2004 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

3-10-2004 

# B ak h tr i ge r v . E l wo o d

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de n t i al

D ocke t N o . 02-4134P

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w
. v i l l a no va
. e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd 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 l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2004 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w
. v i l l a no va
. e du

. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" B ak h tr i g e r v . Elwood " (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s
. P ape r 893. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w
. v i l l a no va
. e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/8931 PRECE DENTI AL

UNIT ED STA TES C OURT OF AP PEA LS F OR TH E TH IRD CIR CU IT

No. 02-4134

MICHAEL BAKHTRI GER,

Appellant

v.

KENNETH J OHN ELWOOD, ACTI NG DIS TRI CT DI RECTOROF THE PHI LADELP HIA OF FI CE OF T HE IMMI GRATI ON AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE; THEODORE NORDMARK, ASSI STANT DIS TRI CT DI RECTOR

FOR DEPORT ATI ON AND DETE NTI ON; AND THE I MMIGRATI ON AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE

On Appeal from the United St ates Distri ct Court f

or the East ern District

of Pen nsylvan ia (Dist. Court No. 02-cv- 00535) Distri ct Judge: Hon. Herbert J . Hutton

Argued: October 14, 2003 Before: SLOVITER, RO TH and CH ER TO FF , Circuit

Judges
(Fil ed: March 10, 2004 )

Steven A. Morley , Esq. ( Argued) Morley, Surin & Griffi n 325 Ch estnu t Street Suite 1305 Philadelphia, PA 19106
Counsel for Appell ant
Sonya F. Lawrence, Esq. (Argued) O ff ice of U ni ted St ate s A tto rn ey 615 Ch estnu t Street Philadelphia, PA 19106
Counsel for Appell ees

OPI NION

CH ER TO FF , Circuit

Judge

. Appellant

M icha el B akh trige r, a lawfu l permanent r esident in the Unit ed States, wa s co nvicte d of a felony and subject ed to imm igrat ion remova l proceedings. Bak htriger c hallen ged th e removal pr oc ee di ng s b y petition forhabeas corpus. The Distri ct Court de termine d that Bakhtrige r was essen tiallyseeking r eview of a di scret ionary

determi nation of

the Immigrat ion and Natural izat ion S ervice (INS). The Distri ct Co urt held, how ever, that there i s no juri sdict ion under t he habeas stat

ute, 28 U .S.C . § 2241, to r eview2

discretionary determi nations or fact ual find ing s of

the I NS

. T his questi on of the scope o f habeas jurisdiction is one of first impre ssion in this Circuit . We agree with the Distri ct Court’ s readi ng of the l aw and

we wil l aff

irm.

I. Bakhtrige r entere d the Unite d States in Februar

y 1993, from the former SovietRep ublic o f M oldo va, his n ati v e
co un try. He was granted t he protec tion of the Uni te d St at es as a r efu gee andbec ame
a lawful per

manent resi dent in April1994. In April 1998, Bakhtrige r was convict ed of possessi on of both cocaine base and hero in in the Co urt of C om mo n Ple as in Mo ntgom ery County, Pennsyl vania. Less than a year late r , in January and F ebruary of 1999, Bakhtr iger was ar rest ed for viol ati ng his probation, and sentenc ed to 2- 12 m onth s imp risonm ent.
Bakh triger’s control led subst ance convict ion rend ered h im rem ovab le 1 under 8 U. S. C. § 1227(a)( 2)(B)(i ), which provides: (B) Control led subst ances

(i) Convicti on

Any alie n who at anytim e after admissi on has been

c on victe d of a viol ation of (ora conspir acy or

atte mpt to violate ) a ny l aw or regulation of a Stat e, the Un ited States , or a for eign country rel ating t o a control ledsubstanc e (as definedin section 802 of Title 21), ot

her than a

single off ense invol vin g posses si on fo r o ne ’s own
use of 30 grams or less o f marijuana, is [rem ovable].

8 U. S. C. § 12 27( a) (2 )( B). The INS initiate d removal proc eedings aga ins t B a khtri ger on April 17, 2000. Before t he Immigrat ion Judge (IJ ), Bakhtriger did not contestthat he was an ali en or that he had committed

a remov able offe nse. Rathe r, Bakhtrige r applie d f or asy lum and withholding of removal unde r 8 U.S .C. § 11 58, and r elief fr om remo val un der th e ConventionAg ains t To rture , 8 U .S.C . § 123 1.
Bakh triger, thro ughhi s o wn test imonyand that of his m other, atte mpted to sho w th at he h ad a re ason able fearof pers ecut ion sh ould he retu rn to Mo ldova. The evidence pr esented by 1 Under recent

amend m ents t o the Immigrat ion and Na tionality Act, the term “re mo val” emb races c once pts of both “deportation” and “exclusi on.” See Ill egal Immigrat ion Refo rm an d Immigrant Resp on sibility Act, Pub. L. No. 104-208, Div. C, § 308, 110 Stat 3009- 619. Say ing that Bakhtrige r wa s “rem ovab le” is equi valent

to saying th athe wa s “deporta ble. ”3

Bakhtrige r focu sed o n his h isto r y of past reli gious persecution as a mem b er of the Jew is h faith in Moldova, and hi s fears of what might befal l him i f he shou ld retur n. Bakh triger’s mother rec ountedthat herhusband had been an offi ce r in the Sovietarmy, bu t had b een h amp ered in his advancementas a res ul t o f his r eligi on. She also expl ained that Jews i n Moldova

were prevente d from pu bli cly practi cing their reli gion. Both witness es emphasize d that anti- semiti sm was pervasi ve underthe old Soviet r egime, and t hatthe post -Soviet Moldovan gov ernm ent too k no actio n t o curb the open hostili ty emanating from larg e se gm ents of th e pu blic.
Other t estimo ny indica ted tha t, wh ile l i vi ng i n Mo ld ova, Bakhtr iger was routine lyharassed, called d erogatory names, and physicall y beaten as aresult of his reli gion

