T hi s di s pos i t i on i s n o t ap p ro p ri at e fo r p u b l i c a t i on a nd i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by N i nth C i r c ui tR ul e 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T
S A M IH H U S S E IN Z A B A D I, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R J R ., A tto rn e y G e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 05- 76565 A ge nc y N o. A 070- 830- 132
ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o a r d o f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d D e c e m be r7, 2010 S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia
B efo re: R E IN H A R D T , H A W K IN S , an d N . R . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. S a m ih H u s s e in Z a b a d i ( “Z a b a d i” ) , c o n v ic te d o f s e x u a l a b u s e o f

a m in o rin C a l i f orni a a nd s ubj e c t e d t o de por t a t i on pr oc e e di ngs thr ough D e pa r tm e ntof H om e l a nd S e c ur i ty ’ s ( “ D H S ” ) “ O pe r a t i on P r e da t o r” p rogr a m , s e e ks r e vi e w of a f i na l or de rof 

# FI LED JAN 04 2 011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSZ abadi ’ s d eport at i on proceedi ng s c om m ence d i n M ay 19 96 , bu tthe fi nal order 1 di d n oti ss ue un t i l N ov em ber 200 5. T hu s, Z abadi ’ s d ep o rtation p roce edi ng w as pe ndi ng w he n C ongr e s s pa s s e d the I l l e ga l I m m i gr a t i on R e f or m a nd Im m i gr a nt R e s pons i bi l i ty A c tof

1996, P ub. L . N o. 104- 208, 110 S t a t . 3009 ( 1996) , i n J ul y 1996.

2 de por t a t i on, a r gui ng the B oa r d of I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ( “ B I A ” ) e rred w h en i t( 1) 1
r e v e r s e d th e I m m ig r a tio n J u d g e ’s ( “I J ” ) d is c r e tio n a ry g r a n t o f w a iv e ro f

in a d m is s ib ility
u n d er Im m i g rat i o n an d N at i o n al i ty A ct(“ IN A ”) § 2 1 2 (h ), an d (2 ) st at ed , i n th e co u rse of af fi rm i ng the IJ ’ s d eni al of D H S ’ s request t o desi gn at e Jordan and Isr ae l as coun tri es f o rd e p o r t a t i o n , th a tn o th i n g i n i t s o p i n i o n b a rr e d DH S f r o m a c t i n g “ o n i t s o wn
a u th o r ity ” to d e s ig n a te a c o u n try . W e d e n y th e p e titio n f o rr e v ie w a s to a ll c la im s . R ev ersal of D isc re tion ary G ran t of § 2 12 (h

) R el ief Z abadi ar gu es thathi s due proces s r i gh t s w er e vi ol at ed w hen t he B IA re vers ed the I J ’ s di s c r e t i ona ry f

a vor a bl e gr a ntof

w a i ve rof

i na dm i s s i bi l i ty unde r§ 212( h) a nd adj ustm entof st atus un der I N A § 2 45 because the B IA ac t ed pu rs uantt o an est abl i shed pol i c y of c a t e gor i c a l l y de ny i ng § 212( h) r e l i e f t o a l i e ns appr e he nded thr ough O pera t i on P re dat or, and because D H S prosec ut ors and other off i ci al s e xert ed i m prop er i nfl uence over the E xecut i ve O ff i ce for Im m i grat i on R evi ew ’ s (“ E O IR ”) adj ud i ca t ors th r o u g h , i n t e ra l i a , a d v e r t i s i n g c a mp a i g n s a n d e x p a r t e c o mmu n i c a t i o n s . Z a ba di p r i ma r i l y r e q u e s t s tr a n s f e rt o a d i s tr i c tc o u r tf

o rf a c tu a l d e v e l o p me n to f

th e s e c l a i ms3

unde r28 U
. S
. C
. § 2347( b) ( 3) , buta r gue s i n the a l t e rna t i ve f orr e ve r s a l a nd r e m a nd f or
a f u ll a n d f a ird e te r m in a tio n o f

