FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT Febr uar y 15, 2008 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T 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. 07- 12933 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ B I A N o. A 30- 917- 419 N A E L D A W U D S A M M O U R , 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

aD 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

_________________________ ( F e b r u ar y 15, 2008) B efo re T JO F L A T , B L A C K an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:In 2003, the I NS was abolished a

nd its enforc ement func tions were transferre d to the 1 newly cre ated DH S. See Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L . No. 107-296, §§ 441, 471, 116 Stat. 2135. 2 N a e l D a w ud S a m m our , ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of J or da n, 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 ppe a l s ’ ( “ B I A ” ) de c i s i on a f f i rm i ng the I m m i gr a t i on J udge ’ s ( “ I J ” ) or de rof

r e m ova l a nd gr a nt i ng the D e pa r tm e ntof H om e l a nd S ec uri ty’ s ( “ D H S ”) m ot i on t o p re t erm i tS am m ou r’ s app l i ca t i on for r el i ef , w hi ch wa s f i l e d u n d e rf

o rm e rI NA § 2 1 2 ( c ) , 8 U. S . C . § 1 1 8 2 ( c ) ( 1 9 9 6 ) . Af t e rr e v i e w, we d i s m i s s i n p a r ta n d d e n y i n p a r tth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. I . B AC KG RO UN D W hi l e al aw ful perm anentre si dent , S am m ou r w as conv i ct ed of se vera l cr i m i nal offe nses , i ncl ud i ng 19 85 conv i ct i on s f or tw o cou nt s of r ec ei vi ng st ol en pr ope r ty , a1992 c onvi c t i on f ora tt e m pt e d r e c e i ptof

s t ol e n pr ope r ty a nd 1992 f e de r a l c onvi c t i ons f

ortw o c ount s of

ba nk f r aud. I n 1992, the I m m i gr a t i on a nd N a tur a l i z a t i on S e rvi c e ( “ I N S ” ) i s s ue d a n O r de rt o S how C aus e , c ha r gi ng 1 S a m m o u rw ith d e p o r tab ility u n d e rf o rm e rI N A § 2 4 1 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( A ) ( ii) , 8 U .S .C . § 12 51 (a )( 2)(A )( i i ), because hi s c ri m i nal conv i ct i on s c on st i tut ed tw o o r m ore c ri m es in v o lv in g m o r a l tu rp itu d e . I n 1 9 9 5 , a n I J o r d e r e d S a m m o u rd e p o r te d . T ha ts a m e y e a r , S a m m ourf i l e d a n appl i c a t i on f

orw a i ve rof

de por t a t i on unde rf orm e rI N A § 212( c ) . I n 1996, C ongr e s s pa s s e d tw o pi e c e s of l e gi s l a t i on ( “ the 1996 a m e ndm e nt s ” ) tha ts i gni f i c a nt l y c ha nge d i m m i gr a t i on l a w , theSection 440(d) of AEDPA amended I

NA § 212(c ) to expand the ty pes of of fense s that 2 could disqualify

an alien f or § 212(c ) re lief to include a n alien who is depor

table “by rea son of havingcommitted any

criminal off

ense c overe d in section 241(a) (2)(A)(iii) [ag gravated felonies], (B ) [controlled substance s convictions], (C) [ cer tain firea rm offenses], or (D) [m iscellane ous crimes], or any offense covered by

section 241(a)(2) (A)( ii) [multiple criminal convictions] for which both pre dicate of fense s arecovered by

section 241(a)(2) (A)( i) [crimes of moral turpitude].” L ater , IIRIRA repe aled § 212( c) altogether. SeePub. L . No. 104-208, Div. C Title III§ 304(b), 110 Stat. 3009-597. 3 A nt i t e rr or i s m a nd E f

f e c t i ve D e a th P e na l ty A c t( “ A E D P A ” ) , P ub. L . N o. 104- 132, 110 S t a t . 1214 ( 1996) , e na c t e d on A pr i l 24, 1996; a nd the I l l e ga l I m m i gr a t i on R e m ova l a nd I m m i gr a ntR e s pons i bi l i ty A c t( “ I I R I R A ” ) , P ub. L . N o. 104- 208, D i v. C . , 110 S t a t . 3009- 546, e na c t e d on S e pt e m be r30, 1996. A m ong othe rthi ngs , the 1 9 9 6 a m e n d m e n ts e lim in a te d § 2 1 2 ( c ) r e lie f f o ra lie n s c o n v ic te d o f

c e r ta in d i s q u a l i f y i n g o f f e n s e s , i n c l u d i n g “ c r i me s o f mo r a l tu rp i tu d e . ” Se e A ED PA § 4 40 (d). 2 I n 1997, the I J de ni e d S a m m our ’ s appl i c a t i on be c aus e hi s 1985 r e c e i ptof st ol en prop erty and 19 92 bank fr aud con vi ct i on s w er e “ cr i m es of m oral turpi tud e” a n d th e 1 9 9 6 a m e n d m e n ts h a d r e n d e r e d a lie n s c o n v ic te d o f s u c h c r im e s in e lig ib le f o r§ 2 1 2 ( c ) r e lie f