. Acco rding to his m other, Bakhtrige r was prevented from attendi ng anyprestigious coll eges or universiti es. Inste a d, he was direct ed to a trade school to learn t elev isio n rep air. At th is scho ol, too, Bakhtrige r was be a ten by fell ow students. L a ter, mirror ing the e xperienc e of his fat

her, Bakht

rige r l os t t

wo successive jobs i n factor ies as a resul t of his re ligi on.
Bo th Bakhtriger and his m other recounte d that anti- sem i tic s igns and graffiti r e gularly marr ed fences and buildings. I n the spr ing of 1992, the door of the apa rtment in w hich the B akhtrigers lived wa s etched wit

h a Star of Davi d, something the Bakhtrigers took as a t hreat—thatan ti -s emi ti c e le men ts we r e “marking” t he apartment as one i n which Je ws lived. Bakhtrige r recount ed th at during a r ec ent t r i p b ac k t o Mo ldo va he

was atta cked in publ ic and a neckl ace bearing the Star

of David was ripped from his n eck

. The IJ cre d ited t

he testimony of bo t h witnesse s and found that Bakhtrige r had suffered p ast per secu tion. B ut th e I J found that

the INS had present ed suffici ent proof of “c ha ng ed co un try co ndition s” in Moldova to rebut

the pres um p tion t

hat Bakh tri ge r had a well- founded fear of persecution. Even so, t he IJ exer cisedhis di scre tionto grant

asy lum where the applic ant has “demonstr ated co mpelli ng
reasons for being unwil ling or una ble t o
re t urn to the c ountry

aris ing out of t

he

seve rityof the past

pers ecut ion. ” 8 CFR § 208 .13( b)(1 )(iii)(A ).
The INS a ppealed th e IJ’s decisi on to the Boa rd of Im migra ti on A ppea ls (BIA ). Th e BIA deferred to th e IJ’s de terminationthat Bakht riger and hi s motherwere credible witne sses, and accepted the IJ’s summ ary of

the evi dence. How ever, th e BI A o ver turned the IJ’s grantof a s ylum and ordered that Bak htrig er b e removed to Moldova. The BIA decided t

hat even if

the IJ a ccura tely described the le vel of per secuti on, Bakh triger’s experie nce did not rise to the level fou nd in prev io us ca ses where the Board determ ined to exerc ise its autho rity to g ran t asylum for com pelli ng r eas ons

. Bakhtrige r file d a peti tion for a w rit of habeas corpus in the Eastern Distri ct of Pe nn syl v ania. Before the Distric t Cou rt,4

Bakhtrige r did not cl aim a denialof a consti tuti onal right or an err or in ap plicationof the statutory standard s

. Rathe r, he argue d that the factua l record did not supp ort the finding b y both the IJ and the B IA th at th ere w as no we llfounded fear of fut

ure pers ecuti on because conditi ons in Moldova hav e ch ang ed. As he put it, “the IJ and B IA ignoredevidence in the record of centuries of anti -semitism and persecution of Jews. ” J.A. 7. Bakhtrige r also u rged that ev en if there was n o we ll-founded fear o f persecution, the BIA wrongly reve rs ed what wa s con cede dly the IJ’s “ broa dly define[d ]” discr et ion to grant as ylum based

on pas t per sec utio n. J.A . 20. Again, i n the habeas petition’s own words, Bak htr iger contended that the BIA wrongl y d etermi ned that he “was not entitled t o asy lum on a discr etionarybasis. ” J.A. 7.
Based on t he p etitio n, the Distri ct Cou rt reaso ned th at Ba khtrig er sought review of a discr etionarydetermi nation, and therefore dismisse d th e peti tion for

w antof s ubj ect m atter juris dicti on. Th e Distri ct Cou rt noted that habeas r eview of crimin a l alien re mo val pro ceed ings falls under th e ge ner al hab eas st atut e, 28 U. S. C. § 2241. The District

Cou rt held, how ever, that the scope of

review of i mmigrati on proceedi ngs under sec tion 2241 is l imit ed to con st it

ut io nalcl ai ms or erro rs of law. The Distric t C o urt r easoned that fact ual and discr etionarydetermi nations are not cogn izable under sec tion 2241, and the federalcourts theref

ore lac k jurisdictio n to enterta in such cl ai ms in habeas c halle nges to removal proceedings. This ti mely a ppeal fol lowed.
A dis tri ct court ’s det erminat ion that it lacks s ubjec t matter jurisdic t ion is a determ in at ion of

law ov er

whi ch we exercise plen ary rev iew

. See Gould Elecs. Inc. v. Unite d States , 220 F.3d 169, 176 (3d Cir . 200 0). Mo reover, we exercise plenary review wh ere a d istrict c o urt dismis ses a habeas corpus petition based

on a legalconclusi on without hol ding an evidentiary hea ring

. See Zettl emoyer v. Fulcomer , 923 F .2d 284, 29 1 (3d C ir. 199 1).