h is e lig ib ility f

o r§ 2 1 2 ( h ) r e lie f

. N o C o lo r a b le C o n s titu tio n a l C la im A l tho ug h 8 U . S
. C
. §§ 12 52 (a )( 2)(B )( i ), (a )( 2)(C ) barthis co urt ’ s r evi ew of an I J ’s o rth e B I A ’s d is c r e tio n a ry d e c is io n to d e n y r e lie f , w e n o n e th e le s s r e ta in j ur i s di c t i on t o e nt e r t a i n “ c ons t i tut i ona l c l a i m s or que s t i ons of l a w r a i s e d upon pe t i t i on f o rr e v ie w f

ile d w ith a n ap p r o p r ia te c o u r t o f ap p e a ls [ .]” 8 U .S .C
. § 1 2 5 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( D ) ; se e Mendez- C astro v. Mukasey , 552 F . 3d 975, 978 ( 9th C i r . 2009) ( c i t i ng M ar t i nez - R os as
v . G on z al es , 4 2 4 F .3 d 9 2 6 , 9 3 0 (9 th C i r. 2 0 0 5 )). T h i s i s b ecau se “ a d u e p ro cess vi ol at i on [by the B IA ] i s notan exerc i se of di sc re t i on . ” Re y e s - Me l e ndez v . I

NS , 342 F .3 d 1 0 0 1 , 1 0 0 8 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 )
. H o w e v e r , “a p e titio n e rm a y n o t c r e a t e t h e ju r is d ic tio n th a t C o n g r e s s c h o s e to
r e m o v e s im p ly b y c lo a k in g a n a b u s e o f d is c r e tio n a r g u m e n t in c o n s titu tio n a l g a rb .” To r r e s -Ag u i la rv . I

NS , 246 F
. 3d 1267, 1271 ( 9th C i r . 2001)
. R a the r , he “ m us ta l l e ge at l ea st a col orabl e c on st i tut i on al vi ol at i on . ” I d. ; see a l so Me n dez - C a s tr o , 55 2 F
. 3d at 978. “ T o be c ol or a bl e i n thi s c ont e xt , the a l l e ge d vi ol a t i on ne e d notbe s ubs t a nt i a l , but the cl ai m m u st h av e s om e possi bl e val i di ty. ” M ar t i nez - R os as , 424 F
. 3d a t930 ( quot i ng T

or r e s -A gui lar , 24 6 F
. 3d at12 71 ) ( i nt ernal qu ot at i on m arks om i tt ed).4

Z a ba di ’ s c l a i m s do notr i s e t o thi s l e ve l
. A l though the F i f th A m e ndm e nt g u a r a n te e s a n a lie n d u e p r o c e s s in d e p o r ta tio n p r o c e e d in g s , in c lu d in g th e r ig h t to a f u ll and fai r hea ri ng , an i m part i al adj ud i ca t or, and eval uat i on of the m er i t s of hi s part i cul ar
c a s e , s e e T

or r e s -A gui lar , 24 6 F
. 3d at12 70 , no ne of Z abadi ’ s a l l egat i on s or proff er ed
e v id e n c e d e m o n s tr a te s th a t h e w a s d e p r iv e d o f th e s e r ig h ts . I n f

a c t, th e B I A e x p lic itly
a c know l e dge d h i s out s t a ndi ng e qui t i e s , butul t i m a t e l y f ound–i n a r e a s one d a nd th o r o u g h o p in io n e x a m in in g th e e v id e n c e c o n s id e r e d b y th e I J in h is c a s e
– th a t it w o u ld stil l d en y r elief in th e e x er cise o f d iscr et io n b ec au se th e f ac to rs su p p o rtin g th e I J’s fa v o ra b le g ra n t co u ld n o t o v er co m e th e “ex trem ely s er io u s n at u r e” o f Z ab ad i’ s p a r tic u la rc r im e . F u r th e r , th e e v id e n c e Z a b a d i p r o f f e r s f a ils to s h o w a p la u s ib le
c onne c t i on be tw e e n D H S a c t i ons , I J r a t e s f orden i al o f d i s c r e t i ona ry r e l i e f , a nd a ny b i as o r p rej u d g m en t o n th e p arto f th e B IA as a d i st i n ctsu b seto f E O IR ad j u d i cat o rs. Z abadi si m pl y has no t show n that any po l i cy of ca t egori ca l prej ud gm ent exi st s, no r that
a n y s u c h b ia s w a s ap p lie d in h is c a s e . Z a ba di ’ s f

a i l ur e t o i de nt i f

y a c ol or a bl e c ons t i tu t i o n al c l a i m i n the pe t i t i on or
reco rd d ep ri v es th i s co u rto f ju r isd i ct i o n t o co n si d er h i s p et i t i o n o n th e m eri t s. Me ndez - C a st ro , 5 5 2 F .3 d a t 9 7 8 ; T or r e s -A gui lar , 24 6 F
. 3d at12 71
. B ec ause a d e m o n s tr a b ly c o l o r a b le c la im is a ls o a p r e r e q u is ite to a § 2 3 4 7 ( b ) ( 3 ) tr a n s f e r , se e5

G a llo

-A lv a r ezv . A s h c r o ft , 266 F
. 3d 1123, 1129 ( 9th C i r . 2001) , both the pet i t i on f or
r e vi e w of

Z a ba di ’ s c ons t i tut i ona l c l a i m s a nd hi s m ot i on t o tr a ns f e rm us tbe de ni e d. Cou n tr y D e s i gn ation T h e B I A u ltim a te ly a f

f ir m e d th e I J ’s d e te r m in a tio n th a t K u w a i t w a s th e o n ly p r o p e r ly d e s ig n a te d c o u n try f o rd e p o r ta tio n , a s w e ll a s its r e je c tio n o f

D H S ’s r e q u e s ts to d e s ig n a te J o r d a n a n d I s r a e l. Z a b a d i d id n o t c o n te s t th e d e s ig n a tio n o f K u w a it in h is pet i t i on oron app e a l t o the BI A
. A l tho ug h the BI A de c i de d the i s s ue i n h i s f a vor, Z a ba di a r gue s tha tthe B I A e rr e d i n a c c om pa ny i ng i t s a f f i r m a t i on w i th the s t a t e m e nt tha t “ n o t h i n g i n e i the rthi s B oa r d’ s or de rorthe I m m i gr a t i on J udge ’ s rul i ng be l ow f orbi ds the D H S f

r om a c t i ng on i t s ow n a uthor i ty t o de s i gna t e ac ountry , orf orbi ds the pa r t i e s f r om l i t i ga t i ng tha ti s s ue i n a ny f orum out s i de of t h e E x e c ut i ve O f f i c e of Im m i grat i on R evi ew . ” Z abadi chal l enges the B IA ’ s l egal anal ys i s, ar gu i ng thati n so st at i ng , the B IA
e f f e c t i ve l y gr a nt e d D H S a f r e e l i c e ns e t o de por thi m t o a ny c ountry w i thoutnot i c e , a nd
w i thouta ny a ve nue f

or j udi c i a l r e vi e w , i n vi ol a t i on of the s t a tut or y r e gi m e gove rni ng
c o u n try d e s ig n a tio n u n d e rf o r m e r I N A § 2 4 3 ( a ) ( 7 ) . A s s u c h , h e u r g e s th is c o u r t to
exer ci se j uri sdi ct i on to deci de the l egal qu es t i on of thatse ct i on ’ s proper s t atut ory i n t erp ret at i o n i n l i g h to f su b seq u en t l y en act ed reg u l at i o n s.6

H ow e ve r , be c a us e Z a ba di ha s pr ovi de d no e vi de nc e ora r gum e nttha tde por t a t i on to a d e s tin a tio n o u ts id e K u w a it is lik e ly o rim m in e n t, th e r e ap p e a r s to b e n o c u rr e n tly
r e dr e s s a bl e i nj ury . T he r e i s s i m pl y nothi ng de m ons tr a t i ng tha t the ha r m Z a ba di s e e ks to a v o id w ill e v e rh ap p e n , m u c h le s s th a t it is lik e ly to o c c u r . A s s u c h , h is c la i m is
u n r ip e b e c a u s e th e th r e a t o f in ju ry Z a b a d i a lle g e s “‘r e s ts u p o n c o n tin g e n t f u tu r e e v e n ts thatm ay no toccur as ant ic i pat ed, or i nd ee d m ay no toccur atal l
. ’ ” B ov a v . C i t y of Med f o rd , 564 F . 3d 1093, 1096 ( 9th C i r . 2009) ( c i t i ng T ex as v. U ni t ed Stat es , 5 2 3 U . S. 2 9 6 , 3 0 0 ( 1 9 9 8 ) )
. C

f
. R en o v. C a th o l i c So c. Servs. , 509 U
. S
. 43, 57 ( 1993) ( r e qui r i ng tha ta l i e n pr e s e ntr i pe c l a i m t o m e r i tj udi c i a l r e vi e w o f o rd e ra f f e c t i ng a dj us tm e ntof
s ta tu s ap p lic a tio n ) ; Sh e v. H older , — F . 3d

— , N o. 06 -717 94 , 20 10 U . S
. A pp . L E X IS 25426, a t* 1 5
- 1 7 ( 9 th Ci r . 2 0 1 0 ) ( I J c o rr e c t l y tr e a t e d a s u n r i p e i n i n i t i a l p r o c e e di ngs pet i t i on er ’ s app l i ca t i on s f or C A T prot ec t i on and w i thh old i ng of re m ov al t o B urm a,
w he r e T a i w a n w a s the pr opos e d c ountry of r e m ova l a nd the r e w a s no e vi de nc e tha tthe gove rnm e ntw oul d r e m ove he r t o B ur m a ; pe t i t i one rc oul d m ove t o r e ope n pr oc e e di ngs and r ea ss ert her appl i ca t i on s and due proces s cl ai m s i f D H S ch an g ed coun try d e s ig n a tio n a f

te rf in a l o r d e ris s u e d .)
. U r gi ng tha tthi s i s hi s o n l y fo rum f orr e vi e w of

hi s l e ga l c l a i m be c a us e of the
s t atu t o ry l i m i t a t i ons s e tf or th i n 8 U
. S
. C
. §§ 1252( a ) ( 1) , ( b) ( 9) , a nd ( g) , Z a ba di
r e p e a te d ly e x p r e s s e s f

e a rth a t h e w ill b e “w h is k e d a w a y ” in th e m id d le o f th e n ig h t,7

de port ed an yw h e r e i n the w or l d, a nd l e f tw i th no f

orum orpos s i bi l i ty of

c ha l l e ngi ng de por t a t i on t o a c ountry i n w hi c h he m i ghts uf f e rt or ture o r pe r s e c ut i on. T he gove rnm e nta gr e e d a tor a l a r gum e nt tha t i f the c our t w e r e t o f i nd Z a ba di ’ s c l a i m unr i pe he r e , i t w o u l d refrai n f r om de por t i ng Z a ba di a ta t i m e a nd i n s uc h a m a nne rtha the
w ou l d b e u nabl e m ea ni ng ful l y t o chal l enge the go vernm ent ’ s des i gn at i on of anot her
c o u n try f

o rd e p o r ta tio n . I t f

u r th e ra g r e e d th a t, if

it l a te rd e c id e d to c h a n g e its d e s ig n a tio n f

r o m K u w a it t o a n y o th e rc o u n try , it w o u ld n o t o p p o s e a n ap p r o p r ia te pe t i t i on orappe a l by Z a ba di f orr e vi e w of

the ne w c ountry de s i gna t i on on the gr ounds tha t( 1) §§ 1252( a ) ( 1) or ( b) ( 9) ba r s c ha l l e nge i n a ny f orum out s i de thi s pe t i t i on, or( 2) § 1 25 2(g) bars chal l enge of D H S ’ s a ct i on s i n u ni l at er al l y des i gn at ing a coun try af t er im m ig r a tio n c o u r ts is s u e th e f in a l o r d e ro f

d e p o r ta tio n . T a k in g th e g o v e rn m e n t a t its w o r d , w e f in d Z a b a d i’s p e ti t i o n f

o rr e v ie w o f

h is le g a l c la im u n r ip e a t th is s ta g e o f th e p r o c e e d in g s . W e a r e th u s w ith o u t ju r is d ic tio n to
c ons i de ri t . S h o ul d D H S de c i de t o c ha nge the de s i gna t e d c ountry of de por t a t i on, Z a b a d i’s c la im w ill r ip e n , a n d h e w ill b e f r e e to p u r s u e ap p r o p r ia te le g a l r e m e d ie s . P E T I T I O N D E N I E D .