Aft e r a n e x a m i na t i ono fthe brie f s and the r e c or d, we h a ve  con clu d ed th at or al arg u m en t is u nn ecessar y . T hu s th e ap p eal is su b m itt ed o n th e b ri efs an d th e r ec o rd . F ED . R. A PP . P. 3 4 (a )(2). The H onorab le Joan B. G ott sc hall, ofthe N orther n D is tr ic t  ofI l l i noi s , s i t t i ng by des i gna t i on.



## 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. 10

- 1618 A LI CJ A K ANI A W R OBL EWS KA, 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 from an O rde r o f the Bo ard of Immigration App eals

. No . A077 646 892
S UB MI TT ED F EB RU AR Y 7, 2011

— D ECI DE D A UGUS T 24, 2011 

Befo re R O V NE R an d W OO D , C ircu it Judges , a nd G OTTS CHALL , D istrict Judge.  W OO D , C ircu i tJudg e . Al i cj a Kani a W r o bl ews k a, the pet i ti o ne r, i s a ci ti ze n o fPo l an d who ca m e to the2 N o. 10

- 1618 U ni ted St ate s on a vi si tor ’ s vi sa i n 1994

. Sh e o ve rs tay ed her v i s a a nd wa s c a ught a l l e g e dl y t r y i ng t o b r ibe a n i m m i gr ati on o ffi ceri n N ove m ber19 99 i n Op er ati on D u r a n g o , a s t i n g o p e r a t i o n wi th wh i c h we h a v e b e c o me quit e fam i l i ar . S ee P a w lo w ska v. Ho lder, 62 3 F
. 3d 1138 (7th C ir . 2010); M o z dz en v . Ho lder, 622 F.3d 680 ( 7th Cir. 20 10 ); Kras i l yc h v

. Hol der, 5 8 3 F. 3d 962 (7th C ir. 2009); Sk o rusa v. G o nz a les , 482 F.3d 9 3 9 (7 th C ir. 20 07 ); P ienia z ek v. G o nz a les , 449 F.3d 792 ( 7th Cir. 2006). Befo re herr em ova l pro ceedi ngs b ega n, W robl ew ska mar r i e d B o g u s l a w K a n i a , a U. S

. c i t i z e n . K a n i a fi l e d a pet i t i o n f o r a n a l i e n r e l a t i v e v i s a ; i n i t, he nam ed W ro b lew sk a a s t h e b en efic iar y. In O c to b er 20 06 , sh or tly afterthe peti ti on was approv ed, W robl ew ska fi l ed an appl i ca ti o n t o a dj us t he r s tatus unde r s ec ti o n 2 45 o fthe I m m igra ti o n a nd Nat i o na l i tyAct, 8 U. S

. C. § 1 25 5. S he then appear ed in t h e I m m i gr ati on Courtf orthe fi rs t ti m e an d a dm i tt ed th ats he was rem ovab le a s a no ni m m i g r an t vi si to r pr es en t i n the c o unt r y b ey o nd the t i me a l l o we d b y h e r v i s a . S e e 8 U. S

. C

. § 1 2 2 7 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B )

. At the s am e t i m e, she m ove d to su p p re ss al l o fthe advers e evi dence that had b een col l ecte d in 1999 thro ugh O p er ation D u r a n g o , and she ask ed the Im m igrati on Jud ge (IJ) to ter m i nate the r em ova l pro ceedi ngs b ecause o fher a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a n a dj u s t me n to fs t a t u s . T h e IJ f o u nd W robl ew ska r em ovabl e, deni ed her m oti on t o supp re ss, and decided thatshe w as not entitled to adj ust herst atus. I n the IJ ’ s o pini on, adj ustm ent was notwarra nted because the evi dence fro m Operat i on Durango sho w ed t h at W ro b lew sk a h ad br ibe d an im m igr at ion offic ial, and that b ehavi oro utw ei ghed al l o fthe eq u itie s in f avo rN o. 10