II.
In 1996, Congress overhauled the Immigrat ion and N ationality Act (INA ),

see 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq. , by enacti ng two stat utes i n rapid s uccessi on, t he Antiterrori sm and E ffec tive D eath P enalty Act (AEDPA ), Pub L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 , an d the Il legal Immigrant Refo rm and Immigrant

Responsibi lit

y Act (IIRIRA ), Pub. L. No. 10 4-2 08, Div . C, 1 10 Stat. 3009-546. Under t he amended INA, asylum re mai ns a discretionary determi nationon the pa rt of the INS. But AEDPA and IIRIRA enacted t wo changes curtai ling c ourt r eview of removal pr oc eedings. 2 To understand these

2 In addition to i mposing a new set of permanent rules, IIRIRA provided for a setof “tra nsition al” rule s. All removal

cases commenced before April1, 1997, in which a finalor der of deportation was file d after

October 30, 1996 are su bject to the transiti ona l rule s. See Ill egal Immigrant Reform and Imm ig ran t5

changes , w e must bri efly review the developmentof jud icia l revi ew of imm igra tion dete rmin ation s.
Un til 195 2, judic ial j uri sdiction to review exec utive d ecision s relating to immigrat ion was founded exclusively on the wr i t of h abe as c orp us. See United States v. Jung Ah Lung , 1 24 U

. S. 6 21 (1888). Du rin g that pe riod, “habeas

cor pus was the only

remedy by

whi c h deportation orders c ou ld b e cha llenge d in th e cou rts. ” Heikkila

v. Barber , 345 U. S. 229, 230 (1953). A ch alle ng e to the exclus ivit yof the habeas remedy was briefly mounted a fter

the 1946 passage of the Adm inistrative Procedu re Act (A PA ), which over haule d adm inistrativ e law. Some alie ns sought t o appeal exec utive immigra ti on decisions un der the A PA ’s general mand ate that court s se t asi de any admini stra tive agencyacti on that was an abuse of discr etion o r u nsupporte d by substantial evidence . The Su preme C ourt held the AP A inap plicable, how ever, reasoni ng t hat the then-e xisting spec ific immigrat ion statute was meant to pr eclude judici al revie w of immigrat ion deci sions “ exceptinsofar as it w as req uired b y th e Constit ution. ” He ikkila , 345 U.S. at 235.

In 195 2, w hi le the He ikkila case
was pending, C ongress r econfigur ed the immigrat ion law s. He ikkila itself decli ned to rule on the am end ed a ct, 345 U.S. at 232 n.4, but

the Supreme Court

soon had the opp ortun ity to address t he new law. In Shaug h nessyv. Pedreiro , the C ourt h eld that the amendedINA was subject to the AP A’s expanded review because the 1952 revisions, pas sed after

th e APA be came effecti ve, did not “e xpressly” s upersede or modifythe expanded r ight of r eview g ranted by t he APA. 349 U.S. 48 , 51-5 2 (19 55)

. In 196 1, C o ngress changed the immigr a tionstat

utes again. Under the 1961 a mendment s, aliens f acin g deportation we re fun neled into the cour ts of app eals for direct review under a standard sim ilar to the A PA stan dar d. See 8 U.S.C. § 1105a( a) (1994); see also H.R. Rep. No . 87- 108 6 (1 961 ), repri nted i n 19 61 U.S .C. C.A .N. 2 950 , 296 7-7 6. Aliens subject to excl usion were not

provided a

means of direc t rev iew

. See H.R. Rep. No. 87-1086 (19 61) , repri nt ed in 1961 U. S. C. C. A. N

. 2950, 2967-76. The 1961 amendm ents, how ever, c larif ied that all aliens, whether faci ng deportation or subject to e x clusion , were entitled to review by habea s corpus. See id. ; see also 8 U.S.C . §§ 1105 a(a )(10 ) & 1105a(b) (1994)

. 3 It i s unclear

—though irrel evant Respon si bility Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-208, Div. C, § 309, 110 Stat. 3009- 625. All cases commenced after Apri l 1, 1997 are subj ect t o the permanent rules. See Ill egal Immigr ant Reform and Immigrant

Responsi bil ity

Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-208, Div. C, § 306(c), 110 Stat. 3009-6 12. Bec ause B akhtriger’s removal proceedi ngs were commenced on Ap ril 17, 2000, we wil l res tri ct our discussion to the permanent rules. 3 Sectio n 1105a(a)( 10) was origina llycodifi ed as section 11 05a(a)(9).6

to our analy sis—whether the provisi on for habeas corpus re view contai ned in new IN A secti ons 1105a(a) (10) and 1105a(b) actua llycreat ed independent bases for habeas corp us jurisd iction o r mer ely

reser ved t h e avail ability

of habeas corpus pursuant to 2 8 U .S.C . § 22 41. See INS v. St . C yr , 533 U.S . 289 , 310 (20 01)

. In 1996, Congress enactedAEDPA and IIRIRA to reorder and curtail court review of deportation and exclusi on decisi on s. AE DP A re peale d th e immigrat ion habeas provi sion con ta ined in 8 U.S .C. § 11 05a (a ) and I IRI RA elim inat ed the r em aind er o f 8 U .S.C . § 1105a. See AE DP A § 401 (e), 110 Stat. 1268; IIRIRA § 306(b), 110 St at. 3009- 612. IIRIRA also consol idate d j ud icia l review in the c ourts o f app eals undera socall ed “z ip pe r c laus e, ” wh i ch stat ed that “judic ial review of all questi ons of law and fact, in cluding inter pretat ion an d applic ation of

consti tuti onal and statutory provi sio ns, aris ing from any acti on taken

or proc eedin g bro ugh t to remove an ali en” must take plac e in th e co urts o f ap pea ls. 8 U.S .C. § 1252( b )(9); see also 8 U .S.C . § 1252(a ). In sum, t hese prov isio ns appearedto co ns ol id at e a llap pe al s o f INS determi nations in a single action, bro ug ht only from a fina l o rder of removal, and broughtonly in the courts of appeals. See 8 U .S.C . §§ 1 252 (a)(1 ) an d (b )(9). In a ddition to seekin g to “zippe r” juri sdict ion to revi ew in the court s of appeals, AED PA an d I IRIRA excluded certain categor ies of INS decisionmaking from this app ellate jud icial re view altogether. See 8 U. S. C. § 1252 (a)(2)(C). A mong the determ in at io ns d eeme d unrevi e wa ble were so-cal led “cr iminal alie n removal cases”— final orders o f

rem ova l wh ere the alien w as rem ovab le for havi ng c ommitted cont roll ed substance offenses, aggr avate d felo nies, ce rtain firearm offens es, mi scell aneous nati onal

secu rityor de fens e-relate d cr imes, or for having multi ple convi ction s f or cri mes involving moral tur

pitude. See 8 U .S.C . § 1252(a )(2)(C); see also Patel v. Ash croft , 294 F.3d 46 5, 468 & n.3 (3d C ir. 2002). 4

See Immigrat ion Act of 199 0, § 545(b )(2), Pub. L. No. 101-649, 104 Stat. 497 8; H.R. R ep. 87- 108 6 (1 961 ), reprin ted in 196 1 U.S .C.C .A.N . 295 0, 29 67- 76. 4 At firs t blus h, a separate provi sion of th e ame n ded INA might suggest that di rectcourt of a

ppeals r eview of asy lum determ in a tions in cri minal al ien removal

cases rema ins av ailable notwiths tanding the zippe r. In add ition to e limin atin g direct r eview of cri minal al ien removal orders i n s ecti on 1252(a)( 2)(C), the amended INA also pro vides th a t

“ notwiths tanding

any other provisi on of law , . . . (ii ) no court shallhave juri sdict ion to revi ew

. . . any other decisi on or acti on of the Attorney General the a utho rity for which is

. . . in the discr etionof the Att orney Ge ner al, other than t he gr antin g of

re li ef under 8 U. S. C. § 1158(a) [asylum] of

this title .” 8 U. S. C. § 1252(a)( 2)(B) (e mphasis adde d) . One possi ble re adi ng o f s ectio n 12 52( a) (2 )( B) is that c ourts r etai n juri sdict ion to r eview7

In cases w here th e basis for removal is the commission of the crimes
enu me rated

in section 1252 the ne t effect of the 19 96 im migra ti o n law amendment

w as t o elimi nate di rect r eview by t he

cour ts of appeals of t he BIA ’ s determi nation. We so held in Liang v. INS

. 206 F.3d 308, 323 ( 3d Cir. 2000)

. 5 But t h at shifte d the iss ue of review ability ba ck to the di stri ct court s. The question

arose whether in c riminalalie n re moval cases, th e p re cl us io n of di re ct re vi ew, coupledwith the zipper c lause, elimi nated all court r evi ew, including collateral review under the originalhabeas corpus pro visio n co ntain ed in sec tion 224 1.

In Liang , we held t

hat col late ral habeas review und er sectio n 2241 survived the zipper

in criminal al ien removal cases. Id. at 323. The S uprem e Cou rt confronte d th is iss ue in St . C yr . 533 U.S. at 292. There , the Court de finitively agreed that habeas review of criminal al ien re mo val

cases unde r s ecti on 2241 was not fore clos ed by A ED PA or IIR IRA

. Id. at 314. Endorsing t

he approa ch we took in Liang and earli er d ecis ion s, S t. C yr held that, ab sent a cry stalclear repeal of ju risdi ctionto consider habeas claims b y aliens, the pro vis ion s of AED PA and II RIRA that pre clu de judici al revi ew
wo uld not be int erpret ed to repe al section 2241 juris dicti on. Id. At least part of t he reasoni ng behind this ruling was the desire to avoid the thorny

consti tuti onal questi on posed if Congress had enti rely pre-empte d

rev iew of a n alie n’s c laim s. Id. as ylum determinations notw ith standi ng the limi tati ons of section 1 252(a)(2 ) (C) . A closer reading of

section 125 2(a)(2)(B), how ever , and one that

is more cons onant with secti on 1252(a )(2)(C), is that section 125 2( a) (2 )( B) leaves untouched—neither limi ting nor augmen ti ng— the au thority

cou rts wo uld o therw ise hav e to rev ie w asy lum determ ination s. Said another w ay,
s ecti on 125 2(a)(2 )(B) is n ot a n independent

grantof autho rity for cou rts to review asylum d eterm ination s, but m erely

an exem pti on of asy lum deter minati ons from the ge neral c lass of discre tio nar y determi nations that t

he secti on makes unreviewabl e. That being t he case, the elimi nationby section 1252 (a ) (2)(C) of juri sdict ion to re vi ew any determi nationin crimina l alie n removal cases also i ncludes elimi nationof juri sdict ion to r eview asy lum determinations in t hose cases. Such a readi ng was impli cit in our holding in Ogbudimkpa v. Ashcroft , 342 F.3d 207, 213 (3d Cir . 200 3).

5 Wh ether th e c ourts o f app eals retain jurisdictio n in crim inal ali e n removal case s to con sider “ challe nges to the factualdetermi nations thoug ht to tri gg erthe jurisd icti on-stripping provisi on s (such as w heth e r an indi vidual i s an ali en and whether he or she has been convi cted of an ‘aggravated fe lony ’ withi n the meaning of the st atute )” has been t he subject of s om e de bate

. S ee CalcanoMartinez v. INS , 533 U.S . 348 , 350 n. 2 (2001). We have read the st atute to all ow such juris dicti ona l rev iew

. See Drakes v. Zimski , 240 F.3d 246, 247 (3d Cir. 2001)

.8

Through its decisio n in St . C yr , the Cou rt divide d the la ndsc ape o f immi grati on re vi ew i nt o two p arts . N o n
crimin a l alie ns ret ain a ri ght under t he statute to defer entia l, but still substantive, direct review in the courts of appeals. See 8 U .S .C. § 1 252 (a)(1); Dia v. Ashcroft , 353 F.3d 22 8 (3d C ir. 2003) (en ba nc). Criminalalie ns have no r i ght to direct

re vi ew, but ret ain the resi dual right to seek reli ef und er the tra ditiona l h a beas st atute

. See St. C yr , 533 U.S. at 314. Havi ng
res o lvedthis thres hold jurisdi ctiona l is sue, the Court speci fical ly

lef t open the scope of review avai lable under resi dual secti on 224 1. Th at set

the st age for what has bec ome the most r ece nt chapter in the debate: Precis ely

what kinds of

chall enges
are co gniz able i n crimina l ali en removal habeas petitions?

III

. In answering t

his question we do not paint on a blank canvas.
The Suprem e Cou rt and this Co urt h ave recent ly

constr ued the range o f secti on 224 1 rev iew a t leastso fa r as to establishwhat it comprehends a t a min imu m. In St . C yr , the Suprem e Cou rt rejec tedthe Government’ s argument t hat classic habe as rev iew e ncom passe d on ly review of su bstan tial con stitutio nal or juri sdict ional que st io ns. The S upr eme Cou rt ruled that “pure quest i ons of law”—such as wh ether t he Attorney General had legalau thori ty to waive

remo val— fell within t he a mb it o f tradi tionalhabeas rev iew

. Id. at 301 . This Cou rt has recently

inter preted s uch q uesti ons to include issue s of appli cati on

of law to fac t, where the facts are undisput ed and n ot the su bje ct of cha ll enge. Ogbudimkpa v. Ashcroft , 342 F.3d 20 7, 222 (3d Cir. 2003 ). 6

But if that marks th e minimum review availa ble u nder genera l habeas corpus, does it

also mark t

he max i mum
re vi ew? O r, as Bakh triger contends, are fede ral courts in habeas c ases ent itl ed t o address wh et her removalof a cri minal alie n, wh ile not e rrone ous a s a m att er of consti tuti onal or statutory interpre tation, is

n evertheless an abuse of di scret ion or

un su pportedby subs tanti al evi dence? This, of course, is the AP A-style standard of review that is afforded when court s of appe als directly

review deci sions of t he BIA , as is pe rmitt ed in the ca ses of noncrimina l alien s. 8 U.S.C . § 1252(a )(1);

see , Dia , 353 F.3d at

228.

6 In Sol v. INS , 274 F.3d 648, 651 (2d Cir. 2001), t

he Second Circui t read our earli erdecisio n in Catneyv. INS , 178 F.3d 190, 1 95 (3d Cir. 1999), as holding t hat secti on 2241 review does not em brace “‘d enial of d iscretion ary relief to a crimina l alie n .’” Res pectf ully , thi s readi ng of our decis ion in Catneywa s in corre ct. Wh ile the cont ext of our c omment on scope of revie w may have been somewhat ambiguous, it ac tually r elat ed to review on direct appeal of a depor

tati on orderfrom the BIA , and d id no t a ddr ess habeas review

. At an y rate, the S econ d C ircuit

correc tlyan ti ci pa te d the pos itio n tha t we now take in this deci sion.9

We belie ve t ha t, unde r sect ion 2241, habeas proce edings do not embrace review of the exerci se of discr etion, or the suf fici encyof the evi dence. Our conclusi on is s upported by the his tory

of in terpr etat ion of the gener al habe a s provisi on over the years; by the structure of the immigr at io n law s as am ende d in 1996; and by t

he reasoni ng of St . C yr its elf.
A.
Over a c en tury ago, Congress enactedan earl y ver sion of a zipper clause bymandating that e xclusi on decisi ons of immigrat ion offic ials w ere to b e fina l, subject only to revi ew within t

he executi ve branch. Act of March 3, 1891, c. 517, § 5; 26 Stat. 827, 828 , 1115. Sh ortly thereafter, the Supr em e Court consi dered an appeal from the deni al of a wri t of habeas corpus byan excluded ci tize n of Jap an. The Cou rt ackn ow ledge d th at because the alien’s liber

ty was restr ained, she was “dou btles s entitled to a writ of habeas corpus to asce rtain w hethe r the res traint is la wf ul.” Ekiu v. Unit ed State s , 142 U.S

. 651, 660 (1892) (italics i n or iginal ). But the court observed: [T]he final determi nationof those facts may be ent

ruste d byCongress to e xecuti ve officers; and in such acase,
as in al l o thers , in whic h a statute gives a discretiona ry power to an officer , to be exerci sed by hi m upon hi s
own opinionof certain facts, he is mad e the so le and exclus ive j udge of the exist ence of those facts, and

no other tribunal, unless expr essly authori zed by l aw to do so , is at liberty to reexamine or contr over t the suffici encyof the evi dence on which he acted.
Id.
Un til the 1952 amendments t o the immigrat ion law al lo wedbr oa de r AP Astyl e ju dicial review f or IN S determinations, the Court ha d hewed main lyto this circumscribed scope of

re vi ew, wit h slig ht m odi fica tion

. See Y am ata ya v. Fis her , 189 U.S. 86 , 97, 102 (1903); United Stat es ex rel . Vajt auer v. Co mm is sion erof Immigrat ion at Por t of New York , 273 U.S . 1 03 (192 7); Bridges v. Wixon , 326 U.S. 135, 149, 156 (19 45); Estep v. Unite d States , 327 U.S. 114, 122- 23 & n.14 (1946). So long as there was suffici ent procedu ral fairness to com port with due process , court s were not to “weigh the ev idenc e” an d w ere req uired to honor the a dminist

rati ve decisi ons “even though they

may be erroneous .” Estep , 327 U.S. at 122. 7

7 Both Va

jta ue r and Estep indicated that the writ of habeas corpus might i ssue wh ere ther e is “ no b asis i n fa ct”— i.e., no evidence—for a de term inati on. Se e Vajtauer , 273 U.S. at 110; Estep , 327 U.S. at 122 . This may have been either as a matter of revie wing the legal basis f or the agenc y ’s juris dicti on, Estep , 327 U.S. at 122-23, or as a ma tter o f du e pr oce ss, see10

As we have alrea dyobserved, when the passage of t

he APA in 1946 first

rais ed t he prosp ect tha t imm igration decisio n s mightbe revie wable under the broader standar ds of a bu se of dis creti on and substantial evidence , the Supre me Cou rt spec ifically re

ject ed that

approach i n the cont extof h abe as c orp us. He ikkila , 3 4 5 U.S. at 236-37. The Court held th at, whateverthe min or adjus tments in the

measu re of habeas review over the years, habeas co rpus must alway s be based on bedrockrequir ements of due pr oce ss, rather than the “v ery differen t . . . statutory [i.e., APA] standard of rev iew , e.g., decidi ng on ‘the whole r ecord’ wh ether there is subs tanti al evi dence to support administ rati ve findings of fact. ” Id. at 236. Heikki la concluded t hat “i t is the scope of i nq uiry

on habeas corpus that differe ntiat es use of the writ from judic ial review as th at t erm is use d in the Administr ative Procedure Act. ” Id.
U nite d States ex rel Accar di v. Shaughness y , 3 47 U .S. 260 (195 4), is particu larly instructi ve on this point. The habeas corpus pet iti on in that case was based, i nter alia , on the argument that the Attorney General hadi mp ermis sibly inter feredwith the discr etionthat ha d been delegat ed by regu latio ns to th e BI A, ther eb yviolating thos e regulations . The Supreme Co urt held that t his transgre ssion of the regul ations violat ed due process and warranted anew hearing.

But the pet iti oner als o rais ed the content ion that “‘in all s i milar c ases the [BI A] ha[d] exerc ised favor abl e discretion.’” Id. at 26 4 n.5. T his

ar gum ent was r ej ect ed b yth e Supr eme Co urt, w hich p ointed ly observ ed:

It is i mportant to emphasize thatwe are no t her e reviewing and revers ing the

manner in w hic h discr etion

was exe rcise d. If

such w ere the case we would be discuss ing the ev idenc e in the record s upporti ng or undermining t he alien’s claim to dis creti onary

reli ef. Rather , w e object

to the B oard’s alle ged failure t o exercise its own discret ion, contrary to existin g valid regulations.
Id. at 268.
De spite the Court’ s essential constancy in restricting the us e of habeas corpus to a sse rti ons of const itutional or statutoryv iolati ons, the statutory lan dscape changed in 1952. Congress’s choice i n the 1952 imm igration law a men dm ents n ot to expr essly su pe rse de or m od ify t h e APA for immigrat ion determ ination s effe ctively broa dened the scope of judici al revi ew of INS dete rmin ation s. See Shaughnessy v. Perdiero , 349 U .S. at

51-52. I n point of fact, the broad e ned scope of revi ew was literally applic able o nly to direct appeal of INS dete rmin ation s un der the A PA

. But it

was not long bef

ore court s viewed He ikkila 345 U.S . at 235 -36 & n. 11; see also Mahler v. Eby , 264 U.S. 32, 41-42 (1924); Zak onaite v. W olf, 2 26 U.S. 272, 274 (19 12).11

Congress a s having int ended to augment tradi tionalhabe as rev ie w with broader AP A-style rev iew

. Com pare Jayv. B oyd , 351 US . 345 , 3 54- 55 (1956) (e xplaining that executi ve d iscr etion to suspend deportation is “a matter of gr ace” and “unfet tered

discretion”) with United Stat es
ex rel Hintopolous v. Shaughness y , 3 53 U.S. 72, 77 (1957) (rej ecti ng a c halle nge to suspensi on base d on clai m of abuse of discre ti o n and arbit

rary and capri cious reasoning ). 8 Put another way, in effect

cour ts began t

reating APA judici al review

as one o f the l aws of the Unite d States enforceabl e through t

he habeas st atute

. Once the habea s pro vis ions of t he immigrat ion stat

ute w e re added i n 1961, they were viewed as co nsist ent with a stan dard of judic ial r eview call ing for AP A-style examinati on of the exer cise o f discr etionand subst ant iality of evidence. In Mo ret v. Karn , this Court read the 1952 immi grati o n ame ndm ents (a s supplemente d by the 19 61 leg is lat ion) to require that in habeas cases: [T]he a ppropriate stand ard of review in s uch cas es is whether th e a ge nc y’ s decisi on is “arbitra ry , capricious, an d abuse of discr etionor other

wise not in acco rdan ce w ith the law .” 5 U.S.C. § 706( 2) (A) [the AP A].

. . . This s tandard of

review is consi stent w ith th e legislativ e hist ory

of the Immigrat ion a nd Nationa lity Ac t of 1 952

. . . . 746 F .2d 989, 99 1 (3d C ir. 1984). 9

It seems f

air to say , the n, that classic immigrat ion cases under section 2241 before 195 2 were revie wed for consti tuti onal and legalerror only , and that immigrat ion cases that a ro se under t he habeas writ betw een 19 52 and 1996 w ere treat ed under the s ame standar d of revie w as dir ectappeals f

rom the BIA

— that is to

sa y, under broader

APA review of 8 Because the Cou rt in Hintopolous rejec teda chall enge based on ab use o f discre ti on, the co urt did n ot actu ally conside r w hether s uch a chall enge was with in the scope of h abe as re view

. See Hintopolous , 353 U.S. at 78-79. Decisions durin g th e 1961 to 1996 time-f rame, how ever, appea r to t reat t he APA standar d of revie w as ap plic able withoutany di sti nction be twee n d irect review under ol d secti on 1105a(a) and habeas corpus under

old section 1105a (b). See, e.g. , Mo ndrago n v. Ilchert , 653 F.2 d 125 4, 12 55- 56 ( 9th Cir . 198 0). 9 Some of the court s adopti ng the view that s ecti on 1105a creat ed a basis for habeas corpus j urisdi ction independent f rom 28 U.S.C. § 2241 have found t ha t , from 1961 to 1996, bro ader re vie w was availa ble exclusi vely

through 1105a habeas , an d that 2 241 habe as w as av ailable only to ali ens asser

ting cons tit

utionalor stat utory vio latio ns. See Gut ierrez-Chave z
v. INS , 298 F.3d 82 4, 827-28 (9th Cir. 200 2).12

discr etionand of the suffi ciency of the evidence.

B.
That brings us to the 1996

am e ndm ents und er

AEDPA and I IRI RA. The government i niti ally advocated t

hat the a mendments to t

he INA enacted by AEDPA andII RI RA be treated as precluding all judic ia l examination of removal determinations in t he case s of crimina l al iens. T he S upre me C ourt, how ever, rejec ted that view

. See St . C yr , 533 U.S. at 312. The Court held t hat Congress succeeded onl y i n repea lin g direct appe llate revie w of such cases and the specialimmigrat ion habeas provisi ons of secti on 1105a; what re mained was the origi nal secti on 2241 habeas re m ed y. That f act in it self s uggests t hat the scope of review one would expect t o find under t he resi dual secti on 2241 is no gre ater t han what exis ted befo re Co ngre ss beg an to graftAPA-styl e revie w onto ha beas juri sdict ion in 1952.

To be s ure , St . C yr does not explic itlyset for

th the boundari es of habeas review of removalacti ons under secti on 2241, nor does it expressly address whether review of disc r etion o r administ rati ve fact- finding i s avail ab le

. Se e Sol , 274 F.3d at 651. But the act ual reasoni n g in the St . C yr decisio n com pels the conclusi on that unde r sect ion 2241 as it current ly

stands, the broade r speci es o f review for subst antia l evide nce and abuse of di scre tion t

ypi cal of APA challenges must be who lly

out of bounds.

In St . C yr , the Cou rt confronte d the 19 96 statutory “z ipper” langu age th a t states:
Judi ci al review of all questi ons of law an d fac t, including inter

pretation and applic ationof

consti tuti onal and statutory

provisions, aris ing from any a ction taken or proceeding brought to remove an alie n from the UnitedStates u nder this subchapter

s hall be availa ble only in judi cial review of a fi nal order und er thi s secti on.
8 U.S.C . § 1252(b )(9). The judici al revi ew secti on, 8 U .S.C. § 125 2, in turn provides for direct re view by the co urts of appe als of BIA decis io ns, but

prohibi ts i t in t

he case of criminal ali ens. The meaning of the t erm “judi cial

re vie w” became the cr iti cal i nterpr etive issue prese nte d to the Sup reme C ourt. If judici al review mea nt all review by any
cour t, as t he government and t he dissenting Justi ces urged, then the zipper cl aus e and the cr iminalalie n preclus ion clause, taken t ogether, made r e moval of crimina l alie ns tot ally

unreviewabl e under the st at ut orysc he me. If

“j udi ci al re vi ew”

was a term o f art referring only to a c ertain type of court r eview, however, then what

was pre cl uded was not allreview by the courts , but only r eview of a cert ain kind.
The majo rity in St . C yr adopted the latt er inter

pretation, s ei zin g upon the earli erdecisi on in He ikkila to differentia te between “

ju dicial rev iew” in a sp ecific13

sense, and cour t re view under the tr ad iti onal hab eas wr it. See St . C yr , 533 U.S. a t 312 (ci ting He ikkila ). The C ourt declar ed: “In t he im migra tion co ntext, ‘judi cial review’ and ‘ habeas corpus’ have histori call ydist inct meanings.” St . C yr , 533 U.S. at

311 (citing He ikkila , 345 U.S. at 236 ). But for t his di sti nction to make

sense in reading the 1996 zi pper amendm ents, there ha d to b e s ome si gnific antdiffere nce between the scope of review und er “jud ic ial review” and t hat und er section 2241 habeas corpus. Otherw ise, the amendm ents’ withdr awal of “judic ial review ” on th e one hand wo uld be nu lli fied on the other hand by t he retention of

habe as co rp us wi th i dentic al scope of cou rt review. In othe r w ords , a defini ti on of habeas corpus juri sdict ion that made the scope of clai ms availa ble on habeas revi ew coextensi ve with the s cope of claim s ava ilable o n direc t review wo uld

nece ssarily render t

he precl usion provisi on of AED PA and IIRIRA utterly point less and would creat e an int ernal contradi ction wit hin the im mig ratio n sta tutes

. As a matter

of logi c, therefore, the Cou rt necess a ril y r ecognized t hat the “limi tedrole pl ayed by the c o urts in habeas corpus proc eedings was fa r
nar rower than th e judic ia l revie w authori zed by t

he APA.” Id. at 312. In effe ct, the Court r eaffir med the rul e set forth in He ik kila

. And by drawing t hat dist incti on as to sc ope of re vi ew, the Cou rt

was able t o gi v e meaning to t he 1996 statutory prec lusi on provisi on. For under this interpretation, AE DP A an d IIR I RA succeededinpr ec lu di ng b ro ad erAPAstyle “

judici al revi ew” for crimi nal al iens byelimin ating d irect “jud icial revie w” in the court s of appeals. What remained for cri min al aliens facing remo val w as on ly the core section 2241 habeas provisi on with its narro wer scope of pure l egal

re vi ew. The Su p reme Court i n St . C yr also addresse d the provisi on of AED PA that spec ifically eli mina ted one of t he 1961 specialhabeas provisions of th e INA, by delet ing 8 U. S. C. § 1105 a(a)(10). St . C yr , 53 3 U.S. at 308- 10. The Court hel d that the repeal of t his sec tion 1105a s pecial habeas provisi ons did not impli citly r epeal the resi du al h abeas st atute , section 2241. Again, that interpre tat ion can make sense only if, a s we hav e seen , section 2241 resi dual habe as co rpus is u nder stood to carry a more li mited scope of review than the broader APA-style revi ew which the

cour ts applie d under section 1105a

. See Gut ie rr ez- Ch avez v. INS , 298 F.3d 824, 828 (9th Cir . 2002). Were secti on 1105a review and secti on 2241 review to have identi cal scope, t

he repealby AEDPA and II RIRA of the former—and not the latter— wo uld appear t o be a vain or incom plete leg islative a ct.
In sho rt, to accept B akhtriger’s content ion here that section 2241 habeas review incorpor ates an e xaminati on of the exercise of d iscretio n or weight of the

ev id ence in the unde rlying removal proceedi ngs would be to era s e t he dist incti on bet we en “judi cial review” and habeas review that was an in dispe nsab le ingredi ent in the r easoning of St . C yr

. See 533 U.S. at 311 -12. Bak htriger’s14

argumentw ould also wholly nul lify the content of the pre clusi on provisi ons t hat Congress enacted and would de fy deca des of the his tory

of inte rpret ation of

secti on 2241. Ac cor din gly, we belie ve that the scope of review under section 2241 m ust be confined to questi ons of const itutional

an d s tatuto ry

law.
Our interpret ation is consistentwith decisi ons in other

circuits. In the wake of St. C yr , we are not

aware of anycases t

hat ha ve upheld habeas review of fact ual findings or discretionary determ ination s in crimin al alien re mo val ca ses. R ather, a ll

c i rcuits to deci de the i ssue have l imit ed

cr imi nal alien habeas petiti ons t o consti tuti onal ch al le nge s o r e rr or s o f l aw. See Bravo v. Ashcroft , 341 F.3d590, 592- 93 (5th Cir. 20 03); Gutierr ez-Chavez , 298 F.3d at 828 ; Carranzav. INS , 277 F.3d 65, 72 (1st C ir. 2002 ); Sol , 274 F. 3d at 651; Bo wrin v. INS , 194 F.3d 483, 490 (4th Cir. 1999). 10 We jo inth em.

IV.
Bak ih triger’s habe as pe titio n chall enge s bo th the unde rpinni ngs of the BIA factualfinding s and the B IA’s decisi on not to exercise discr etionin favor of asy lum. For t

he reasons stat ed above, these matters are not revi ewable under t he resi dual hab eas pro visio n— 28 U .S .C. § 2241. Indeed, the B IA’s determi nation t ha t the circumstances of Bakhtriger’s case do not ris e to the lev el of o ther ca ses in which the authorit ies have exerc ised the ir discr etionin favor of as ylum is p recisely the sort of

applic ation of

discr etion t

hat the Supr eme Co urt dec lined to review in Accardi , 347 U. S. at 26 4. In Accardi , the petitioner’s cha llenge to the e xercis e of discr etionby t

he immigrat ion offici als was effe ctively the same as t hat mounted by Bakhtrige r—the “alle gation t hat the ap p ellant was treat ed differ ently from other alie ns simi larly situate d. ” 2 06 F.2d at901. The Suprem e Court express l y affirmedthe cour t of ap peals in its refusal to enterta in t hat chal lenge t o discr etion (alt hough the Court ultimat ely revers ed on another gro und ). Accardi , 347 U.S. at 264

n. 5. W e rejec t B akhtri ger’s i dentic al chall enge to di scret ion here. Perhaps recog nizing that his e ffort t o obtain r eview of disc reti on and evidence

wo uld be ill-fated, B akhtrig er tries to

re p ackage these cl aims as matters of law bypointing out that

the r easo n he is subject to rem oval is p ursua nt to a la w of the UnitedStates , and thatthe “subs tanti al evidence” stand ard u nder AP A-style review is esta blis hed as a le ga l requ ireme nt. The fact that the re ar e leg al principles th at govern these matters, however, does not conv ert every questi on of fact or discre tion into a que st io n of law. If it did, rivers of inkexpended in cas e law disting uis hin g between legaland factual 10 Yang v. INS , 109 F.3d 1185, 1195-96 (7th C ir . 19 97) takes th e s ame posit ion, but we do not rely on it because the Seventh Circ uit appe ars t o have rel ied in part onits view that IIRIRA had

a bolis hed review under s ecti on 224 1, a po sit io n l ate r re pu di ate d b y St . C yr

.15

questi ons would have b een s pill ed for no

reason. Similarly , al though r evie w as a matter of law encompasses de cid ing whetherlegal principles have be en prop erly a p plied to u ndi spu ted facts , see Ogbudimkpa , 342 F.3d at 222, it does not

e ncompass deciding the factual is su e s themselves.

We will not

de li neate the precise boundaries between permit ted revi ew of legalquesti ons and forbi dden revie w of fa ctual issues o r matte rs of d iscretion in thi s opinion. What is cl ear in t his cas e i s that the revi ew Bakh trig er seek s is squarel y onthe forbidden s ide of the line

. The Distri ct Court c orrect ly determi ned that it l acked jur isdi ction to review the clai ms in Bakhtri ger’s ha beas petition.

V.
For th e f or eg oi ng r ea so ns , w e will affirm the jud gm ent of

the D istrict Co urt.