2010 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 8-10-2010 

# N o el Rome ro v

. Atty Ge n U SA P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-4104

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and 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 ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" N oel Rome r o v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 774. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/7741 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT
N o. 08- 4104
N O E L V IL M A R R O M E R O , Pet i t i oner

v. A TTO RN EY G EN ER A L O F TH E U N I TED STA TES, R es pondent O n P e tit io n f

o r R e v iew f

ro m th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls B I A - 1 N o. A 029- 635- 129 Im m igrati o n Ju d g e: T h e H o n o rab le M arg are t R eich en b erg

A r gued J une 21, 2010 B efor e: SM I T H , FI SH E R , and C O W E N , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed: A ugus t10, 2010)

_______________________

OP I NI ON

_______________________
Fr anci s X . G ei er , E s q. ( ar gued) A n a y a n c yR . H o u s m a n , E s q . 453 W es t m i ns t erA venue E l i zabe th, N J 07208 C ouns el f orP et i t i onerW e have cons i der ed and r ej ect ed the A t t orneyG ener al ’ s ar gum entthatw e l ack 1 ju ri s d ic tio n b e c a u s e n o liv e c a s e o r c o n tr o v e rs yis p re s e n te d . 2 C h ri sti n a B . P ara sca n d o la, E sq . (arg u ed ) B enj ami n J . Z ei t l i n, E s q. O ffi ce of I m m i gr at i on L i t i gat i on, C i vi l D i vi s i on U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof J us t i ce P. O . B ox 878 B en Fr ankl i n St at i on W as hi ngt on, D . C . 20044 C ouns el f orR es pondent S M IT H , C i r cui tJudge . A n Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e (“ IJ” ) f o u n d th a t P e tit io n e r N o e l R o m e ro (“ N o e l”) w ill f u lly
m i s r epr es ent ed hi s cr i m i nal r ecor d i n or der t o obt ai n l aw ful perm anent r es i dents t atus , and
o rd e re d h is re m o v a l. T h e B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls (“ B IA ” ) d ism iss e d N o e l’s a p p e a l. N oel n o w p e t i t i o n s t h i s Cou r t f o r r e v i e w. W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r 8 U. S. C. § 1252,
s u b je c t to th e q u a lif

ic a tio n s e x p la in e d in th is o p in io n . W e w ill d e n yth e p e titio n . 1 I. N oel , a nat i ve of Peru, ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es i n A ugus t1984. H i s B - 2 vi s a expi r ed i n Februaryof 1985, buthe r emai ned i n thi s countr yw el l pas tthatdat e. I n J une of 1995, he
ma rr i e d F l a v i a Ro me r o ( “ F l a v i a ” ) , a n a tu r a l i z e d Am e r i c a n c i t i z e n . T h e c o u p l e h a d two chi l dr en, bot h of w hom ar e A m er i can ci t i zens . O n February7, 1996, Fl avi a pet i t i oned the I N S fora vi s a forherhus band bas ed on thei rm arr i age. O n t he s ame day , N oel appl i ed for ad justm ent of s t atus t o perm anentr es i dentbycompl et i ng a For m I - 485. T hi s form as kedS h o p lif tin g is a C IM T . Sm irko v . A sh c ro ft , 3 8 7 F .3 d 2 7 9 , 2 8 3 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). 2 3 w hetherN oel had “e ver. . . . been a rr es t ed, ci t ed, char ged, i ndi ct ed, fi ned, ori m pr i s oned for br eaki ng orvi ol at i ng anyl aw oror di nance [. ] ” N o el a n s w er ed “N o, ” des pi t e hi s pr i or convi ct i ons und er N ew J er s eyl aw forcoca i ne pos s es s i on, as s aul t , s hopl i ft i ng, and r ece i pt of s t ol en pr opert y . O n J ul y10, 1996, hi s appl i cat i on foradj us t m entof s t atus t o l aw ful p e r m a n e n t r e s id e n t w a s g ra n te d , a lb e it o n a c o n d itio n a l b a s is . See I m m i gr at i on and N a tio n a lity A c t ( “ IN A ” ) § 2 1 6 , 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 8 6 a . O n Ju n e 1 0 , 1 9 9 8 , the R o m ero s jointl yp eti ti o n ed to rem o v e the co n d it ion s o n N o el’s l aw ful r es i dents t atus byfi l i ng a For m I - 751. T hatform as ked w hetherN oel , s i nce be comi ng a condi t i onal perm anen t resi dent , had “be en arr es t ed, ci t ed, char ged, i ndi ct ed, convi ct ed, f in e d , o r i m p ri s o n e d f

