebruary27 , 20 04 Ja gg ernauth w as ph ys i ca l l y deport ed fr om the U ni t ed S ta te s . II . S tan d ard s of R evi ew7

W e r e v i e w q u e s t i o n s c o n c e rn i n g o u rj u r i s d i c t i o n d e n o v o . O r t e g a v . U . S. A tt ’ y G en. , 41 6 F . 3d 13 48 , 13 50 (11th C i r. 20 05 ). W e r evi ew the B IA ’ s s t atut ory in te rp r e ta tio n d e n o v o , b u t w ill d e f e rto th e B I A ’s in te rp r e ta tio n o f a s ta tu te if

it is r e a s o n ab le a n d d o e s n o t c o n tr a d ic t th e c le a rin te n t o f C o n g r e s s . C h e v r o n U .S .A ., I nc . v. N a tur a l R e s . D e f . C ounc i l , I nc . , 467 U . S . 837, 842- 44 ( 1984) ; A l N a jj a rv. A shcr oft , 25 7 F . 3d 12 62 , 12 84 (11th C i r. 20 01 ). I I I . D i s c u s s i on A . Subj e c t

M at t e rJ ur is di c t i on B e f o r e r e a c h in g th e m e r its o f J a g g e rn a u th ’s c la im o n ap p e a l, w e m u s t f ir s t addres s w hether or notw e have j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew the order on app ea l . U nd er IN A § 2 4 2 (a)(1 ), 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 (a)(1 ), w e are l i m i t ed t o rev i ew i n g “ fi n al o rd er[s] of re m ov al . ” S ee B al og un v. U . S . A tt ’ y G en. , 30 4 F . 3d 13 03 , 13 07 (11th C i r. 2 0 0 2 ) . Th e g o v e rn me n td o e s n o td i s p u t e th a tth e I J ’ s r e mo v a l o r d e rb e c a me

“ f i n a l ” w h e n i tw a s a f

f i r me d b y th e BI A o n N o v e mb e r1 4 , 2 0 0 3 . Se e a l s o 8 C. F. R. § 1241. 1 ( “ A n or de rof r e m ova l m a de by the i m m i gr a t i on j udge a tthe c onc l us i on of pr oc e e di ngs unde rs e c t i on 240 of the [ I N A ] s ha l l be c om e f i na l : ( a ) U pon di s m i s s a l of

a n appe a l by the B oa r d of I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ” ) . T he i s s ue of cont ent i on betw ee n the part i es i s w hether thatfi nal order of re m ov al re m ai ned fi nal onc e the B I A i s s ue d a s e c ond or de rgr a nt i ng r e c ons i de r a t i on a nd a f f i r m i ng the re m ov al order.8

T o s e e k j udi c i a l r e vi e w of a n or de rof

r e m ova l , a n a l i e n m us tf i l e a pe t i t i on f orr e vi e w w i th the f

e de r a l appe l l a t e c our tw i thi n 30 da y s of the B I A ’ s i s s ua nc e of the f i na l or de r . S e e 8 U . S . C . § 1252( b) ( 1) - ( 2) . I n a ddi t i on, a nd a s oc c urr e d i n the pres entca se , the pet i t i on erm ay si m ul t aneousl y m ov e f or re consi dera t i on before the B IA w i thi n 3 0 d ay s of the B IA ’ s i ss uance of the fi nal order of re m ov al . S ee 8 C . F . R . § 1 00 3. 2(b). A cc ordi ng t o st atut e, “ [w ] hen a pet i t i on erse eks r evi ew of an order [ of re m ov al ] , any r evi ew soug htof a m ot i on t o reopen o r r ec on si der the order s h a ll b e c o n s o lid a te d w ith th e r e v ie w o f th e o r d e r .” 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) . T he S upr e m e C our tha s he l d tha ta pe t i t i one r ’ s f i l i ng t o the B I A of

a m ot i on t o r e c ons i de ra f

i na l de por t a t i on or de rdoe s notr e nde rthe or de rnon- f i na l . S t one v. IN S , 51 4 U . S . 38 6 (19 95 ). In S t on e, the pet i t i on erw ai t ed t o app ea l the B IA ’ s f i nal de por t a t i on or de runt i l a f t e rthe B I A de ni e d the pe t i t i one r ’ s m ot i on f or re consi dera t i on , atw hi ch t i m e he app ea l ed bo th o rder s. T he pet i t i on erar gu ed that the f i l i ng of the r e c ons i de r a t i on m ot i on t ol l e d the s t a tut ory t i m e pe r i od f orf i l i ng f or r e v ie w o f

th e f in a l d e p o r ta tio n o r d e r , a n d th u s h is ap p e a l o f b o th o r d e r s w a s tim e ly . T h e C o u r t d is a g r e e d . T h e C o u r t e x p la in e d th a t s e c tio n 1 0 6 ( a ) ( 1 ) o f th e I N A , 8 U . S . C . § 1 10 5a(a )( 1), cont em pl at ed tw o p et i t i on s – on e of the B IA ’ s f i nal de por t a t i on or de ra nd a nothe rof the B I A ’ s or de ron a m ot i on f orr e c ons i de r a t i on – w h ic h a r e to b e c o n s o lid a te d f o rr e v ie w . T h e C o u r t th e n c o n c lu d e d :Stone was dec ided prior to the Illeg al Immigration Reform and Immigra nt 2 Responsibili ty