- 1618 3 ofr el i ef

. The Boar d of Im m i gr ati on Ap peal s di sm i sse d W r o b l e ws k a ’ s a pp e a l, a nd thi s p e t i t i o n f o l l o we d. W robl ew ska f aces an up hi l l bat tl e be cause ofl i m i tati ons to the c ourt ’ s j uris d ictio n i n thi s a re a. A l though w e m ightha ve b ee n inc l i ne d t o wei g h the e qui ti es m ore ch ar i tabl y tha n the IJ di d, Co ng r es s ha s no t g r an te d us that author i ty. A ny chal l enge to the IJ ’ s deni alo f W r o bl ews k a’ s appl i ca ti o n fo r a n a dj us tmen t o fs ta tu s had t o be base d o n l ega l or const i tuti onal ar gum ents. In that re gar d, W robl ew sk a’s l aw yer

— Re z a Ba ni a s s a di

— se riou sly h am p er ed h er ch an c es . In W ro b l e w sk a’s p et itio n, A tt or n ey B an ias sa d i p re se n te d a sin gle , un d er d ev elo ped l eg ala r g um en t: tha t ev i den ce g athe r ed dur i ng Op er atio n Durango sho uld have bee n supp re sse d because the oper ati on i tse l fwas an eg re gi ous v i ol ati on of W robl ew ska ’ s ri ght to du e proce ss. W or se yet, th is ar gum ent was f or ecl ose d by K rasily c h v . Ho lder, sup ra , a d ecision tha t w as issue d m ore tha n a year be fore W robl ew ska ’ s o pening briefwas fi l ed i n thi s ca se. A cc o r d i n g l y, we d e n y Wr o b l e ws k a ’ s p e t i t i o n f o r r e v i e w. W e w il l ha ve m ore to say abou t A ttorn ey B an iassad i’ s perf or m ance shor tl y.

I Give n the extensi ve tr eat m en t ofOperat i on Durango i n ourpre vi ous deci si ons, we can be bri efwith the detai l s. I t was a sting desi gned by thre e federa l ag enci es to catch “br oke rs ” w ho w er e hel ping to p ro cure i m m i gr ati on be nefi ts f oral i ens i l l ega l l y. The br oke rs would tak e al i en s who ho ped to b ec o m e per m an en t r es i dents o fthe4 N o. 10

- 1618 U n ite d Sta te s t o a st or efr on t o n t h e n or th sid e o f C h icag o . T he r e the y wo ul d me e twi th un de r c o v e r i mm i gr atio n ag en ts w h o h e ld th em se lve s o u t a s c or ru p t o fficia ls read y to help w ith th e adj us tm e n t of statu s. T he brokers s o me t i me s t o l d th e a l i e n s th a t th e p r o c e s s wa s r e al a nd leg al. Se e, e . g. , Skor usa , 4 82 F
. 3d at 940. S ti l l, the age nci es that ra n the oper ati on m ai ntai n that they too k s teps t o m ak e s u re th at n eit h er alien s n or br ok er s c au gh t in thei r n et w oul d l ate r ass er t that they ha d been co nfuse d ab o utthe l eg al i tyo fthe t r an sa ct i o ns t ak i ngpl ac e. The gov ernm ent points o ut thatther e were no s i gns o n displ ay i n the sto re thatwould have gi ven the i m pression th at it w as a g o v e r nm en t office, nor d id th e un d ercove r i m m i gr ati on o ffi ci al s who w or ked the st i ng wear I N S unif or m s. A part fro m decorand dres s co de, h ow ev er, the proce dur e used in O per at i o n Dur an g o l o o k ed a l o t l i k e th e nor m aladj ustm ent- of

- sta tus pro cess . In m ostcas es, i nc lu d i ng the o ne now bef or e us, Cl ar ence Robi nson was the i m m i g r at i o n o ffi ce r wor k i ngunde r co ver. Ro binso n wo ul d m ee t th e al ien; he woul d he l p he r t o fi l l o ut anI