o r b re a k in g o r v io la tin g a n yla w o r o rd in a n c e [ .]” N o e l a n s w e re d “ N o .” T hi s r es pons e w as i nacc ur at e, forhe had a gai n been c onvi ct ed of s hopl i ft i ng on M ar ch 12, 1997. O n J ul y8, 1998, t he IN S gr ant ed the R om er os ’ pet i t i on and r emoved t he condi t i ons o n N o e l’ s p e rm a n e n t r e s id e n t s ta tu s . O n February7, 2006, N oel arr i ved atN ew ark A i rpor ton a fl i ghtr eturni ng fr om Peru. W hen he appl i ed for admi s s i on as a l aw ful perm anentr es i dent , he w as det ai ned and s erved
w i th a N ot i ce t o A ppear (“N T A ”). T he N T A al l eged thatN oel w as i nadmi s s i bl e and
r emovabl e on fourgr ounds : as an al i en convi cted o f a cr i m e i nvol vi ng m or al turpi tude ( “C I M T ”) , I N A § 212( a) ( 2) ( A ) ( i ) ( I ) ; as an al i en convi ct ed of a contr ol l ed s ubs t ance offe ns e,

2 id
. § 212( a) ( 2) ( A ) ( i ) ( I I ) ; as an al i en w ho obt ai ned an i m m i gr at i on benef i tbyfr aud orw i l l ful4

m is re p re s e n ta tio n o f

m a te ri a l f

a c t, id
. § 212( a) ( 6) ( C ) ( i ) ; and as an i nt ended i m m i gr antw ho, atthe t i m e of hi s appl i cat i on foradmi s s i on, l acke d a val i d, unexpi r ed i m m i gr ant vi s a orot her
s u ita b le e n tr yd o c u m e n t, id
. § 212( a) ( 7) ( A ) ( i ) . N oel conce ded the fi r s tt w o g rou n ds of i nadmi s s i bi l i t y— w hi ch w er e bas ed on hi s s hopl i ft i ng and coc ai ne convi ct i ons — butdeni ed the l at t ertw o, w hi ch w er e b ase d on hi s fai l ur e t o di s cl os e hi s cr i m i nal r ecor d on t he I
- 485
a n d I- 7 5 1 f

o rm s . N oel and Fl avi a t es t i fi ed ata hea r i ng befor e t he I J on O ct ober 31, 2006. N oel deni ed
w il l ful l ym i s r epr es ent i ng hi s cr i m i nal r ecor d. H e expl ai ned thathe had notfi l l ed outt he
re lev a n t f

o rm s h im se lf

, b e c a u se h e d id n o t u n d e rsta n d E n g lish a t th e tim e . In ste a d , h e p a id a Spani s h- s peaki ng l egal s ecr et ary named E vel yn R odas t o compl et e the form s on hi s behal f. N oel t es t i fi ed thathe onl y pr ovi ded t he i nform at i on thatR odas as ked hi m t o s uppl y , and that she nev er as ked him i f he h ad a cri m i nal r ecord. H e adm i t t ed to si gn i ng t he inaccurat e form s, butonl ybeca us e R odas t ol d hi m t o, and he t rus t ed herbeca us e s he had “ done thi s forot her peopl e and i thad come out w el l . ” Fl avi a’ s t es t i m onyw as s i m i l ar . She t es t i fi ed thatR odas had fi l l ed out b o th i m m i gr at i on form s on N oel ’ s behal f, and thatnei t hers he norany im m ig ra tio n o f

f ic ia l h a d e v e r a s k e d w h e th e r N o e l h a d a c ri m in a l r e c o rd . W hil e his rem ov al proceed i ng s w ere p end i ng , N oel fil ed a m oti on t o term i nate tho se pr ocee di ngs under8 C . F. R . § 1239. 2( f) . T hatr egul at i on perm i t s an I J t o t erm i nat e r emoval pr ocee di ngs t o perm i tan al i en t o r ece i ve a f i nal hear i ng on a p en d ing appl i cat i on for natur al i zat i on, pr ovi ded t he al i en (1) has es t abl i s hed pr i m a fa ci e el i gi bi l i t yfornatur al i zat i on5

an d (2) the m att er inv o lves “e x ce p ti o n all yap p ea li n g o r hu m an it arian fa c to rs [.]” T h e IJ sta ted th a t sh e w o u ld ter m in at e rem ov a l p ro c e e d in g s if th e D e p a rtm e n t o f