Act of 1996, Pub. L . No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009 (“IIRAIRA”). How ever , like its predec essor, the I

NA post- IIRAIRA provides for an alien to se ek judicial review of the BIA’s final removal order as we ll as of the B IA’s rulingon rec onsideration, and f urther provides for the c onsolidation of those two petitions for review on appe al. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)( 1)-( 2), (6). 9 T h e co n so l i d at i o n p ro v i si o n i n § 1 0 6 (a)(6 ) refl ect s C o n g ress’ un ders t andi ng thata deport at i on order i s f i nal , and revi ew abl e, w hen i s s ue d. I t s f

i na l i ty i s nota f

f e c t e d by the s ubs e que ntf i l i ng of a m ot i on t o reco n si d er. T h e o rd er b ei n g fi n al w h en i ssu ed , an al i en h as 9 0 d ays fr om thatdat e t o see k revi ew . T he al i en, i f he c ho oses , m ay al so se ek a ge nc y r e c ons i de r a t i on of the or de ra nd s e e k r e vi e w of the di s pos i t i on upon r e c ons i de r a t i on w i thi n 90 da y s of i t s i s s ua nc e . W he r e the or i gi na l pe t i t i on i s s t i l l be f or e the c our t , the c our ts ha l l c ons ol i da t e the tw o p e titio n s . S to n e , 5 1 4 U .S . a t 4 0 5 - 0 6 . S t one doe s notr e s ol ve the pr e s e ntc a s e . W hi l e i tm a ke s c l e a rtha tthe 2 f i na l i ty of the N ove m be r14, 2003 or de rof r e m ova l w a s notdi s turbe d by Ja g g er n au th ’s fili n g o f a m o ti o n fo r r ec o n sid er atio n , an d th u s th at Ja g g er n au th ’s appe a l of the N ove m be r14, 2003 or de rw a s pr ope r l y br oughtbe f or e thi s C our t , the que s t i on be f

or e us he r e i s w ha te f

f e c tthe B I A ’ s gr a ntof

r e c ons i de r a t i on a nd a f f i r m a nc e of

i t s i ni t i a l or de rha d on the f i na l i ty of tha tor de r . T he gove rnm e nt a r g u e s th a t th e g r a n t o f

r e c o n s id e r a tio n r e n d e r e d th e N o v e m b e r1 4 o r d e rn o n - f in a l, a nd the r e f

or e tha tJ a gge rna uth w a s r e qui r e d t o appe a l the rul i ng on the m ot i on f or reco n si d erat i o n i n o rd er t o o b t ai n j u d i ci al rev i ew i n th i s case. F o r sev eral reaso n s, w e di sa gree .10

8 C . F . R . § 1003. 2( i ) i ns truc t s tha tw he n the B I A gr a nt s r e c ons i de r a t i on, “ the deci si on up on . . . re consi dera t i on shal l af fi rm , m od i fy , or re vers e the ori gi nal d e c is io n m a d e in th e c a s e .” T h e B I A ’s J a n u a ry 2 1 , 2 0 0 4 o r d e rs ta te d , “W e w ill grantthe re spon dent s’ m ot i on , bu tw e w i l l up ho l d o ur ea rl i erfi nd i ng [that J a g g e rn a u th is r e m o v ab le a s h a v in g b e e n c o n v ic te d o f a n ‘a g g r a v a te d f

e lo n y ’].” T h e Jan u ary 2 1 , 2 0 0 4 o rd er i n cl u d ed so m e ad d i t i o n al co m m en t ary: E ve n i f [ ourr e l i a nc e on J a gge rna uth’ s s i m ul t a ne ous c onvi c t i on f or R e s i s t i ng a M e r c ha ntw hi l e e nga ge d i n the f t ] w a s i n e rr or , a s the r e s ponde ntc l a i m s , the c a s e l a w of F l or i da s how s tha ta c onvi c t i on f or grand t heftun der F l a. S t at . § 8 12 . 01 4(1) neces sa ri l y c on st i tut es a theft o f f e n s e f o rth e p u rp o s e s o f