- 48 5 appl i ca ti o n fo r a dj ustmento fs ta tu s; a nd he w ou l d i nt er vi ew he r a s he woul d a ny o th erpe r so n who m i ght ha ve applied fo r a chang e in sta tus thro ugh r egul arc ha nne l s. At the c o nc l us i o n o fthe meet i ng, Ro binson w ou ld p lace a genu in e I- 5 5 1 stam p i n th e ali en ’s p assp ort. T his stam p usu all y s ign ifies that a p erson ’s appli cati on f oradj ustm ent o fst atus has be en approved and that sh e i s a w ai ti ng a gr een c ar d. Bu t s ee M o z dz en , 622 F .3d at68 4 ( hol ding that sta m ps obt ai ned thro ugh O p eration D ura ng o do n ot ch an ge an ali en ’s legal statu s).N o. 10

- 1618 5 To i ncre ase the appearan c e o fauthenti ci ty, m eet i ngs wi thRo bins o n wer e pr ec ede d b y fi ng er pr i nt i nga nd med i c a l c he c k up s

— tw o ste ps re quir ed ofal l people w ho a pp l y foradj ustm ent o fst atus. W h en the m eet i ngs e nd ed, the al i en would pay R o b i n s o n a $5 ,00 0 fe e, u su ally th ro u gh th e b ro ke r fac ili ta tingthe t r an sa ct i o n. Ro bins o n wo ul d e xpl ain t o the al i en thatshe shoul d tel l a n y offici alwh o i nquir ed that sh e had been grante d adj us t m e n t of statu s beca us e of a p etition fi led by a U

. S. citi zen sibl ing. I n W roblew ska’s ca se , Ro bins o n ins truct ed he r t o t el l any o ne who i nquir ed t h at she had m et w i th hi m atthe I N S offi ces i n dow n to w n Chicag o. Duri ng Operat i on Durango , Robi nson m et w i th al m ost30 0 a l i ens a nd thei r bro ker s. The l o ca l U. S

. At t o r n e y ’ s O ff i ce pr o se cut ed th e br o k er s, a nd the a l i en s

— m ost of them from Ea stern Eu r o pe

— w er e r efer re d fo r re m ova l pro ceedi ngs. Throughout h er r em ova l pro ceedi ngs, W robl ew ska has m aintained that she thought s he was adj usti ng her st atus l egal lyi n 1 99 9, a nd s he ha s al way s den i ed pay i ng a $ 5, 0 0 0 b r ibe to R ob in so n . H er st or y is b elie va b le in som e r espect s. In the pa st , we have c al l ed Op er ati on D u r a n g o “ a s h a d y s t i n go p e r a t i o n th a ti n s o me c ou n tr ies
. . . m igh t r e p re se n t t h e w ay th at bu sin es s is actual l y done, ” Paw l owska , 62 3 F
. 3d at 1142 , and w e hav e al so note d that, thr ou gh out the o perat i on, “Robinson tr ied to m ak e t h e p ro c es s s e e m [ ] as offic ial a s p os sibl e, ” Sk o rusa , 48 2 F
. 3d at 941. M or eov er, the evid en ce prese nted duri ng the r em ova l pro ceedi ngs r el ating to the b ribe that W roblew sk a al l ege dlypai d to Robi nson6 N o. 10

- 1618

was r emar k ab l y thi n. W r o bl ewska tes ti fi ed th ats he did notpay a br ibe; and Robin son tes ti fi ed that W r o bl ews k a’ s br o k erpa i d hi m $ 5, 00 0 afte r the i r meet i ng had ended

. Robin so n a dm i tte d, how eve r, thathe ha d no di re ct e vid en ce that W robl ew ska furni shed that m oney

— he did not see W robl ew ska gi ve the b roker $5, 000 and the br oke r m ade the paym ent a fter W robl ew ska l eft. A ccor ding to the g ove rnm ent, a vi deo r e c o r d i n go fthe e n t i r e t r a n s a c t i o n wa s ma d e , b u twe ha ve no i dea i f th at i s so , be ca us e th e gove r nm en t did n ot i nt r o du c e i ta s e v i de nc e a nd the IJ n e v e r a s k ed to see i t. The IJ no te d that W ro bl ews k a sa ti sfi ed two o fthe thre e s tatutor y f acto rs r equi re d fo r adjus tm ent o fst atus: she had be en l aw fully a d m i tte d i nto the Unite d Sta tes w h en sh e a rriv ed , an d a vis a w as im m ed iat ely av aila b le gi ven herhusband’s succe ssful pe titi on; the onl y o pen questi on was w hetherW robl ew ska ’ s m or alchar acte r w ar ra n te d a fav or ab le e x er c ise of d isc re tio n . T h e IJ id en tifi ed “s tr o nge qui ti es ” th atwei g he d i n f av o r o fa ppr o ving W roblewska’ s a pp l i cati on f oran a dj ustm ent o fst atus. W robl ew ska had bee n m ar ri ed h ap p i l y t o a U.S