H o m e lan d S e c u rity ( “D H S”) s t i pul at ed t o t erm i nat i on. D H S di d nots o s t i pul at e, and pr ocee di ngs cont i nued. O n M a r c h 2 8 , 2 0 0 7 , t h e I J o r d e r e d Noe l ’ s r e mov a l f r o m th e Uni t e d St a t es . She concl uded thatN oel had tw i ce obt ai ned im m i gr at i on benef i t s byw i l l ful l ym i s r epr es ent i ng m at er i al fac t s : fi r s tbyfai l i ng t o di s cl os e hi s cr i m i nal r ecor d on t he I - 485 form , and l at erby fai l i ng t o di s cl os e hi s M ar ch 1997 s hopl i ft i ng convi ct i on on t he I - 751 form . T he I J r ej ect ed N o e l’s cla im th a t h is o m iss io n s w e re in n o c e n t m ista k e s. S h e a p p a re n tlyb e liev e d h is c laim thathe had notfi l l ed outt he form s hi m s el f, butfound thathe had w i l l ful l yfai l ed “t o be
c a n d id [ a b o u t h is re c o rd ] w ith th o se p e o p le th a t h e c h o se to h e lp h im p re p a re h is
a p p lic a tio n s ,” in c lu d in g h is w if e a n d R o d a s . Fi nal l y , t h e IJ u p hel d t he cha r ge thatN oel w as i nadmi s s i bl e bec aus e he di d not p o s s e s s a v a lid e n tr yd o c u m e n t w h e n h e a p p lie d f o r a d m is s io n a t N e w a rk A irp o rt . See I NA § 212( a) ( 7) ( A ) ( i ) . She r eas oned thatN oel ’ s l aw ful perm anentr es i dentcar d w as nota “va l i d”
e n tr yd o c u m e n t f

o r p u rp o s e s o f

a d m is s io n b e c a u s e h e h a d o b ta in e d it th ro u g h f ra u d . B as ed on thes e conc l us i ons , the I J hel d t hat N oel w as i nadmi s s i bl e and r emovabl e on al l fourgr ounds al l eged i n t he N T A . She al s o concl uded th at N oel w as i nel i gi bl e fort he
var i ous form s of r el i ef fr om r emoval he had r eques t ed, i ncl udi ng canc el l at i on of r emoval
u n d e r I N A § 2 4 0 A a n d a w a iv e r u n d e r ( n o w -r e p e a le d ) I N A § 2 1 2 (c ). O n A p ril 1 9 , 2 0 0 7 , N o e l f iled a tim e ly N o tice o f

A p p e a l w ith th e B IA . H e d id n o t f ile6

a su p p o rtin g b rie f

, b u t h e d id c o m p lete th e se c tio n o f th e f o rm th a t re q u ire d h im to “ S tate in D e tail th e R e a so n s f

o r [ th e ] A p p e a l.” T h a t sta tem e n t re a d , in its e n tirety : W e s ubm i tt hatt he C our terr ed i n fi ndi ng t hat the R es pondent w a s in e lig ib le f

o r th e v a rio u s ap p lica tio n s fo r re lief su b m itt e d in t hes e pr ocee di ngs . D es pi t e fi n d i ng the w i t nes s es ’ t es t i m ony cr edi bl e, t he C our tnevert hel es s found thatt he R es pondenthad w i l ful l ym i s r epr es ent ed hi m s el f i n obt ai ni ng l aw ful perm anent r es i dence , a fi ndi ng uns uppor t ed by , and i n fac tcontr adi ct ed by t he rec o r d of pr ocee di ngs . A s a r es ul tof the C our t ’ s fr aud fi ndi ng , t he I m m i gr at i on J udge neve reven c ons i der ed the Re s p o n d e n t ’ s a l t e r n a t e a p p l i c a t i o n s f o rr e l i e f , i n c l u d i n g [ I NA Sect i on] 212( c) r el i ef a nd C an cel l at i on of R emoval , deemi ng hi m aut om at i cal l yi nel i gi bl e. N ei t her d id the C our tgr antthe R es pondenthi s m ot i on fort erm i nat i on of pr ocee di ngs forl eave t o p ursue hi s appli cat i on for natur al i zat i on . F or t hese reasons, w e app eal t o the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp eal s. T he B I A d ism iss ed the appe al , not i ng thatN oel had pr es ent ed no s peci fi c fa ct s or l egal ar gum ent s t o s uppor thi s cl ai m s of err or . I tal s o s peci fi cal l yendor s ed the I J ’ s r efus al t o t erm i nat e r emoval pr ocee di ngs s o t hatN oel coul d pur s ue natur al i zat i on. I tconcl uded that
r emoval pr ocee di ngs coul d not be t erm i nat ed under§ 1239. 2( f) beca us e N oel had obt ai ned
no af firmat i ve comm uni cat i on fr om D H S at t es t i ng t o hi s pr i m a fa ci e el i gi bi l i t yfor natur al i zat i on. T he B I A not ed t hat § 1239. 2( f) , as i nt erpr et ed i n M at t erof A cos ta- Hi dal

go , 2 4 I& N D ec . 1 0 3 (B . I. A . 2 0 0 7 ), req u ir es suc h a co m m u n icati o n fro m the D H S b ef o re a n IJ
m ayt erm i nate r em ov al proceed i ng s. O n O ct ober3, 2008, N oel fi l ed a t i m el ypet i t i on forr evi ew i n t hi s C our t . H e r ai s es thr ee cl ai m s of err or . Fi r s t , he ar gues thatthe r ecor d does nots uppor tthe I J ’ s fi ndi ng t hat he w i l l ful l ym i s r epr es ent ed hi s cr i m i nal r ecor d on the I
- 485 and I-7 51 form s . Second, he7

