A s ofM arch 1, 2003, the INS cease d to exi stand its enf orce- 1 m ent functions were tr ansferre d to the D epartm ent ofH om e- (co n tin u ed ...) 

## In the 

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

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

- 3479 M I NG -H UI W U, P etitio ner,
v. E R I C H. H OLDER, J R ., A tto rneyGenera l ofthe U ni ted S tat es, R es pond ent
.

Pe tition fo r Review o f anOrd er o f the B o ard of Immigration App eals

.

No . A 72-217- 514

A RGUED A PRI L 8, 2009

— D ECI DE D J UNE 8, 2009

Befo reE ASTE RB ROOK

, Chief Ju dge, an d KANNE an d W ILLIAMS

, C ircu it Judges . K ANN E , Cir cu i tJudge . Mi ng - H uiW u i s a na ti ve a nd ci ti ze n o fthe Pe o pl e’ s Re publ i c o fChi na. In 1 99 2, the f or m erI m m i gr ati on a nd N atur al i zation S er vi ce beg an 12 N o. 08

- 3479

(

. . . c on t i nu e d) 1 la n d S ec u ri ty (“ D H S ” ). S eeH om el and Sec urity A ctof2002, P u b . L . N o . 10 7 -2 9 6 , 11 6 St a t. 2 1 3 5 (20 0 2 ). The I

- 12 2 w as en ti t l ed a “Not i c e t o Appl i c antf or Adm i s s i on 2 D et a in ed /D efe rr ed for H ea ri n g B efo re an Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e.” ex c lu sio n p ro c ee d in gs ag ain st W u , re su ltin g in an im m igr ati on j ud ge or deri ng W u excl ud ed fro m the U ni ted St ate s. Those pr oc eed i ngs were l ate r re opened, and on M a r c h 2 1 , 2 0 0 7, a n IJ de t e r mi ne d tha tWu wa s not el i gibl e fo r cancel l ati on o fr em ova lo r suspensi on o f deporta ti on a nd o rder ed hi m excl ud ed fro m the U ni ted S t a t e s . T h e B o a r d o fI mmi g r a t i o n A p p e a l s a ffi r me d

. Wu n ow p et itio n s t h is c ou rtfor re lief, arg u i n g th at th e IJ an d B I A er r ed i n h o l di ngtha t he was i ne l i g ibl e f o rc an ce l l at i o n o fr emov al

. W e den y hi s pet i ti o n.

I. B ACK GR OUN D O n M arch 27, 1992 , the IN S d e t a in e d W u in N ew York u p o n h i s e n t r y t o th e U n i t e d S t a t e s . T h e I NSr e l e a s e d Wu buti ni ti at ed ex cl us i o n pr o ce eding s ag ains t hi m b y fi l i ng a F or m I-122
. T h e IN S c h ar ge d th at W u w a s ex c lu d ab le 2 f o rwi l l ful l y mi s r e pr e s e nt i nga mate r i a lf a c tt o g a i n a dmi s s i o n t o the Uni t e d S t a t e s ; n o tp oss ess i nga v a l i d, un e xpir ed i mm i g r a ntv i s a ; a nd n o tp o s s e s s i nga v a l i d, unexp i re d tra veldocum ent. W u f ai l ed to appear at a hea ring be f or e a n i m m i gr atio n j ud ge on J une 18, 1 99 2. A s a r esul t, the IJ ente re d an in abste ntia o rdero n J une 22, fi nd i ng W u excl u d ab leN o. 08

- 3479 3

T h is p ro v isi o n is n o w 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 3 (b )(1)(v ). S ee Ali en s 3 and National i t y; Hom el and S ec ur i t y; Reor gan i za t i on ofRegu la tio n s, 68 F ed . R eg . 98 2 4 , 98 3 0 (F eb . 28 , 20 0 3 ). fro m the U ni ted S tat es. A co p y ofthato rderwas m ai l ed to W u b utwas r etur ne d t o the IJ mar k ed “ins uffic i en t ad d re ss .” W u c o nt i nue d t o l i ve i n the Un i te d S ta te s f o rthe ne xt ten y ea rs unti lS eptem ber20 02, wh en hi s a tto rneywas noti fi ed of the IJ ’ s 1 992 in ab s t e nt i a or der in Se ptem ber20 02. Tha t Oct o be r, cl ai m i ngtha t he ne ve rr ec ei ve d no ti ce o fthe he ar i ngo rthe IJ ’ s o r der, W u mov ed to r eo penthe e xc l usi o n pr o ce eding s pur su an t to 8 U. S