s e c tio n 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 3 ) ( G ) o f th e [ I N A ]. A c c or di ng t o the c a s e l a w , the i nt e ntt o s t e a l orde pr i ve the vi c t i m of th e v ic tim ’s p r o p e r ty is a n e c e s s a ry e le m e n t o f g r a n d th e f

t. W e do n otbel i eve the B IA i nt ended i t s s ec on d o rdert o i ncorpo ra t e thi s new com m ent ary i nt o i t s ori gi nal order or otherw i se change the subst ance of the ori gi nal or de r . T he J a nua ry 21 or de re xpl i c i t l y uphol ds the N ove m be r14 or de ra nd concl ud es thatthe B IA “ ac t ed prop er l y” w hen i ti ss ued the N ov em ber 14 o rder , s ugge s t i ng the B I A ’ s i nt e ntw a s t o l e a ve the N ove m be r14 or de r , a s w e l l a s the r e a s oni ng unde r l y i ng the or de r , i nt a c ta nd unm odi f i e d. W e not e thatthere i s nothi ng i n the IN A thatre qu i re s J aggernauth t o see k j udi c i a l r e vi e w of

the B I A ’ s r e c ons i de r a t i on or de r . A s e xpl a i ne d by the S e c ond C i r c ui ti n K houz a m v. A s hc r of t , 361 F . 3d 161, 167 ( 2d C i r . 2004) , “ [ a ] l though § 1 2 5 2 (b )( 6 ) w o u ld h av e a ll o w ed [th e p etit io n er ] t o p etit io n u s to re v iew th e [ B IA ’s11

rul i ng on r e c ons i de r a t i on] a l ong w i th the [ f i na l or de rof

r e m ova l ] , i tdoe s not r e qui r e hi m t o f

ol l ow tha tc our s e . ” S e e a l s o D e s t a v. A s hc r of t , 329 F . 3d 1179, 1 1 8 3 - 8 4 ( 1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) ( “A n u n c h a lle n g e d ru lin g b y th e B I A o n a m o tio n to r e c o n s id e ris f

in a l in th a t it is s e p a r a te ly ap p e a lab le . B u t it is n o t r e s ju d ic a ta w ith r e s p e c t to a n is s u e p e n d in g o n ju d ic ia l r e v ie w o f th e o r ig in a l d e c is io n o f th e B I A .” ) . W h ile w e h a v e f

o u n d little c a s e la w d is c u s s in g m o tio n s f o rr e c o n s id e r a tio n in i m m i gr a t i on pr oc e e di ngs f r om thi s C i r c ui t , ourde c i s i on t oda y i s s uppor t e d by pr e c e de ntf

r om tw o of

ours i s t e rC i r c ui t s . I n K houz a m a nd D e s t a , the S e c ond a nd T en th C ircu it s, re sp ec ti v ely, h eld th at th ey re tain ed ju risd icti o n to re v iew th e B IA ’s f i na l or de r s of

r e m ova l notw i ths t a ndi ng the B I A ’ s s ubs e que ntor de r s on r e c o n s id e r a tio n . T h e D e s ta C o u r t e x p la in e d : O nce a n i ss ue i s properl y r ai se d b y apet i t i on for r evi ew of the ori gi nal d e c is io n , n o p u rp o s e w o u ld b e s e r v e d b y r e q u ir in g th e p e titio n e rto r a i s e the i de nt i c a l i s s ue a ga i n i n a pe t i t i on t o r e vi e w the B I A ’ s de c i s i on o n th e m o tio n to r e c o n s id e r . T h u s , p e titio n e r s ’ f ilin g o f a m o tio n to r e ope n orr e c ons i de rdoe s nota f f e c tthi s c our t ’ s j ur i s di c t i on. 3 2 9 F .3 d a t 1 1 8 4 ; s e e a ls o K h o u z a m , 3 6 1 F .3 d a t 1 6 7 ( c o u r t h a d ju r is d ic tio n to re vi ew B IA ’ s f

i nal order of re m ov al no tw i thst andi ng pet i t i on er ’ s f ai l ure t o see k j udi c i a l r e vi e w of

B I A ’ s rul i ng de ny i ng r e c ons i de r a t i on a nd c l a r i f y i ng the r e a s oni ng be hi nd the pr i oror de r ) . A l though both D e s t a a nd K houz a m de a l tw i th de ni a l s of r e c ons i de r a t i on, the r e a s oni ng i s ne ve r the l e s s appl i c abl e he r e , w he r e the gr a ntof re consi dera t i on ac tual l y uph el d and af fi rm ed the concl usi on s of the pri or order. C f.12