a rg u e s th a t h is r e m o v a l is b a rr e d b yth e f iv e -ye a r s ta tu te o f

lim ita tio n s o f

IN A § 2 4 6 (a ), 8 U . S. C . § 1256( a) . T hi r d, he cont ends thatthe I J and B I A vi ol at ed due pr oces s bydeny i ng h is m o tio n to ter m in a te re m o v a l p ro c e e d in g s u n d e r § 1 2 3 9 .2 (f ) sim p lyb e c a u se th e D H S d id
n o t a f f ir m a tiv e ly co m m u n ic a te h is p ri m a f a c ie e lig ib ility f

o r n a tu ra liz a tio n to th e IJ . II . N oel fi rs targues t hat the IJ’ s finding t hat he w i l l full ym i sr epresent ed h i s cr i m i nal past i s nots uppor t ed byt he r ecor d. H e conc edes thathe fa i l ed t o di s cl os e hi s convi ct i ons on the relev an t i m m igrati o n fo rm s. F u rth erm o re, he d o es n o t den ythat thes e o m issi o n s w ere m is re p re s e n ta tio n s o f

“ m a te ri a l” f

a c ts . See IN A § 2 1 2 (a )(6 )(C )(i). H e a rg u e s o n lyth a t h is f a ilu re to d isc lo se h is c rim in a l re c o rd w a s n o t “w ill f u l” b e c a u se h e d id n o t h im se lf under s t and that t he r el evant form s r eques t ed t hat i nform at i on, and t he per s on he depe nded on t o compl et e the form s forhi m ( M s . R odas ) never as ked aboutt he s ubj ect . “The el ement of w i l l ful nes s i s s at i s fi ed bya fi ndi ng thatthe mi s r epr es ent at i on w as del i ber at e and vol unt ary . T he [gove r nm ent ] does not need t o s how i nt entt o dece i ve; r ather , know l edge of the fal s i ty of t he re pr es ent at i on w i l l s uffi ce. ” M w onger a v. I

. N
. S. , 1 8 7 F . 3 d 3 2 3 , 3 3 0 (3d C ir . 1999) ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons and quot at i ons om i t t ed) . W hethera mi s r epr es ent at i on w as w i l l ful is a n is s u e o f

f a c t. Si ngh v. G onz al es , 4 1 3 F . 3 d 1 5 6 , 1 6 0 ( 1 s t Ci r . 2 0 0 5 ) . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we revi ew the IJ’ s fi nd i ng of w i l l fulness under t he “sub st anti al evidence” st and ard, and w e m ust
u p h o ld it u n les s the re c o rd is s u c h th a t “a n yre a so n a b le a d ju d ica to r w o u ld b e c o m p e lled to c o n c lu d e ” th a t th e IJ e rr e d . C hen v. G onz al es , 434 F. 3d 212, 216 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( quot i ng 8W e al s o r ej ectN oel ’ s s ubs i di aryar gum entthatthe I J err ed, on t he bas i s of her 3 i n c o rr e c twi l l f

u l n e s s f i n d i n g , i n c o n c l u d i n g th a th e wa s i n e l i g i b l e f o ra wa i v e ru n d e rI NA § 2 1 2 (c ) a n d /o r c a n c e lla tio n o f re m o v a l u n d e r I N A § 2 4 0 A .