. I n 1 9 9 8 , th e B I A a f

f irm e d . In 20 01 , S am m ou r f

i l ed w i th the B IA a “ S peci al 21 2(c) M ot i on t o R eopen a nd R e m a nd” ba s e d on I N S v. S t . C y r , 533 U . S . 289, 326, 121 S . C t . 2271, 2293 ( 2001) , w hi c h he l d tha tthe pr ovi s i ons of the 1996 a m e ndm e nt s e l i m i na t i ng § 212( c ) r e l i e f

c oul d notappl y r e tr oa c t i ve l y t o a l i e ns w ho w e r e e l i gi bl e f orI

NA§ 2 41 a

uth orize d th eAttor

ney General toenter a

n o rder depo rtingan alien whofe ll 3 within certain classes of deportable aliens. Included within this listof depor table aliens w ere aliensc onvicte d o f c ertain f ire arm of fens e s, a s f

oll ow s: (C) Certain firea

rm offenses Any alien who at any

ti m e after entry

is convicted under any law of purcha sing, se lling, off

eringfor sale, exchang ing, using , owning , posses s i n g , or car rying, or of attemptingor conspiringto purcha se, sell, of fer for sale, exchang e, use own, possess, or c arr y, any wea pon, part, or acce sso ry wh ich is a fire arm or destructive device ( as def ined in section 921(a) of Title 18) in violation of any law is deportable. I NA § 241(a)(2) (C), 8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)( 2)(C) ( 1996) (currently codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a) (2)( C)). 4 § 2 12 (c ) r el i ef

atthe t i m e they pl ed gu i l ty t o a di squal i fy i ng offe nse. T he B IA grant ed S am m ou r’ s m ot i on t o reopen and re m anded the ca se t o an IJ f or further p ro ceed i n g s. O n r e m a nd, the D H S f

i l e d am ot i on t o pr e t e rm i tS a m m our ’ s appl i c a t i on f or § 2 1 2 ( c ) r e lie f

, w h ic h w a s d e n ie d . T h e D H S f ile d ar e n e w e d m o tio n to p r e te rm it S am m ou r’ s § 21 2(c) appl i ca t i on , char gi ng S am m ou r w i th d eport abi l i ty und er another i m m i grat i on st atut e, form erIN A § 2 41 (a )( 2)(C ), 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 1(a) (2)( C ), b a s e d o n a1 9 8 2 O h i o c o n v i c t i o n f o rp o s s e s s i n g a n u n r e g i s t e r e d f i r e a rm. 3 T he I J gr a nt e d the D H S ’ s r e ne w e d m ot i on. T he I J c onc l ude d tha tthe 1996 am endm ent s’ el i m i nat i on of § 2 12 (c ) r el i ef appl i ed t o S am m ou r, despi t e S t . C yr , b e c a u s e S a m m o u rw a s c o n v ic te d f o llo w in g atr ia l, r a th e rth a n ag u ilty p le a . A l t ernat i vel y, the IJconcl ud ed thatS am m ou r w as i nel i gi bl e f or § 2 12 (c ) r el i ef be c a us e hi s 1982 f

i r e a rm s of

f e ns e di d notha ve ac om pa r abl e gr ound f ore xc l us i on, a nd thus c oul d notbe w a i ve d.Sammour argues that the IJerred in findingthat he wa s ineligible f or § 212(c ) re lief 4 under St. Cy

r bec ause hewas c onvicted af ter trial. How ever , the B IA did not adopt the IJ ’s rulingon this point . See Al Na jjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262, 1284 ( 11th Cir. 2001) (explaining that we review theIJ ’s re asoningonly to the extent the BIA adopts it).

5 T he B IA decl i ned t o ado ptthe IJ ’ s deni al of § 2 12 (c ) r el i ef base d o n the fa ct thatS am m ou r’ s 198 2 fi re arm conv i ct i on re sul t ed fr om a j ury ver di ct . T he B IA concl ud ed that§ 3 09 (c ) of I IR IR A and 8 C . F . R . § 1 21 2. 3(g) pres erved § 21 2(c) r e l i e f r e que s t s f

ora l i e ns , l i ke S a m m our , w ho w e r e pl a c e d i n de por t a t i on proceedi ng s bef

ore e nactm entof the 19 96 am endm ent s. T hu s, the B IA det erm i ned tha tS a m m our ’ s c onvi c t i on by aj ury , r a the rtha n agui l ty pl e a , di d nota f f e c tthe avai l abi l i ty of § 21 2(c) re l i ef . 4 Inst ea d, the B IA concl ud ed thatS am m ou r w as st atut ori l y i nel i gi bl e f or § 2 1 2 (c) reli ef. H o w ev er, th i s i n el i g i b i l i ty w as n o tb ased o n th e 1 9 9 6 am en d m en t s, b u t b a s e d o n as e p a r a te g r o u n d . A f o rm e r§ 2 1 2 ( c ) w a iv e rw a s a v a ilab le to re m ov abl e l aw ful perm anentre si dent s onl y t o the ext entthe grou nd s f or re m ov al w e r e a n a lo g o u s to g r o u n d s f o re x c lu s io n u n d e rI N A § 2 1 2 ( a ) , 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 8 2 ( a ) . T he B I A c onc l ude d tha tS a m m ourw a s i ne l i gi bl e f ora§ 212( c ) w a i ve rof r e m o v ab ility b a s e d o n h is 1 9 8 2 f ir e a rm o f f e n s e b e c au s e th e r e w a s n o c o m p a r ab le grou nd for e xcl usi on un der § 21 2(a) . S a m m o u rf

ile d th is ap p e a l.

I I . DI S CUS S I ONTh eg ov ernment f ile d a motion to dismissSammour ’spetition fo r l a c k o f a

pp e llate 5 jurisdiction. W e review issues of subjec t matter jurisdiction de novo. B rooks v. Ashcroft, 283 F.3d 1268, 1272 ( 11th Cir. 2002). 6 A s athres ho l d m att er , w e f i rs tdet erm i ne w hether w e have j uri sdi ct i on ov er S a m m o u r ’s p e titio n f

o rr e v ie w . B a h a rv . A s h c r o f t, 2 6 4 F .3 d 1 3 0 9 , 1 3 1 1 ( 1 1 th 5 C i r. 20 01 ). W e l ac k j uri sdi ct i on “ t o revi ew any f i nal order of re m ov al agai nstan al i en w ho i s r em ov abl e by r ea son o f havi ng com m i tt ed [c ert ai n enu m er at ed c r i m i na l of

f e ns e s ] . ” I N A § 242( a ) ( 2) ( C ) , 8 U . S . C . § 1252( a ) ( 2) ( C ) ; M oor e v. A shcr oft , 25 1 F . 3d 91 9, 92 2-23 (11th C i r. 20 01 ). O ne of the enum er at ed cr i m i nal of f e ns e s i s ac onvi c t i on “ unde ra ny l a w of . . . pos s e s s i ng . . . a ny w e apon, pa r t , or a c c e s s o ry w h ic h is af

ir e a rm . . . .” S e e I N A § 2 3 7 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( C ) , 8 U .S .C . § 1227( a ) ( 2) ( C ) ; I N A § 242( a ) ( 2) ( C ) , 8 U . S . C . § 1252( a ) ( 2) ( C ) ( r e f e r e nc i ng, f

orthe pu rpose of i dent i fy i ng di squal i fy i ng offe nses , 8 U . S . C . § 1 22 7(a) (2)( C )) . W hen ju d ic ia l r e v ie w is lim ite d b y s ta tu to ry c o n d itio n s , w e r e ta in ju r is d ic tio n to de t e rm i ne onl y w he the rthe s e s t a tut ory c ondi t i ons e xi s t . B r ooks v. A s hc r of t , 283 F .3 d 1 2 8 6 , 1 2 7 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) . T h u s , o u rr e v ie w is lim ite d to th e th r e s h o ld i s s ue s of w he the rape t i t i one ri s ( 1) a n a l i e n; ( 2) w ho i s r e m ovabl e ; ( 3) ba s e d on ha vi ng c om m i tt e d adi s qua l i f y i ng of f e ns e . I d. In 19 82 , S am m ou r w as conv i ct ed i n O hi o o f posse ss i ng an un re gi st er ed f i r e a rm . S a m m ourdoe s notdi s put e tha thi s f i r e a rm c onvi c t i on i s adi s qua l i f y i ng offe nse f or pu rposes of depri vi ng thi s C ou rtof j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew hi s f i nalAlthough Sammour’ s deportation proc eeding s beg an bef ore A pril 1, 1997, his petition 6 fo r re view i s g ov ern e d b y IIRIRA . Hua

ngv. U. S. Att’ y

Gen. , 4 29 F .3 d 1 00 2, 10 08 n. 3 ( 11 th Cir. 2005) (explaining that, after theREALID Act, “ [t ]he date on which a petition is filed is no longer important, as Congress ha s now direc ted that all petitions for review will be g overne d under theperma

nent provisions of IIRIRA”). 7 re m ov al order. T here fore , t o the ext entS am m ou r s ee ks re vi ew of hi s r em ov al or de r , w e l a c k j ur i s di c t i on a nd di s m i s s hi s pe t i t i on. W e s t i l l m us tc ons i de rS a m m our ’ s § 212( c ) c l a i m f orw a i ve rof r e m ovabi l i ty . A s t o the di s c r e t i ona ry a s pe c tof tha tr e l i e f

, w e a l s o l a c k j ur i s di c t i on t o revi ew deni al s of di sc re t i on ary r el i ef , i ncl ud i ng w ai ver of r em ov abi l i ty und er IN A § 2 1 2 (c). S ee IN A § 2 4 2 (a)(2 )(B )(i ), 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 (a)(2 )(B )(i ); see al so C a m a c h o - S a lin a s v . U .S . A tt’y G e n ., 4 6 0 F .3 d 1 3 4 3 , 1 3 4 7 - 4 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) . H o w e v e r , w e r e ta in ju r is d ic tio n to r e v ie w c o n s titu tio n a l c la im s o rq u e s tio n s o f la w . S ee IN A § 2 42 (a )( 2)(D ), 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2(a) (2)( D ), as am ended b y the R E A L ID A c tof 2005, P ub. L . N o. 109- 13, 119 S t a t . 231; B a l ogun v. U . S . A tt ’ y G e n. , 425 F . 3d 13 56 , 13 59 -60 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ). T here fore , w e have j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew 6 th e le g a l q u e s tio n o f

w h e th e rS a m m o u r ’s f

ir e a rm c o n v ic tio n r e n d e r e d h im i n el i g i b l e fo r § 2 1 2 (c)’ s w ai v er o f rem o v ab i l i ty. U n d er§ 2 1 2 (c ), th e A tt o rn ey G en er al h as th e d iscr etio n to w aiv e a n alien ’s i nadm i ss i bl e s t atus i f the al i en w as a l aw ful perm anentre si dentw ho had l i ved c o n tin u o u s ly in th e U n ite d S ta te s f o rs e v e n y e a r s . S e e I N A § 2 1 2 ( c ) , 8 U .S .C . § 1182( c ) ( 1996) . A l though § 212( c ) or i gi na l l y pr ovi de d f oraw a i ve rof

e xc l us i onIn li ght o f t hisop ini on , w edeny

theg ov ernment’ s mo tio n todis mis s a s mo ot. 7 8 f o ra lie n s w h o h a d te m p o r a r ily g o n e ab r o a d , th e p r o v is io n w a s “e x te n d e d to pr ovi de r e l i e f

f r om de por t a t i on or de r s a s w e l l . ” A s e nc i o v. I N S , 37 F . 3d 614, 616 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ) . H o w e v e r , a s a lr e a d y n o te d , th e § 2 1 2 ( c ) w a iv e ris a v a ilab le to re m ov abl e l aw ful perm anentre si dent s onl y t o the ext entthe grou nd s f or re m ov al a r e a n a lo g o u s to g r o u n d s f o re x c lu s io n u n d e rI N A § 2 1 2 ( a ) , 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 8 2 ( a ) . H er e, the B IA concl ud ed thatS am m ou r w as i nel i gi bl e f or a § 21 2(c) w ai ver o f r e m o v ab ility b a s e d o n h is f ir e a rm s o f

f e n s e b e c au s e th e r e is n o c o m p a r ab le g r o u n d f o re x c lu s io n u n d e r§ 2 1 2 ( a ) . T h is C o u r t h a s r e a c h e d th e s a m e c o n c lu s io n . S e e R odr i gue z - P a dr on v. I N S , 13 F . 3d 1455, 1460- 61 ( 11th C i r . 1994) ( c onc l udi ng thatan al i en conv i ct ed of a f i re arm s vi ol at i on i s notel i gi bl e f or § 2 12 (c ) r el i ef be c a us e the r e i s notac om pa r abl e gr ound f ore xc l us i on) ; s e e a l s o A de f e m i v. A sh cro ft , 3 8 6 F . 3 d 1 0 2 2 , 1 0 3 1 (1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 4 ) (en b an c) (sam e). A cco rd i n g l y, th e B I A c o rr e c tly c o n c lu d e d th a t S a m m o u r ’s f ir e a rm c o n v ic tio n r e n d e r e d h im i ne l i gi bl e f

or§ 212( c ) r e l i e f

. W i th r e s pe c tt o thi s i s s ue , S a m m our ’ s pe t i t i on f or r e vi e w i s de ni e d. 7 PETI TI O N D I SM I SSED I N PA R T, D EN I ED I N PA R T.