K houz a m , 361 F . 3d a t167 ( w he r e B I A ’ s de ni a l of r e c ons i de r a t i on uphe l d pr e vi ous fi nal order of re m ov al bu tcl ar i fi ed i t s l egal re as on i ng ). B e c a us e the N ove m be r14, 2003 or de rof r e m ova l , ha vi ng be e n a f f i r m e d by the J a nua ry 21, 2004 or de r , i s f i na l , w e ha ve l i m i t e d j ur i s di c t i on ove rthe pe t i t i on for r evi ew i n thi s c as e. B . I s a V i olat i on of

Flor i da Statut e s § 812. 014( 1) an A ggr av at e d Fe lony f o rPu r p o s e s o f th e I NA ? In order t o fi nd thatJa gg ernauth w as conv i ct ed of an aggravat ed fe l on y bas ed on he r2001 c onvi c t i on unde r§ 812. 014( 1) , the B I A w a s r e qui r e d t o f i nd tha tthe I N S e s t abl i s he d by “ c l e a r , une qui voc a l , a nd c onvi nc i ng e vi de nc e ” tha ts he c om m i tt e d a “ the f

tof f e ns e ” a s tha tt e r m i s us e d i n the I N A – s pe c i f i c a l l y , tha ts he t ook pr ope r ty w i th the c r i m i na l i nt e ntt o de pr i ve a nothe rof r i ght s t o a nd be ne f

i t s of the prop erty. S ee W oo db y v. IN S , 38 5 U . S . 27 6, 28 6 (19 66 ). Ja gg ernauth argues thatthe B IA erre d i n d et erm i ni ng thather 200 1 con vi ct i on for gra nd theftw as an “a g g r a v a te d f

e lo n y ,” b e c a u s e th e F lo r id a g r a n d th e f t s ta tu te e n c o m p a s s e s b o th a ggr a va t e d f

e l oni e s a nd non- a ggr a va t e d f e l oni e s , a nd the r e w a s no c l e a ra nd c onvi nc i ng e vi de nc e t o s uppor tthe c onc l us i on tha ts he w a s c onvi c t e d unde rthe s u b s e c tio n d e a lin g w ith a g g r a v a te d f e lo n ie s . T h e g o v e rn m e n t d id n o t r e s p o n d to these ar gu m ent s i n i t s i ni t i al bri ef , i nst ea d rel yi ng excl usi vel y on i t s j uri sdi ct i on al13

a r gum e ntdi s c us s e d above . H ow e ve r , the gove rnm e ntw a s a s ke d a tor a l a r gum e nt to s u b m it s u p p le m e n ta l b r ie f s o n th is is s u e , a n d w e n o w r e s o lv e it. T he t erm “ aggravat ed fe l on y” i s def i ned i n the IN A t o i ncl ud e “ a theft o f f e n s e . . . f

o rw h ic h th e te r m o f

im p r is o n m e n t [ is ] a t le a s t o n e y e a r .” 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 1 (a )( 4 3 )( G ). It is u n d isp u ted th at th e len g th o f th e s en ten ce fo r J ag g er n au th ’s 20 01 grand t heftconv i ct i on w as on e y ea r. T here fore , i f i ti s atheftoffe nse, i ti s a n a g g r a v a te d f

e lo n y . S e e U n ite d S ta te s v . C h r is to p h e r , 2 3 9 F .3 d 1 1 9 1 , 1 1 9 3 ( 1 1 th C i r. 20 01 ) ( a theftoffe nse i s a n agg ra vat ed fe l on y i f the “ t erm of i m pri sonm enti s a t le a s t o n e y e a r ” r e g a r d le s s o f a n y s u s p e n s io n o f

th e s e n te n c e im p o s e d ) . W e h a v e n e v e rb e f

o r e a d d r e s s e d w h e th e ra c o n v ic tio n u n d e rF la . S ta t. § 81 2. 01 4(1) neces sa ri l y c on st i tut es a theftoffe nse f or pu rposes of the aggravat ed f e l ony de f

i ni t i on. C ongr e s s ha s notde f i ne d a “ the f

tof f e ns e ” i n the I N A , a nd a pl ai n rea di ng of 8 U . S . C . § 1 10 1(a) (43)(G ) does notre veal i t s m ea ni ng . H ow ever , th e B I A h a s s ta te d th a t “a ta k in g o f p r o p e r ty c o n s titu te s a ‘th e f t’ w h e n e v e rth e r e is c r im in a l in te n t to d e p r iv e th e o w n e ro f th e r ig h ts a n d b e n e f

its o f o w n e r s h ip , e v e n if such depri vat i on i s l es s than t ot al or perm anent . ” I n re V -Z -S -, 22 I. & N . D ec . 1 3 3 8 , 1 3 4 6 ( B I A 2 0 0 0 ) . O th e rC ir c u its h a v e a d o p te d s im ila rd e f in itio n s . S e e , e .g ., U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C or ona - S a nc he z , 291 F . 3d 1201, 1205 ( 9th C i r . 2002) ( de f i ni ng the f tof f e ns e a s “ a t a ki ng of

pr ope r ty ora n e xe r c i s e of c ontr ol ove rpr ope r ty w i thout c ons e ntw i th the c r i m i na l i nt e ntt o de pr i ve the ow ne rof r i ght s a nd be ne f

i t s ofJ ag g erna uth was convic ted of grand the ft in the third degree , a third degreefelony . 3 Florida Statutes § 812.014(2)(c )(1) define s grand the ft in the third degreeas off enses where the proper ty stolen is valued at $300 or more . 14 ow ners hi p, even i f s uch d epri vat i on i s l es s than t ot al or perm anent ”) ; U ni t ed S t at es v . V a s q u e z - F lo r e s , 2 6 5 F .3 d 1 1 2 2 , 1 1 2 5 ( 1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) ( s a m e ) ; H ernand ez -M anci l l a v. IN S , 24 6 F . 3d 10 02 , 10 09 (7th C i r. 20 01 ) ( sa m e) . T o d e te r m in e w h e th e rJ a g g e rn a u th ’s c o n v ic tio n w a s f o ra “th e f

t” e nc om pa s s e d i n the I N A ’ s de f i ni t i on of a n a ggr a va t e d f

e l ony , w e f

i r s tl ook t o the fa ctof conv i ct i on and the st atut ory def i ni t i on of the offens e. S ee In re B at i st aH ern an d ez, 2 1 I. & N . D ec. 9 5 5 , 9 7 0 (B IA 1 9 9 7 ) (ci t i n g T ayl o r v . U n i t ed S t at es, 4 9 5 U .S . 5 7 5 ( 1 9 9 0 ) ) . F lo r id a S ta tu te s § 8 1 2 .0 1 4 ( 1 ) p r o v id e s th a t: ( 1) A pe r s on c om m i t s the f ti f he ors he know i ngl y obt a i ns orus e s , or e nde a vor s t o obt a i n ort o us e , the pr ope r ty of a nothe rw i th i nt e ntt o, ei th er t em p o rari l y o r p erm an en t l y: (a ) D epri ve the other pers on of a r i gh tt o the prop erty or a b en efi tfro m th e p ro p erty. (b ) A p p ro p ri at e th e p ro p erty t o h i s o r h er o w n u se o r t o th e u se o f an y p erso n n o ten t i t l ed t o th e u se o f th e p ro p erty. 3 T he pl a i n l a ngua ge of

§ 812. 014( 1) doe s note xpl i c i t l y s t a t e w he the rthe req u i rem en to f an i n t en tt o d ep ri v e an o th er o f th e ri g h t s an d b en efi t s o f p ro p erty, u n d ersu b p ar t (a) o f § 8 1 2 .0 1 4 (1 ), an d th e in ten t t o ap p ro p riate p ro p er ty fo r o n e’s ow n us e , unde rs ubpa r t( b) of § 812. 014( 1) , a r e t o be r e a d c onj unc t i ve l y or d is ju n c tiv e ly . F lo r id a c o u r ts , h o w e v e r , h a v e c o n s is te n tly in te rp r e te d th e s e c tio n in15

the di s j unc t i ve , t o a r t i c ul a t e tw o di s t i nc tl e ve l s of i nt e nt . F ore xa m pl e , i n T . L . M . v. S t a t e , 755 S o. 2d 749, 751 ( F l a . D i s t . C t . A pp. 2000) , the c our ts t a t e d tha t“ S e c t i on 81 2. 01 4 requi re s afi nd i ng of spec i fi c c ri m i nal i nt entt o ei ther ( a) ‘ depri ve’ the other pe r s on of

a r i ghtt o the pr ope r ty ora be ne f i tthe r e f r om or( b) ‘ appr opr i a t e ’ the pr ope r ty t o hi s ow n us e ort o the us e of a ny pe r s on note nt i t l e d the r e t o. ” I d. a t751 ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ) . S e e a ls o C a n a d y v . S ta te , 8 1 3 S o . 2 d 1 6 1 , 1 6 1 ( F la . D is t. C t. A pp . 20 02 ) ( “ T he evi dence w as i nsuffi ci entt o p rove [the defendant ’ s] cr i m i nal i nt entt o d epri ve anot her pers on of prop erty, or t o app ropri at e the prop erty, as r e qui r e d unde rs e c t i on 812. 014” ) ( e m pha s i s a dde d) ; A l l e n v. S t a t e , 690 S o. 2d 1332, 1333- 34 ( F l a . D i s t . C t . A pp. 1997) ( “ T he e vi de nc e , the r e f or e , w a s s uf