8 U . S. C . § 1252( b) ( 4) ) . A ft er r evi ew i ng t he r ecor d, w e conc l ude thata r eas onabl e adj udi cat or c o u l d h a v e c o n c lu d e d th a t N o e l’ s m is re p re s e n ta tio n w a s “ d e lib e ra te a n d v o lu n ta ry.” M w on gera , 18 7 F . 3d at33 0. T herefore, w e w i l l no t dis turb t he IJ ’s fi nd i ng of w i l l fulness. 3 II I. N ext , N oel ar gues t hateven i f he w i l l ful l ym i s r epr es ent ed mat er i al fac t s i n 1996 and 1998, hi s r emoval on t hat bas i s i s barr ed bythe fi ve- y ears t atut e of l i m i t at i ons on r es ci s s i ons of adj us t m ent of st atus cont ai ned i n I N A § 246( a) , w hi ch w e appl i ed i n B am i del e v. I
. N
. S. , 99 F. 3d 557 ( 3d C i r . 1996) , and G ar ci a v. A t t or ney G ener al , 5 5 3 F . 3 d 7 2 4 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ). W e l ack j ur i s di ct i on t o cons i derthi s cl ai m . “A courtm ayr evi ew a fi n al o rderof
r emoval onl yi f, ” among ot herr equi r emen ts , “the al i en has exhaus t ed al l admi ni s t r at i ve r emedi es avai l abl e t o t he al i en as of r i ght . ” 8 U . S. C . § 1252( d) ( 1) . T hi s m eans t hat“an a l i en i s r equi r ed t o r ai s e and e xhaus thi s orherr emedi es as t o e a c h c la im o r g ro u n d fo r r e lief if he ors he i s t o pr es erve t he r i ght of j udi ci al r evi ew of thatcl ai m . ” A b d u lra h m a n v . A sh c ro ft , 330 F. 3d 587, 594- 95 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( emphasi s added) . D es pi t e the j ur i s di ct i onal natur e of th is re q u ir e m e n t, w e h a v e ta k e n a “ lib e ra l” a p p ro a c h to e n f o rc in g it. Jos eph v. A t t ’ y G en. , 4 6 5 F . 3 d 1 2 3 , 1 2 6 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 6 ) . “ [ S ] o l on g as a n i mmi g r a t i o n p e t i t i o n e rma k e s s o me eff or t , how everi ns uffi ci ent , to p la ce the B oar d on not i ce of a s t r ai ght forw ar d i s s ue bei ng ra is e d o n a p p e a l, a p e titio n e r is d e e m e d to h a v e e x h a u s te d [ h is ] a d m in is tr a t i v e r e m e d ie s .”N ordi d t he B I A cons i derthe i s s ue su a sp o n te . See Li n v. A t t ’ y G en. , 543 F. 3d 4 114, 126 ( 3d C i r . 2008) ( deemi ng exhaus t i on r equi r ements at i s fi ed w her e the pet i t i oner f a iled to ra ise a n iss u e b u t th e B IA c o n sid e re d it su a sp o n te ). A tor al ar gum ent , N oel ’ s couns el conce ded thatthe s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons i s s ue 5 w a s n o t p re s e n te d to th e B IA . 9 Y a n L a n W

u v . A sh c ro

ft , 3 9 3 F .3 d 4 1 8 , 4 2 2 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). N o el ca n n o t sat isfyev en this p erm issi v e st an d ard . H is N o ti ce o f A p p ea l t o the B IA di d not ar gue t hat hi s r emoval w as t i m e- barr ed by§ 246( a) . I ndeed, not hi ng i n the N ot i ce, 4
even w hen r ead “expa ns i vel y [, ] even s ugges t ed t he i s s ue. ” Li n v. A t t ’ y G en. , 543 F. 3d 114, 1 2 1 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 8 ). T h e N o tice c h a llen g e s o n lyth e IJ’ s f in d in g th a t N o e l w ill f u lly
m i sr epresent ed m at eri al fact s, and t he I J’ s decis i on no t t o term i nate r em ov al proceed i ng s so that N o el co u ld p u rsue n atura li za ti o n . W h il e “an ali en n ee d n o t d o m u ch to alert th e B o ard thathe i s r ai s i ng an i s s ue, ” Jos eph , 465 F. 3d at126, he mustdo s om ethi ng. N oel di d notdo
s o w i th r es pect t o hi s § 246( a) cl ai m . T her efor e, he has not exhaus t ed his ad m inist rat i ve 5
re m e d ie s w ith re s p e c t to th a t c la im , a n d w e la c k ju ri s d ic tio n to c o n s id e r i t. IV . F in a lly , N o e l co n ten d s th a t th e IJ v io late d h is d u e p ro c e ss rig h ts b y ref u sin g to t erm i nate h is rem oval pr ocee di ngs pur s uantt o 8 C . F. R . § 1239. 2( f) . T hatr egul at i on pr ovi des , i n r el evantpart , t hat“[a ] n i m m i gr at i on j udge mayt erm i nat e r emoval pr ocee di ngs t o perm i tt he al i en t o pr oce ed t o a fi nal hear i ng on a pendi ng appl i cat i on orpet i t i on for natur al i zat i on w hen [1] t he al i en has es t abl i s hed pr i m a fac i e el i gi bi l i t y for natur al i zat i on andT he r emai nderof the r egul at i on pr ovi des that“i n everyot hercas e, the r emoval 6 hear i ng s hal l be compl et ed as pr om pt l yas pos s i bl e notw i t hs t andi ng the pende ncyof an a p p lic a tio n f