. C. § 12 29 a(b) ( 5) ( C) a nd to sta y hi s r em ov al pu rs uant to 8 C.F

. R. § 3. 23(b) ( 1) ( v) (20 02 ). In a n ord er d at ed N ov em b er 6, 20 0 2 , th e IJ

3 f ound that W u w as proper l y no ti fi ed of th e e xcl usi on hear i ng be cause the no ti ce was s ent t o the a dd re ss he had pr ovi ded an d n e v e rr e t urne d. Be c a us e Wu wa s n o tp r o per l y s er ve d wi tha c o py o fthe o r dero rno ti ce o fhi s r i g ht to ap p eal, how ever, the IJ “m ost relucta nt ly” granted W u’s m oti on t o re open the e x cl usi on pro ceedi ngs. W u’s cas e w as t ransfer re d to Ch i cago i n re sponse to an unopposed m oti on bythe gov er nm ent. Ata h e a r i n go n J a n u a r y 3 , 2 0 0 5 , th e IJ o p i n e d th a tWu w as not el i gibl e forcance l l ati on ofrem ova lor suspensi on ofdeport ati on. But the IJ co nti nue d t h e pr oce edi ngs t o al l o w Wu t o s e e k “ r e p a p e r i n g ” u n d e r § 3 0 9 ( c ) ( 3 ) o ft he Illega l I m m igr at ion R efo rm an d Im m igr an t R es p on s ibi l i ty A ct ( “I I RI RA ”) , Pub. L. N o. 10 4- 208, 11 0 S tat
. 30 09- 54 6, 3 00 9- 62 6 ( 19 96 ) , whi chwoul d ha ve pr o vi ded W u the4 N o. 08

- 3479

“R epap eri ng” is the proces s by w h ich the A tt orney G eneral 4 m ay ter m inat e priorex clu sio n proceedings and ins tead in iti a te n ew re m o v a l p ro ce ed in g s. S ee IIR IR A § 30 9(c)( 3). T his pro c es s al l ows al i en s pre vi ous l y i n ex c l us i on p ro c ee di ngs to apply f or canc el lat ion ofrem oval, w h ic h w ould hav e otherwi s e be e n un a va i l a bl e pr i ort o the e ffe c t i ve da t e o fI I RI RA. R odriguez -M u n oz v. G on zale s , 419 F. 3d 245, 247 n. 4 ( 3d C ir
. 2 0 0 5 ); Al c a r a z v . INS , 3 8 4 F .3d 1 1 5 0 , 11 5 2 -5 3 (9t h C ir . 20 0 4 ); R oj asRey e s v . INS , 23 5 F .3d 11 5 , 12 5 (2d C ir . 20 0 0 ). o p p o r t u n i t y t o s e e kc a nc e l l a t i o n o fr e mo v a l

. T h e D HS 4 re fused to “ repaper, ” ho w eve r, and at a hea ring o n M ar c h 21 , 2 00 7, th e IJ h eld t h at W u w as st at u to rily in elig ibl e forcance l l ati on o fr em ova l o r su spensi on o fdeport atio n be c au se h e w as i n e x c lu sio n p ro c ee d in gs . Th e IJ or dered Wu e xc lud ed and dep or ted fro m the U ni ted S tat es. O n A u gu st28 , 2 0 0 8, th e B oa rd of Im m igr at ion A p p ea ls affi rm ed the IJ’s d ec i si on. The BI A ag re ed w i th the IJ that W u w as sta tutor i l y inel i gibl e forcance l l at ion o fr em ova l o rs us pen si o n o fde po r ta ti o n b ec au se he was i n e xc l usi o n pr o ce ed ings. The BI A fur th erf o und tha t “t o the extent that [ W u] ra i ses substanti ve du e proces s and equal prot ecti on a rgum ents
. . . , we ar e without a uthor i ty to r ul e o n the c o ns ti tu ti ona li tyo fl aws e na ct ed byCo ngr es s.”