f i c i e nt to a llo w th e ju ry to f

in d th e ap p e lla n t g u ilty o f g r a n d th e f

t b e c a u s e h e k n o w in g ly u s e d th e p r o p e r ty o f

a n o th e rw ith in te n t to e ith e rte m p o r a r ily o rp e r m a n e n tly d e p r i v e th e o wn e ro f

a r i g h tt o h i s p r o p e r ty o rt o ap p r o p r i a t e th e p r o p e r ty t o h i s o wn use i n v i ol at i on of se ct i on s 812 . 01 4(1) and 8 12 . 01 4(2)(c )) ” ( em ph as i s a dd ed). In thi s C i rc ui t , w e have s i m i l ar l y r ea d an “ or” i nt o § 81 2. 01 4(1) betw ee n sub part(a ) a n d s u b p a r t ( b ) , a n d h a v e in te rp r e te d th e s e c tio n a s e n c o m p a s s in g tw o s e p a r a te l evel s of i nt ent . S ee M es se r v. E . F . H ut t on & C o. , 83 3 F . 2d 90 9, 92 1 (11 th C i r. 1987) ( “ [ S e c t i on 812. 014( 1) ] pr ovi de s f orl i abi l i ty onl y i f

the pr ope r ty i s us e d or ob t ai ned ‘ w i th i nt entt o, ei ther t em po ra ri l y or perm anent l y, . . . depri ve the other pe r s on of

a r i ghtt o the pr ope r ty orthe be ne f i tthe r e f r om . . . [ or ] appr opr i a t e theTh eInf or matio n f ile d ag ains t Jag g e rn a

uth fo r h e r 2 00 1 gra

nd the ft c ha rg elike wi se 4 acknow ledg es the disjunctive cha rac ter of theintent elements of § 812.014( 1). The I nformation alleg es that Jagg erna

uth: [D] id unlawfully

and knowing ly

obtain or ende avor to obtain or to usethe proper ty of another, to wit: mercha ndise, the property

of B eall’s Department Store and/or Randy

Denniston as owner or custodian, of the valueof $300 or more , b ut l e ss t

ha n $ 5, 00 0 w iththeint e nt to e ith e r p e rm anently or te mpo ra ri ly deprivethetr

ueowner o f a

ri ght to th eprop e rt

y or a bene fit th e re from o r to appropriate the property

to the use of the taker or

to the use of a

ny person not entitled there to. Information at 1 ( emphasis adde d). 16 pr ope r ty t o hi s ow n us e ort o the us e of a ny pe r s on note nt i t l e d the r e t o. ’ ” ( quot i ng §8 12 . 01 4(1)). 4 B ec ause tw o d i st i ncti nt entst andards e xi sti n § 81 2. 01 4(1), w e c anno tsa y thatbo th sub part s w ou l d n ec es sa ri l y i nv ol ve an i nt entt o d epri ve anot her pers on of a r ig h t to th e p r o p e r ty o ra b e n e f it f r o m th e p r o p e r ty . T o in te rp r e t th e s ta tu te in th is w a y w o u ld m a k e s u b p a r t ( b ) s u p e r f lu o u s , th e r e b y v io la tin g th e w e ll- e s tab lis h e d ru le of s t a tut ory c ons truc t i on tha tc our t s m us tgi ve e f f e c t , i f pos s i bl e , t o e ve ry c l a us e a nd e ve ry w or d of

a s t a tut e . S e e W i l l i a m s v. T a y l or , 529 U . S . 362, 404 ( 2000) ( hol di ng that28 U . S . C . § 2 25 4(d)(1), w hi ch i ncl ud es tw o d i sj un ct i ve cl ause s, m ustbe re ad s o a s t o gi ve i nde pe nde ntm e a ni ng t o both c l a us e s ) . M or e ove r , i tw oul d i gnor e the pl ai n m ea ni ng of “ approp ri at i on , ” w hi ch i s def i ned as the “ exer ci se of cont rol ov er prop erty; a t aki ng of po ss es si on , ” s ee B l ac k’ s L aw D i ct i on ary a t98 (7th ed. 19 90 ),We note that the B IA found that the statute w as divisible in its November 14, 2003 5 order, but th e n c on c lude d th at th ere c ord o f c onvic tio n s uf fi c iently e sta bli sh e d th at Jag g e rn a

uth intended to deprive the owner of the property, and not mere ly temporarily

use the property

and return it to its owner. SeeNov. 14, 2003 Order at 2. 17 a nd w hi c h w oul d notne c e s s a r i l y e nt a i l tha tthe pr ope r ty ow ne rbe de pr i ve d hi s or h er ri g h t s t o th e p ro p erty’ s u se o r b en efi t s. G i ve n the above e vi de nc e tha t§ 812. 014( 1) i nvol ve s tw o di f f e r e ntty pe s of i nt e nt , w e a gr e e w i th J a gge rna uth tha tthe s t a tut e i s “ di vi s i bl e ” – tha ti s , i tc ont a i ns som e off ense s thatar e a gg ra vat ed fe l on i es and o thers thatar e not . S ee In re 5 Sw e e t s e r , 2 2 I . & N . D e c . 7 0 9 , 7 1 3 - 1 4 ( BI A 1 9 9 9 ) ( w h e r e a s t a tu t e i n c l u d e s s o me o ffen ses th atare ag g rav at ed fel o n i es an d o th ers th atare n o t , i ti s treat ed as a di vi s i bl e s t a tut e ) . I f

J a gge rna uth w a s c onvi c t e d unde rs ubpa r t( a ) , he rt a ki ng of pr ope r ty w oul d ha ve i nvol ve d a n i nt e ntt o “ de pr i ve the ow ne rof the r i ght s a nd be ne f i t s of ow ne r s hi p, ” a nd w oul d the r e f or e qua l i f

y a s a “ the f

t ” a s de f i ne d by the B IA . S ee In re V -Z -S -, 22 I. & N . D ec . at13 46 . H ow ever , i f J aggernauth w as c onvi c t e d unde rs ubpa r t( b) , w hi c h r e qui r e s onl y a n i nt e ntt o “ appr opr i a t e us e ” of th e p ro p er ty, h ero ff

en se w o u ld n o t n ec es sa rily co n stitu te a “th ef t” u n d erth e B IA ’s d e f in itio n , b e c a u s e s h e la c k e d th e r e q u is ite in te n t to d e p r iv e th e o w n e ro f th e r ig h ts and b enef

i t s of ow ners hi p. C f. N evar ez -M art i nez v. IN S , 32 6 F . 3d 10 53 (9th C i r. 2003) ( hol di ng tha tc e r t a i n s e c t i ons of the A r i z ona s t a tut e f

or“ the f tof a m e a ns of tra nspo rt at i on ” di d n otcont ai n the “ cr i m i nal i nt entt o d epri ve the ow ner” and w er e18

the r e f or e notpr ope r l y c ons i de r e d “ the f t s ” f orpurpos e s of

the a ggr a va t e d f

e l ony d e f in itio n o f th e I N A ) . B e c a us e § 812. 014( 1) i s a di vi s i bl e s t a tut e , the f a c tof c onvi c t i on a nd the s t a tut ory l a ngua ge a l one a r e i ns uf f i c i e ntt o e s t abl i s h – by “ c l e a r , une qui voc a l , a nd conv i nci ng evi dence” – und erw hi ch subp artJa gg ernauth w as conv i ct ed. S ee W oo db y v. IN S , 38 5 U . S . 27 6, 28 6 (19 66 ) ( “ no depo rt at i on order m ay be ent er ed u n le s s it is f

o u n d b y c le a r , u n e q u iv o c a l, a n d c o n v in c in g e v id e n c e th a t th e f a c ts al l eged as grou nd s f

or depo rt at i on ar e true” ). A cc ordi ng l y, the B IA w as perm i tt ed t o l ook t o the r e c or d of

c onvi c t i on t o de t e r m i ne w he the rhe rof f e ns e f or“ gr a nd th e f t” c o n s titu te s a n a g g r a v a te d f e lo n y . S e e I n r e S w e e ts e r , 2 2 I . & N . D e c . a t 7 1 4 . A s s t a t e d s upr a ( s e e not e 1) , the r e c or d of c onvi c t i on i nc l ude s the c ha r gi ng do cum ent , pl ea , verdi ctor j ud gm ent , and sent ence , se e I n re A j am i , 22 I. & N . D ec . 949, 950 ( B I A 1989) , butdoe s noti nc l ude the pol i c e r e por t . S e e I n r e T e i xe i r a , 21 I. & N . D ec . 31 6, 31 9 (B IA 19 96 ). T he re cord of conv i ct i on i ntrodu ce d i n thi s c as e – the Inform at i on , pl ea , j udgm e nta nd s e nt e nc e – do notpr ovi de c l e a r , une qui voc a l a nd c onvi nc i ng e vi de nc e tha tJ a gge rna uth’ s 2001 gr a nd the f tc onvi c t i on unde r§ 812. 014( 1) w a s f or a ta k in g w ith th e in te n t to d e p r iv e a n o th e ro f th e irr ig h ts o rb e n e f

its o f p r o p e r ty . F i r s t , the I nf

or m a t i on e xpl i c i t l y c ha r ge s J a gge rna uth i n the di s j unc t i ve , a nd thus do es no tsupp ortthe concl usi on thatshe w as char ged u nd ersubp art(a ) r ather than19