o r n a tu ra liz a tio n d u ri n g a n ys ta te o f th e p ro c e e d in g s .” 8 C .F .R . § 1 2 3 9 .2 (f ). T he purpos e r efl ect ed i n § 1239. 2( f) i s t o gi ve r emoval pr ocee di ngs pr i or i t yover natur al i zat i on pr ocee di ngs , “t o pr eventa r ace betw een a n al i en, s eeki ng t o be natur al i zed, and i m m i gr at i on author i t i es , [s eeki ng] t o compl et e r emoval pr ocee di ngs . ” A cos taHi dal go , 2 4 I& N D ec . at 10 7 (i n terna l qu o tat ion s o m itted). 10 [2 ] t he mat t eri nvol ves exce pt i onal l yappea l i ng orhum ani t ar i an fa ct or s [. ] ” I n Ac o s t a- 6 Hi dal go , the B IA i nt erpr et ed the fi r s tpr ong of thi s t es tt o r equi r e “s om e af fi r m at i ve comm uni cat i on r egar di ng [the al i en’s ] pr i m a fa ci e el i gi bi l i t yfornatur al i zat i on fr om the D H S” befor e an I J m ayt erm i nat e re m oval pr ocee di ngs . 24 I & N D ec. at107- 08. W e have
u p h e ld th is in te rp re ta tio n a s re a s o n a b le . Zegr ean v. A t t ’ y G en. , 6 0 2 F . 3 d 2 7 3 , 2 7 4 (3d C ir . 2 0 1 0 ). H er e, t he I J decl i ned t o t erm i nat e r emoval pr ocee di ngs pur s uantt o § 1239. 2( f) , and
as t he B I A not ed, term ination o f p roc ee d ing s w o u ld h av e b ee n im p erm issi b le un d er A cos taHi dal go b e c a u se th e D H S h a d n o t p r o v id e d a n ya f f irm a tiv e c o m m u n ica tio n a ttes tin g to N oel ’ s pr i m a fa ci e el i gi bi l i t yfor natur al i zat i on. N oel does notdi s put e that§ 1239. 2( f) , as i nt erpr et ed i n A cos ta- Hi dal go , im p o se s a n “ a f

f irm a tiv e c o m m u n ica tio n ” re q u ire m e n t. R a th e r, h e a rg u e s th a t th e B o a rd ’s im p o sitio n o f su c h a re q u ire m e n t is “ f u n d a m e n tallyu n f

a ir beca us e i tgi ves t he [D H S] compl et e vet o pow er over a t erm i nat i on of r emoval pr ocee di ngs thr ough s i l ence . ” H e ar gues t hathe has demonstr at ed pr i m a f aci e el i gi bi l i t yfor natur al i zati on , i n thathe (1) w as a l egal perm anen tres i den tfor ov er fi ve y ears ; (2) w as a pe r s o n o f g o o d mor a l c h a r a c t e r f o r t h e l a s t t e n y e a r s ; a n d ( 3 ) h a d n o t c o mmi t t e d anI ta p p e a r s t h i s i s t h e f i r s tt i me No e l h a s r a i s e d th i s a r g u me n t . “ No r ma l l y , we 7 h a v e ju risd ictio n o v e r a n a lien ’s c laim s o n lyw h e re th e a lien h a s ra ise d a n d e x h a u ste d h is o r he r ad m inistrati v e re m ed ies as to th at claim . H o w ev er, du e p roc ess c lai m s are gener al l yexemptfr om t he exha us t i on r equi r ementbeca us e the B I A does nothave j ur i s di ct i on t o adj udi cat e cons t i tut i onal i s s ues . ” Mudr i c v. A t t ’ y G en. , 469 F. 3d 94, 97- 98 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) ( in te rn a l c ita tio n s o m itte d ). O u r r e v ie w is p le n a ry. Id
. 11 aggr avat ed fe l ony . H e al s o m aint ai ns thatthe “humani t ar i an fa ct or s ” r efe r ence d i n § 1239. 2( f) w ei ghed i n favorof t erm i nat i ng r emoval pr ocee di ngs , as he has l i ved i n the U ni t ed S t at es for m ore than t w o d ecade s and h as a w i fe an d ch i l dren w ho are A m eri c a n ci t i zens. A cc o rdin g to N o el, u n d er the se c ir cu m stan ce s, it w as fu n d am en tal ly u n fa ir fo r th e IJ an d B IA t o denyhi m a cha nce a tnatur al i zat i on s i m pl ybyvi r tue of the D H S’ s s i l ence . 7 W e ar e not p ersu ad ed . N oel ci t es no author i t yforthe pr opos i t i on thatthe rul e of A cos ta- Hi dal

go v iolates d u e p roc ess, an d o u r rese arc h rev ea ls no n e. N o el po ints t o B o ard M emberFi l ppu’ s di s s enti n A cos ta- Hi dal go , buteven Fi l ppu di d notar gue thathi s pr efe r r ed
rea d ing o f § 1 2 3 9 . 2 (f) w as c o m p ell ed b yd u e p roc ess. H e a rgu ed o n lythat the m ajority ’s i nt erpr et at i on cr e a t e d “ d i f f i c u l t [ i e s ] ” a n do f

f e r e da n a l t e rn at i ve i nt erpr et at i on t hatw oul d have
e lim in a te d th o s e d if