II. A NA LYSIS O n ap p ea l, W u arg u es th at, in ligh t o f th e IIR IR A , th e IJ an d BI A er r ed i n h o l di ngtha t he was ine l i g ibl e f o rc an cel l ati on o fr em ova l

. W u c laim s that the IJ co nstr uedN o. 08

- 3479 5

W u a l s o c l a i ms th a tth e d i s c r e t i o nar y natu r e o fI I RI RA 5 § 30 9(c)( 2 ), w hich giv es the A ttorn ey G en era l the o p tion to app ly new rem oval proceedings r etr oacti vely, cr eate s an equ al p ro tection p ro b lem

. W u d id no t raise this issue u ntil hi s r epl y br i efan d, the re f or e, ha s wai ved h i s r i ght to pur s ue thi s argum ent on ap peal

. SeeUn i t ed Sta t es v. Di az , 533 F. 3d 5 7 4 , 57 7(7t h C ir . 20 0 8 ). hi s a pp l i cati on forcance l l ati on o fr em ova l a s th e “ functi onalequi val ent” ofan a pp l i cati on forsuspensi on o f deporta ti on under the pri orve rs i on o fthe I m m i gr ati on an d N at ion alit y A c t (“ IN A ”). W u a lso arg u es th at th e IJ er r ed i n h oldingtha t he di d no t ac cr ue no c o nt i nuo us phy si ca lpr es en ce f o rpur po se s o fhi s el i g ibi l i tyf o rc an cel l ati on o fr em ova l

. A s we dis cu ss b el ow, because 5 th e IIR IR A is ina p p lica b le t o W u , he is st at u to rily in elig ible for c an c ella tio n of re m ov al. We r e v i e w th e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o fth e I I R I R A deno vo , b ut we g i ve due de fer en ce to th e i nt er pr et at i o n b y the A tt or n ey G en er al a n d th e B IA

. F i e ra n v . INS , 26 8 F
. 3d 340, 34 4 (6 th C ir. 20 01 ); see a lso B o rrego v. M uk a sey, 53 9 F
. 3d 689, 691 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) ( “W e r evi ew de nov o q uesti ons of law rega rd ing the i nt erp retation of the IN A , gi ving d eferen c e to the Boa rd’ s r eas onabl e inter preta ti on o fthat A c t.” ); G utn ikv. G o n z a les , 46 9 F
. 3d 683, 69 0 ( 7th Ci r. 20 06) ( n o t i n gth a twe r e v i e w in t e r p r e t a t i o n o fth e I NA deno vo , b u t t h at “ ‘[j]ud icia l d efe r e n c e t o th e E x ec u tiv e B ra n c h is especi al l y a pp ro pri ate i n the i m m i gr atio n conte xt’ ” ( al te r at i o n i n or i g i na l ) ( quo tingIN S v . Ag uirre-A gu irre, 52 6 U .S. 41 5, 41 6 (1 99 9)) ). O u r re vie w of fac tu al fin d in gs is l i m i ted to d et erm i ni ng wh ethertheyar e s up port ed by6 N o. 08

- 3479 “subst anti alev i dence. ” B ra d v i c a v . INS , 12 8 F
. 3d 1009 , 10 12 ( 7th Ci r. 1 99 7). W here , as her e, the BIA “affi rm s, adopts, an d sup p lem en ts t he IJ’ s d ecision,” w e review the IJ ’s d e c i s i o n a s s u p p l e me n t e d b y th e B I A. Bor rego , 53 9 F
. 3d at 69 1 (q u ot at ion s o m itt ed ); see a lso B a k a ria n v . M uk a sey, 54 1 F.3d 775 , 781 (7th C ir. 2008). Befo r e Con gre ss pa ss ed th e I I RI RA, the I N A di st i ngui shed betw een “deport ati on” and “excl usi on. ” Se eSa l ev. Haiti an C trs. Co uncil, Inc. , 50 9 U. S

. 15 5, 1 75 ( 19 93 ) ( ex pl ainin g t h e d iffer en c es be tw ee n d ep or ta b le a n d ex c lu d ab le alie n s); Land on v. P lase ncia , 459 U
. S. 21, 2 5-26 (1982). Depo r ta ti o n h ea r i ng s wer e t yp i ca l l y us ed ag ains t al i en s alr ea d y p h ys ica lly p re se n t in th e U n ite d Sta te s, w h ile ex clusion heari n g s w ere us ua ll y held at the p ort of en try to preve nt adm i ssi on. La ndon , 4 59 U. S

. a t 25

- 26
. The A tt or n ey G en er al c ou ld te m p or ar ily p ar ole an ex c lu d ab le al i en i nt o the Uni te d S ta te s pen di ngc o m pl et i o n o fe xc l usi on pro ceedi ngs, but such a deter m inati on was not l e g a l l y c o ns i de r e d a dmi s s i o n i nt o the c o un t r y . 8 U. S

. C. § 1 18 2(d )(5) (A ) (19 94 ); see also Len g M a y M a v . B a r b er, 35 7 U
. S. 18 5, 1 86 (1 958) ( hol ding that an al i en’ s par ol e into th e Uni te d S ta te s “di d no t al te rhe rs ta tus a s a n e xclud ed ali en ”). A l though the I N A provi ded that al i ens i n deport ati on p ro c ee d in gs c ou ld ap p ly for su sp en sio n of d ep or ta tio n, see 8 U .S.C . § 12 54 (19 94 ) , i t is w ell es ta b lish ed th at alien s in excl usi on pro ceedi ngs were i nel i gibl e forthi s type o f re lief. Se e, e . g. , Ma , 357U .S. at 1 89 -90 ; Sim eonov v. A shcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 536-37 (9th Cir. 2004); Fi e ran , 26 8 F. 3d at 344 ( “U nd erthe ol d I N A , the A tt or ney Gener alhadN o. 08

- 3479 7

W u c hal l en ge s the gove rn m en t ’ s r el i anc e on S h er ifib eca u se 6 thatc as e c onc er ne d s us pen sion ofdepo rt at i on underthe N ic araguan A djust m ent and Central Am eri can Reli efAct (“N ACA RA ”)

. How eve r, the c en t ra l i s s ue i n S h er ifi was whether NACARA cha n ged “the w el l- es tabli shed rule that al i e n s i n e x c l u s i o n p r o c e e di n g s a r e n o te n t i t l e d t o s u s p e n s i on ofdep ortat ion. ” 260 F. 3d at 742. Thu s, S h e r i fiand the other c as es we ci t e i nt er pre t i ng NAC AR A provi de s uppor tf or the l ong- es t ablis he d pro pos i t i on thatal i en s i n e xc l us i on pro c ee di ngs tr adi t i ona l l y coul d nots ee k s us pen s i on ofdepo rt at i on. the di scr eti on t o suspend t h e deporta ti on o fqual i fi ed alie n s . . . ; th is d isc re tio n d id n otex te n d to ex c lu d ab le a lie ns . ”); S h e r i

f iv . INS , 260 F.3d 737, 742 (7th C ir. 2001); 6 Pate l v. M cEl r oy, 143 F.3d 56 , 60 ( 2 d C i r . 1 99 8). T h is is because p ar ol e is n ot consi dered “l aw ful entr y o fthe al i en i nto the U n i ted S tat es. ” Si m e onov, 37 1 F
. 3d at 536 ( quotations om itted ). By pas singthe I I RI RA i n 1 99 6, Co ng r es s el i m i na te d the dist i ncti on be tw een “ deporta ti on” and “excl usi on” proce e di ng s a nd r e pl a c e d the m wi th a u ni fi e d “ r e m ova l proce edi ng. ” Sheri

fi, 26 0 F
. 3d at 741 ; see also Z a m o ra-M a lla ri v. M uk a sey, 514 F.3d 67 9, 68 7 n .2 (7t h C ir. 20 08 ); Lara-Ru iz v . INS , 2 41 F
. 3d 93 4, 9 44 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 1)