. ci ti zen f ora num bero fye ar s; she and her husband had m i ng l ed th ei r a ss et s an d ha d l i ved t o g ethe r wi th o ut i nter rupti on; she had no cr i m i nal r eco rd; a nd she w as g ainfu ll y e m pl o y ed. None th el es s, the IJ ul ti m at ely c o nclud ed that the ba lance o f eq uities w eighed against h er, so l ely b ec au se he f o und tha t he ra ss er tion thats he ne ve r b r ibe d Rob i ns o n was no t cr edibl e. “ Ido no t fi nd the r e s po nd e nt ’ s t e s t i mon y tha ts he di d n o tkno w that s he wa s b r ib i nga n o ffi c e r t o b e c r e dib l e , ” the IJ s a i d,N o. 10

- 1618 7 bef or e co nti nuing cry pti cal l y, “T he ci rcum sta nces speak to he r i nt en t, whi ch[ si c ] s h e a c t u a l l y d i d o n N o v e mber19 99, speak s to w hat s he i ntended to do. A nd that th ose circu m stan ces p oint clearly t o a n effort of bribery r a the r tha n t o a n i nn o c e ntwh o i s s i mpl y mi s l e a d [ si c ] by a b r o k e r . ” Bytha tthe IJ p r e s umab l y me a ntthat W robl ew ska m ust hav e know n that $5, 000 w as t oo hi gh a p r i c e t o p ay to ad j u st h er st at u s le ga lly, sh e s h ou ld have been suspi ci ous o fRobi nson’ s instr ucti on t o l ie abo u t th e lo cati on o fthe i nter vi ew , and she m ust hav e kn o w n t h at sh e w as n oteligib le t o a dj u st h er st at u s in 1999

. The Boar d agr eed with the IJ ’ s a sse ssm ent. The agen c y’s evaluati on o fthe equi ti es i s no t par ti cula rl y per suasi ve. W er e we i n th e IJ ’ s s hoes , f aced with the g o v e r nme nt ’ s a s s e r t i o n that an a l i e n ha d b r ib e d a fede ral im m igrati on offi cial, w e w ou ld d em an d m ore th an w ea k c irc u m st an t i a l e vid en c e t o s u p p or t t h at all eg at i o n. I t i s es pec i al l y t r o ubl i ngtha t the g o ve r nm en t pu rp or ted to have a vi deo r eco rdi ng o fthe enti re tr ansaction , b u t then i t nev erpro du ced any such thi ng. W i th a sw ear in g m atch on th e stan d and an objective record ofth e t r a ns a c t i o n a v a i l ab l e , i ti s b a ffl i ngwh y the a gency w ou ld n oth av e b ee n int er es te d in s ee in g w h at ac tu ally had o cc ur r ed atthe meet i ngb etwee n W r o bl ews k a an d R obinso n. In l i ght o fthe gov er nm ent’ s weak e vi dence o fb r ibe r y a nd W r o bl ews k a’ s ha pp y m ar r i ag e an d frui tful parti ci pati on in the c om m unity, we m i ght ha ve wei g he d the equi ti es di ffer en tly tha n the a g en cy . But th a ti s n o to u r r o l e. W e l a c kj u r i s d i c t i o nt o r e v i e w a variety of agen cy d e c isions de ny ing d iscretionary reli ef, i ncl ud i ng an IJ ’ s deci si on to deny a n appli cati on f or8 N o. 10

- 1618 adj us tmento fs ta tu s. S ee 8 U. S

. C. § 12 52 ( a) ( 2) ( B) ( i ) (ba r r i ng r e v i e w o f de c i s i o ns mad e pu r s ua nt t o 8 U. S

. C. § 1255 , am on g ot h er p ro vis ion s); Paw l owska , 62 3 F
. 3d at 1141 & n. 4 ( ex pl aini ngtha t th e Cou r t’ s dec i si o n in Kucan a v. Ho lder, 13 0 S

. Ct. 82 7 ( 2010 ) , does notaffect thi s j u risdict i onalbar)

. The IJ ’ s v i ew o fW robl ew ska ’ s cr edibi l i ty an d hi s ba l an cingo fthe e qui ti es mustthe r efo r e st an d un di s t urb e d.

II O u r j u ris d ict i on is n otso lim ite d , ho w ev er , w h en it c o me s t o “ c o n s t i t u t i o n a l c l a i ms o r qu es t i o n s o fl a w” tha t a r e r e l a t e d t o the de ni a l o fa n a pp l i c a t i o n f o r a dj u st m en t of st at u s. 8 U .S.C . § 12 52 (a)( 2)(D ); Jarad v

. Gonzales , 461 F.3d 8 6 7, 868-69 (7th C ir. 2006). W roblew ska’s peti ti on pre sents a si ngl e l ega l ar gum ent. S he sa ys that all e vid en c e g at h er ed in O p er at ion D u ra n go sh ou ld have been ex c l ud ed fro m herr em ova l pro ceedi ngs bec a us e the o pe r a t i o n v i o l a t e d h e r r i g htt o du e p r o c ess . W i thout thi s e vi dence, she i m pli es, th e IJ would have ha d no r ea so n t o deny he ra ppl i ca ti o n fo r a n a dj us tment ofst atus. I fther e i s a g o o d d ue p r o c e s s c ha l l e ng e t o Op e r a ti on Dur an g o o utthe r e, we woul d no t k no w f r om the a r g um en ts m ade her e. Ind eed, the enti re ar gum ent s ecti on of W ro b lew sk a’s op en in g b rie f in t h is c ou rtinc lu d ed on ly ab ou t 5 00 w or d s. T h e s u b s t a n c e o f h er cla im

— apartfro m a concl usor y sugges ti on that the S up re m e Cour t’ s deci si on i n IN S v
. Lo pez -M e ndoz a , 46 8 U.S

. 10 32, 10 40- 50 ( 1984 ) is d ist in gu ish ab le

— i s pr es en te d i n a s i ng l e par ag r aph :N o. 10

- 1618 9 The IJ and the BIA err oneo usl y hel d that the Pet i ti oner did notdem onst ra te that th e evi dence w as obt ai ned as a r esul t o fan e gr egi ous v i ol at ion o fdue proc ess r i g ht s. In the pr es en t ca se , the Serv i ce ’ s ac ti o ns w ere not li m it e d to a si m p le arr est. Th e Service’s ac ti o ns , ho wev er, a m o unt ed to mal i ci o us e nt r apment of l aw abid in g citi zen s. T o be p recise, th e Service’s O p eration D ura ng o targete d Poli sh and Ea stern Eu ro pean com m unity [ si c ] i n Chicag o, duri ng wh i ch th e S er vi ce s o ug hto ut l aw abi di ngc i ti ze ns a nd th r o ug h i ts unde r co ve r a g en ts , e nc o ur ag ed an d tr apped peopl e t o s ubm i t ba sel ess appli cati ons f or adj ustm ent o fst atus. Peti ti oner ’ s Br. at13

- 14. A tt or ney Bani ass adi did not att em pt to el abor ate o n thi s s tat em ent o r to re spond to any o fthe gov er nm ent’ s co untera rgum ents, bec ause he chos e not to fi le a rep ly brief. I n additi on t o the f act th at c ounsel ’ s a rgum ent o n behal fo fW robl ew ska i s s o curso ry , i t i s a l so unsati sf acto rybec ause, witho ut expl anat ion, i t r el i es on a n ar gum ent that had be en squar el y for ecl ose d i n another dec i si o n abo utOpe r at i o n Dur an go th atwe i ss ue d o ne y e a r b e f o r e Wr o b l e ws k a ’ s o p e n i n gb r i e fw a s fi l e d

. We sa i d i n K rasi lych thata peti ti onerw ho “ bl i thel y a sse rt s that ‘ Fourth A m endm ent v i ol ati ons’ i n Op er ati on Du ra ngo w er e ‘ w i despread and eg re gi ous’ ” does not dem onst ra te a vi ol ati on o fthe Four th A m endm ent o r of a ny o the r l ib e r t y . 5 8 3 F
. 3 d a t 9 6 7
. At t o rney Ba ni a s s a di att em pts to expl ai n away Kr as il ych i n a foo tnot e, re m arki ng tha t he fi l ed W robl ew ska ’ s no ti ce o fappeal10 N o. 10

- 1618 in the agencyb e f o r e we i s s u e d o u r d e c i s i o n i n K rasilych

. This i s a non s e q ui t ur, n o ta g r o un d o n whi c h o urp ri or de c i s i o n c a n b e di s t i ngui s he d. At t o r ne y Bani a s s a di kn ew of K rasi lych w h en h e filed h is b r i e fa n d h e s h ou ld have confro nted i t. Instea d, he r epeate d the pre ci se m i st ak e th at we c r i ti ci ze d i n K rasi lych : he b l i thel y a sse rt s that Op er at ion D urango was “an e gr egi ous v i ol ati on o f d u e p ro c es s rig h ts ,” b u t h e d oe s n otex p lain w h y. It w ou ld be di ffer ent i fhe ha d acknowle dged our ear l i er dec i si o n a nd i ndi ca te d that h e was pr es er vinga po i nt for fu rt h er rev iew , bu t t h e r e is n o s u c h ind ica tio n in th e br i ef

. The S upr eme Cou rt has r equi r ed a sh o wi ng of“e gr egi ous v i ol ati ons ofFo urth Am endm en t or o ther l iber ti es that m i ght t ra nsgr ess not ion s o ffund am ental fair n es s” b e f o r e t h e e x c lu sio n ar y ru le w ill ap p ly in im m igr at ion p ro c ee d in gs . Lopez-M e ndoz a , 46 8 U.S

. at10 50- 51. It m ak es n o d iffe r en c e t h at W ro b lew sk a’s arg u m en t is sty l ed as a du e- proce ss ar gum ent r atherthan one base d on the Fo urth A m en d m en t. Final l y, to the extent that the b r i e fs ug g e s t s tha tWr o b l e ws k a wa s e nt r a pp e d, cou ns el m isun d er s t an d s ent rap m en t. “E nt rap m en t refers t o th e u s e o fi n d u c e me n t s th a tc a u s e a nor ma l l y l a wabi ding perso n to co m m i t a cr i m e. ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. M orris , 5 4 9 F
. 3 d 5 4 8 , 5 5 1 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 8 )

. A tth e t i me th a tWr o b l e ws k a was c a u g h ti n th e s t i n gs h e w a s c o mmi t t i n ga c o n t i n u i n gv i o l at i o n o fth e i mmi g r a t i o n l a ws an d ha d no b a s i s f o r a pp l y i ng f o r a n a dj us t men t o f st atus . Ope r at i o n Dur an g o s i m pl y b r o ug hthe r t o the att enti on o fi m m i gr ati on o ffi ci al s. Fo r th es e re as on s w e m u st d en y W ro b lew sk a’s p et ition for review
. W e are distu rbed , h ow ever, by A ttor-N o. 10

- 1618 11

n ey B an ias sa d i’s p er fu n c t o ry p er for m an c e. P eo p le in W robl ew ska ’ s pos i ti on f ace l i fe- changi ng co nseq u ences fro m th eir im m igr at ion p ro c ee d in gs . Cf. P adi l l a v. Ken t uc ky, 13 0 S

. Ct. 1 473 ( 2010 )

. Because A tto rney Ba ni a s s a di ’ s e ff o r tfe l l f a r b e l o w the mi ni mum s t a nd ar ds f orco m petent re prese ntation in this co urt, we are r equesti ng the Cl er k o f t h e Cour t t o f or w ar d a co py of th is op in ion to th e Illino is A tt or n ey R eg ist ra tio n & D isc ip lin ar y C om m iss ion
. * * * The peti ti on f orr evi ew i s D ENI ED .

8- 24- 11