f ic u ltie s . See A cos ta- Hi dal go , 2 4 I& N D e c . a t 1 0 9 . T he rul e announc ed i n A cos ta- Hi dal go i s notfundament al l yunfai r . C ongr es s , w hi ch h a s p len a ryp o w e r o v e r im m ig ra tio n , h a s g ra n ted th e A tto rn e yG e n e ra l th e “ so le a u th o rity to n a tu ra lize p e rso n s a s c iti z e n s o f th e U n ited S tate s.” 8 U .S .C . § 1 4 2 1 ( a ). T h is a u th o rity h a s b e e n d e le g a te d to th e D H S . See H er nandezde Anders on v. G onz al es , 497 F. 3d 927, 933 (9th C i r. 20 07 ). A s A cos ta- Hi dal go r ecogni zed, t he B I A and I J s l ack a uthor i t yt o det erm i ne12

p rim a f a c ie e lig ib il it yf

o r n a tu ra liza tio n . 2 5 I& N D e c . at 1 0 5 -0 6 . It i s n o t f u n d a m e n tally unfai rforthem t o r equi r e aff i r m at i ve confi r m at i on of el i gi bi l i t y fr om t he one e nt i t yt hatdoes h a v e th a t a u t h o r i t y b e f o re te rm in a tin g re m o v a l p ro c e e d in g s u n d e r § 1 2 3 9 .2 (f ). See Her nandezde Anders on , 4 9 7 F . 3 d at 93 5 (rejectin g d u e p roc ess c h all en g e to § 1 2 3 9 . 2 (f)); “[g] i ven C ongr es s ’ s pl enarypow eroveri m m i gr at i on, ” pet i t ion er’ s ar gum ent“thatt he A t t orneyG en era l an d, der i vat i vel y , the D H S have bee n gi ven t oo m uch author i t yover n a tu ra liz a tio n a n d re m o v a l d e c is io n s ” w a s u n p e rs u a s iv e ). V . F o r t h e f o re g o in g re a s o n s , th e p e titio n f o r r e v ie w w ill b e d e n ie d .F IS H E R , C i r cui tJudge , concurr i ng.

T h o u g h I u n c o n d iti o n a llyjo in m yc o llea g u e s’ o p in io n in P a rts I, II a n d IV , I w rite
s epar at el yt o concuri n Par tI I I and t o expr es s m yr es ervat i ons aboutthe s t r i ct enfor cementof admi ni s t r at i ve exha us t i on r equi r ement s i n t hi s cas e. U ndert he cl earpr ece dentof thi s ci r cui t , byw hi ch w e ar e bound, the r equi r ement thata pet i t i oneradmi ni s t r at i vel yexhaus tal l i s s ues bypr es ent i ng them i n a not i ce of
a p p e a l to th e B IA is s ta tu to ry a n d a p re re q u is ite to o u r j u ri s d ic tio n . See 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 5 2 (d )(1 ); A bdulr ahm an , 330 F. 3d at594- 95. I agr ee w i t h t he maj or i t y ’ s as s es s m ent thatR om er o fai l ed t o s peci fi cal l yr ai s e hi s s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons ar gum enti n hi s not i ce of appea l , and thatunderours t r i cti nt erpr et at i on of the r equi r ement s of § 1252( d) ( 1) that
om i s s i on pr ecl udes ourj ur i s di ct i on overthe i s s ue. H ow ever , admi ni s t r at i ve exha us t i on i s a means t o a pr act i cal end, nota ques t i on of
m e re te c h n ic a l c o m p lia n c e . See W e in b e rg e r v . Sa lfi , 422 U . S. 749, 765 ( 1975) (“ E x h a u stio n is g e n e ra llyre q u ire d a s a m a tter o f p re v e n tin g p re m a tu re in ter f e re n c e w ith agenc ypr oces s es , s o t hatt he age ncym ayfunct i on eff i ci ent l yand s o t hati tm ayhave a n o p p o rtu n ityto c o rre c t it s o w n e rro rs, to a f f o rd th e p a rties a n d th e c o u rts th e b e n e f it o f its exper i ence and expe r t i s e, and t o compi l e a r ecor d w hi ch i s adequa t e forj udi ci al
re v iew .”); cf

. McR ae v. Li brary of C on gress , 843 F. 2d 1494, 1496 ( D . C . C i r . 1988) ( “[B]yr equi r i ng exhaus t i on befor e the age ncyi n t he fi r s ti ns t ance , C ongr es s di d not i nt end t o er ecta mass i ve pr ocedur al r oadbl ock t o acc es s t o t he court s . ”) . T he foc us of an i nqui ryi nt o admi ni s t r at i ve exha us t i on s houl d be w hetherthe age ncyhad ac tual not i ce a nd2

o p p o rt u n ity to a d d re s s th e p e titio n e r’ s g ri e v a n c e b e f o re re s o rt to th e f