. T he I I RI RA al so re pla ced “suspensi on o fdeport ati on” w i th a new d isc re tio n ar y for m of re lief, “c an c ella tio n of re m ov al,” whi chw as m o r e di ffi cul t to o bt ain. See B ronis z v. A shcroft, 378 F.3d 632, 634 (7th Cir. 2004); Us e i n o v i cv . INS , 31 3 F.3d 102 5, 1033 ( 7th Cir. 2002). W u’s ar gum ents on a pp eal f ocus on hi s a pp l i cati on for can cellati on of rem oval. For exam p le, he atta c k s t h e IJ’ s8 N o. 08

- 3479
sta tutory const ructi on, cl ai m in g t h at h is d eci si on ignor ed the I I RI RA ’ s abol i ti on o fthe dist i ncti on be tw een excl usi on a nd d ep ortat i on. But hi s o pening bri efi gnor es th e cr i ti ca lpo i nt

— that the I I RI RA ’s effecti ve date, wh i ch ap p lies p ro sp ec tiv ely , w a s A p ril 1, 19 97
. See I I RI RA § 3 09 (a), (c )(1) ; Fi e ran , 26 8 F
. 3d at 346. The pla i n l anguage o fthe I I RI RA unam bi guousl y s tat es th a t, s u bj e c tt o t wo n a r r o w e x c e p t i o n s we di s c u s s b e l o w, i ts pr o vi si o ns do no t apply t o a l i en s w ho a rei n exc l us i on o r dep o rtat io n p roc eedin gs a s o f th e e ffe c t i v e d a t e o ft he A ct. I I RI RA § 309( c) ( 1). T h e I N S i ni ti ate d excl usi on pro ceedi ngs a gainst W u on M ar ch 27, 19 92

— over fi ve years pri or to the I I RI RA ’ s effecti ve date. A s these f acts m ake cl ea r, the I I RI RA’s r emov alpr o vi si o ns do no t apply t o W u. Cf. Fi e ran , 26 8 F
. 3d at 346 ( “Fi er an was pla ced i n excl usi on pr o ce eding s . . . l o ngb efo r e th e effec ti ve d ate ofthe I I R I R A

. Th e pro vision up on w hich he reli es th erefore d oes not ap p ly to his case.”). I n h i s o penin gb r i ef, W u s um m ar i l y c l ai m s th atthe I I RI RA’s ne w re m o va lpr o ce eding s apply “t o a l la l i en s w h os e c as es are res olv ed aft er A p ril 1, 19 97 .” L ike w ise , in rep ly to the govern m en t, W u claim s t ha t the “I I R I R A ’s effec ti ve da te i sn ’ t co nt r o l l i nghe r e. ” But h e pr o vi des no su p p ort forthes e con ten tio n s a nd i gn ores the statu te’s pl ain l an g ua g e. As a l way s, we m us t g i ve ful le ffec t to the inten t of C ong ress w he re i t is clear fr om the sta tu tory lan gu ag e. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Ranum , 96 F. 3d 1020 , 10 29 ( 7th C ir. 19 96 ); see also K nu tsen v . Go nz a les , 42 9 F
. 3d 733, 73 6 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 5)

. W u is ther efo r e st atut o r i l y i ne l i g ibl e f o rc an ce l l at i o n o fr emov alunde rI I RI RA § 3 09 ( c) ( 1) unl es s he can sho w thato ne o fthe l i ste d excepti ons appli es.N o. 08

- 3479 9 The I I RI RA pro vi des o nly tw o narr ow excepti ons to i ts gener alr ule ag ai nst r etr oac ti ve appli cati on. U nd er § 30 9( c) ( 2) , the Att o r ne y Ge ne r almay el ec t to a ppl y the rem oval proc ed ure s for an y case i n w h ich an eviden tiary hea r i ngu nd e rthe I NA ha s n o tc o mm e nc e d. T o i nvoke thi s provis i on, the A tto rneyGenera lm ust pro vi de noti ce to the a l i en atl eas t thi rty days befor e the co m m encem en t o fthe he ar i ng . S i m i l ar l y, § 3 09 ( c) ( 3) a l l o ws the A tt or n ey G en er al t o t er m in at e a p r ev iou s p ro c ee d in g in w hi ch ther e has notb een a fi naldeci si on a nd r ei ni ti ate n e w r e mo v a lp r o c e e d i n g s , a p r o c e s s c o mmo n l y kn o wn as “re p ap er in g.” I t i s unconte ste d that the A tto rneyGeneralhas not el ecte d to “r epaper” i n thi s ca se, and § 3 09( c) ( 3) does not apply . W u mai nt ains , ho wev er, tha t th e g o ve r nm en t el ecte d to apply the r em ova lpro cedures as al l ow ed by § 309(c)(2). H e bases t h is clai m on (1) th e govern m en t’s f ai l ure to obj ect to W u’s m oti on t o reop en h i s e xcl usi on pr o ce eding s unde rthe n ew r emov als ta tu te , a nd ( 2) the gov er nm ent’ s m oti on t o tr ansferthe proce edi ngs t o Ch icag o afterr ecei vi ng W u’s m oti on. But W u did not pr es en t th i s ar g um en t unt i lhi s r eply b rief, nordi d he ra i se i t be f or e the IJ o r BIA. W u’s f ai l ure to ti m el y r ai se th is a rg u m en t re su lts in w aiv er . See G ha ni v . Ho lder, 55 7 F. 3d 836, 83 9 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09) ( expla i ni ng that be cause th e a p p ella n t “ faile d to r ais e t h is a rg u m en t b efo re th e IJ or the B I A , ” it w as w aived ); D i az , 53 3 F
. 3d at 57 7 (st at i ng th at arg u m en ts m ay n otbe rais ed for th e firs t t im e in a rep ly brief or they are w aived ). E ve n if W u h ad n otw a i v e d t h is a rg u m en t, h ow ev er , i t wo ul d b e u n l i k e l y t o s u c c e e d

. S e c t i o n 3 0 9 ( c ) ( 2 ) a l l o ws10 N o. 08

- 3479

AlthoughW u c l ai m s thathe n eve r re c ei ved n ot i c e ofthe 7 he ar i ng, the IJ f ound o the rw is e. The IJ no t ed thatwhi l e the re s ul t i ng i n a b st en tia order w as returned as und el iverable , Wu r e c e i v e d p r o p e r n o t i c e o f th e h e a r i n g b e c a u s e t h e I NS s en t th e n o t i c e t o th e a dd r e s s h e p r o v i de d a n d i twa s n ot r e t ur ne d.

6- 8- 09 the Attorney Gener alto pro ceed und er t h e r em ova l sta tute i n case s i n w hi ch an evi denti ar y hear i ng has not yetco m m enced

. In W u’s cas e, a hear i ng to ok pla ce o n J une 18, 19 92, and § 3 09( c) ( 2) ther ef or e doe s no t a pp l y. 7 F ur th er m o r e, the Actr equi r es tha t th e g o ve r nm en t provi de noti ce o fi ts elec ti on t o proce ed w i th r em ova l pr o ce eding s atl ea stthi r tyda y s bef ore the da te o fthe he ar i ng . I I R I RA § 3 09 ( c) ( 2)

. W e do ubttha t th e g o ve r nm ent’ s m er e f ai l ure to obj ect to W u’s citati on t o th e rem oval statu te or i ts m otion to t r a ns fer venu e are th e typ es of notice con tem p lated by C ong ress in § 309(c)(2).

III. C ON CLU SI ON The I N A pro vi si o ns c r ea te d b y the I I RI RA, i nc l udi ng ca nc el l at i o n o fr emov al, a r e i na ppl i cabl e to a l i en s who wer e i n e xc l us i o n o rde po r ta ti o n pr o ce eding s pr i o rt o the I I RI RA ’ s e ffecti ve date o n A pri l1, 1997. T he INS i nsti tuted ex cl us i o n pr o ce eding s ag ains t W u o n Mar ch2 7, 1 99 2, a nd nei ther of the I I RI RA ’ s e xcepti ons to i ts pros pecti ve ap p lica tio n ap p ly. W u is th er efo re st at u to rily in elig ible f orcance l l ati on o fr em ova l, and hi s peti ti on i s D ENI ED .