s ubpa r t( b) of

§ 812. 014( 1) . S e e I nf

or m a t i on a t1. S e c ond, the w r i tt e n pl e a a nd s e n te n c in g d o c u m e n ts s im ila r ly r e f e r e n c e th e g e n e r a l s ta tu to ry p r o v is io n , § 81 2. 01 4(1), w i tho utspec i fi c m ent i on thatJa gg ernauth w as conv i ct ed of ei ther s u b p a r ts ( a ) o r( b ) . T hi r d, w e di s a gr e e w i th the B I A tha tJ a gge rna uth’ s s i m ul t a ne ous c onvi c t i on for r es i st i ng a m er chantes t abl i shes thather gra nd theftconv i ct i on w as an a ggr a va t e d f

e l ony . T he B I A w a s pe r m i tt e d t o l ook onl y a tthe r e c or d of c onvi c t i on f o rth e o f f e n s e a lle g e d to b e a n a g g r a v a te d f e lo n y –n o t to th e r e c o r d o f a s e p a r a te m is d e m e a n o ro f

f e n s e . W e c a n f

in d n o a u th o r ity , a n d th e B I A c ite s n o n e in its or de r , tha tpe r m i t s the c om bi ni ng of tw o of f e ns e s t o de t e r m i ne w he the rone orthe other i s a n agg ra vat ed fe l on y. C f. M att erof S ho rt , 20 I. & N . D ec . 13 6, 13 9 (B IA 19 89 ) ( ho l di ng thatIJ coul d n otre l y on a se para t e c on vi ct i on t o d et erm i ne w hether the conv i ct i on ati ss ue w as a c ri m e of m oral turpi tud e, and st at i ng thatm oral turpi tud e c anno tbe vi ew ed as “ ar i s[ i ng ] fr om som e und ef i ned syner gi sm by w hi ch tw o o ff ense s a re com bi ned t o cre at e acr i m e i nv ol vi ng m oral turpi tud e, w here ea ch c r i m e i ndi vi dua l l y doe s noti nvol ve m or a l turpi tude ” ) . I n a ny e ve nt , the I n f o r m a tio n o n th e r e s is tin g a m e r c h a n t c h a r g e p r o v id e s n o in f o r m a tio n a s to w he the rJ a gge rna uth e i the ri nt e nde d t o de pr i ve a nothe rof the r i ght s a nd be ne f

i t s of prop erty und er§ 8 12 . 01 4(1)(a ), or m er el y i nt ended t o app ropri at e property t o h er ow n us e unde r§ 812. 014( 1) ( b) . H e ra l l e ge d r e s i s t a nc e t o the m e r c ha ntc oul d ha ve20

be e n m ot i va t e d by a ny num be rof f a c t or s othe rtha n a n i nt e ntt o de pr i ve a nothe rof ri g h t s an d b en efi t s o f p ro p erty. B e c a us e i tha s notbe e n c l e a r l y e s t abl i s he d tha tJ a gge rna uth’ s 2001 c o n v ic tio n f

o rg r a n d th e f

t is a n “a g g r a v a te d f

e lo n y ” u n d e r8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 1 (a )( 4 3 )( G ), w e c o n clu d e th at th e B IA er re d in u p h o ld in g Ja g g er n au th ’s r e m o v a l p u r s u a n t to 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 7 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( A ) ( iii) . M o r e o v e r , b e c a u s e J a g g e rn a u th is n o t r e m o v ab le f

o rh a v in g b e e n c o n v ic te d o f a n a g g r a v a te d f

e lo n y , th e B I A s h o u ld ha ve a ddr e s s e d w he the rornotJ a gge rna uth’ s 1997 a nd 2001 gr a nd the f tc onvi c t i ons w e r e c r im e s o f

m o r a l tu rp itu d e th a t m a d e h e rr e m o v ab le u n d e r8 U .S .C . § 12 27 (a )( 2)(A )( i ). A cc ordi ng l y, the B IA ’ s f i nal order of re m ov al i s vac at ed i nsofar a s it c o n c lu d e s th a t J a g g e rn a u th is r e m o v ab le u n d e r8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 7 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( A ) ( iii) . T h e c a s e is r e m a n d e d to th e B I A to c o n s id e rw h e th e ro rn o t th e I J c o rr e c tly d e t e r m i n e d th a tJ a g g e rn a u th wa s r e m o v ab l e f o rh a v i n g b e e n c o n v i c t e d o f two cr i m es of m oral turpi tud e pursuantt o 8 U . S . C . § 1 22 7(a) (2)( A )( i i ). P E T I T I ON GR AN T E D.