e d e ra l c o u rt s . B eca us e the age ncycl ear l yhad s uch not i ce a nd oppor tuni t yher e, and conc eded a s m uch ator al ar gum ent , I bel i eve thats t r i ctenfor cementof admi ni s t r at i ve exha us t i on r equi r ement s i n t hi s cas e poor l ys erves C ongr es s ’ i nt ended e nds i n enac t i ng s uch requi rem ents . A s D H S not ed t o t he C our t , t he I J cons i der ed the appl i cat i on of B a m id e le ’s s tatu te of l i m i t at i ons hol di ng t o R om er o’ s cas e. ( A . R . 165- 66. ) T he I J obs erved, “I ’ ve bee n for ced t o form an opi ni on on r eci s i on ver s us w i t hi n t he, the cha nge i n t he l aw and the T hi r d C i r cui tcas e bei ng pr i ort o t he cha nge i n t he l aw , s o I di dn’ t , I do have a n opi ni on aboutthat . I t hi nk t heycan . . . . I t hi nk theycan j us tgo w i t h t he r emoval pr ocee di ngs . ” ( A . R . 165. ) R om er o’ s couns el r es ponded, “I know . . . . B utI ’ l l j us tputi ti n t her e s o I can pr es erve i tand that ’ s al l . ” ( A . R . 166. ) A l t hough thi s excha nge i s admi t t edl yobl i que, no par tydi s put es t hati tw as a r efe r ence t o B a m id e le , w h ich a p p lied th e f iv e -y e a r sta tu te o f lim itatio n s f

o u n d in § 2 4 6 (a ) to re m o v a l p ro c e e d in g s b a se d o n e rro n e o u s a d ju stm e n ts of s t atus . 99 F. 3d at563. T he I J ’ s r efe r ence t o t he “c hange i n l aw ” r efl ect s the 1996 amendm entt o § 246( a) , w hi ch D H S bel i eved i nval i dat ed B a m id e le unt i l ours ubs equent deci s i on i n G a rc ia re a f f ir m e d its a p p lic a tio n . G a rc ia , 553 F. 3d at728. T hus , al t hough
c o u n se l u n n e c e ss a rilyc o n c e d e d th a t B a m id e le o f f e re d n o p o st-a m e n d m e n t re m e d y , this
c o n c e ss io n w a s b a se d o n a n in terp re tatio n o f u n c e rta in law a n d re f

lec ted a d e sire to “pr es erve” the i s s ue forl at err evi ew . A tthe t i m e the not i ce of appea l w as fi l ed, om i t t i ng3

th is is s u e f

o r r e v ie w , G a rc ia had noty etbeen de ci ded and the s t atus of B a m id e le i n l i ght
o f th e statuto ryam en d m en t r em aine d u n clea r. A l though t he amendm entof § 246( a) , and i t s uncert ai n i m pacton B a m id e le , does
n o t d e f in iti v e lye x c u se R o m e ro ’s f a ilu re to ra ise th e sta tu te o f lim itatio n s d e f

e n se in h is
n o tice o f a p p e a l, I b e liev e it p lac e s th e o n u s o n th e a g e n c y , as o p p o se d to th e c o u rt, t o a rg u e th a t it w a s u n d u ly su rp ri s e d b yR o m e ro ’s la te r r e s u rr e c tio n o f th is is s u e o n a p p e a l. T he age ncyneverr ai s ed admi ni s t r at i ve exha us t i on i n i t s br i efs , and i tw as thi s panel t hat fi r s tbr oache d t he t opi c ator al ar gum ent . I n fac t , D H S concede d t hati thad cons i der ed and r ej ect ed an a dm i ni s t r at i ve exha us t i on ar gum entbeca us e the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons i s s ue had be en r ai s ed w i t h t he I J , ci t i ng the por t i on of the admi ni s t r at i ve r ecor d quot ed above. W her e, as her e, t he purpos es of admi ni s t r at i ve exha us t i on have be en s erved, I do
n o t b e lie v e th a t C o n g re s s in te n d e d o u r j u ri s d ic tio n to tu rn o n m e re te c h n ic a litie s . C f. B ow den v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 1 0 6 F .3 d 4 3 3 , 4 3 9 (D .C . C ir. 1 9 9 7 ) (“ [ E ]x h a u stio n re q u ire m e n ts

. . . ar e pr act i cal and pr agmat i c and s houl d notbe i nvoked w hen theys erve no pr act i cal p u rpo se.”) (qu o tat ion o m itted). I t her efor e j oi n t he maj or i t yi n t he out come of t hi s cas e, butal s o s har e i n t he
r es ervat i ons expr es s ed byt hi s C our ti n L in , w h e re w e sta ted , “[ W ]h ile th e re is re a so n to castdo ub tup on t he co nti nu i ng vali dityof o ur precedent holdi ng that i ssue exh aust i on i s a j ur i s di ct i onal rul e, s hor tof a r evi ew en banc , w e mustdut i ful l yappl ythatpr ece dent . ”4

5 4 3 F .3 d a t 1 2 0 n .6 ; s ee al s o See Zhong v. U
. S. D ep’ tof Jus t i ce , 480 F. 3d 104, 107 ( 2d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ).