FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT NOVEMB ER 16 , 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N os . 04- 12684 & 05- 13721 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ B I A N o. A 91- 391- 016 C A R L O S C A S T R O - G A R C I A , P e titio n e r , v ersu s U .S . A T T O RN E Y G E N E R A L , R e s p o n d e n t.

________________________ P e t i t i ons 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

_________________________ ( N ove m b e r 16, 2005) B efo re B IR C H , H U L L an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

C a r l os C a s tr o- G a r c i a , aG ua t e m a l a n c i t i z e n appe a r i ng w i th c ouns e l , pe t i t i ons f orr e vi e w of

the B oa r d of

I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ’ s ( “ B I A ” ) or de ra f f i rm i ng the I m m i gr a t i on J udge ’ s ( “ I J ” ) de ni a l of a s y l um , w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l , a nd prot ec t i on un der the Im m i grat i on and N at i on al i ty A ct(“ IN A ”) , 8 U . S . C . § 1 10 1 et s e q ., a n d th e U n ite d N a tio n s C o n v e n tio n A g a in s t T o r tu r e a n d O th e rC ru e l, Inhu m an, or D egra di ng T re atm entor P un i shm ent(“ C A T ”) , 8 C . F . R . §§ 20 8. 16 et seq . T h e IJ d et erm i n ed th atC astro -G arci a w as n o ten t i t l ed t o (1 ) asyl u m b ecau se h e h a d c o m m i tt e d a n a g g r a v a t e d f e l o n y , ( 2 ) wi th h o l d i n g o f r e m o v a l u n d e rth e I NA a n d th e C A T b e c a u s e h is c o n v ic tio n f o rp o s s e s s io n o f

c o c a in e w ith in te n t to di s tr i but e w a s a“ pa r t i c ul a r l y s e r i ous c r i m e , ” a nd ( 3) de f e rr a l of r e m ova l unde rthe C A T be c a us e he di d notpr ove tha ti tw a s m or e l i ke l y tha n nottha the w oul d be to r tu r e d if

h e w a s r e m o v e d to G u a te m a la . T h e B I A a f f irm e d w ith o u t o p in io n . W e DE NY C a s tr o - Ga r c i a ’ s p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. I . B AC KG RO UN D C as tro-G ar ci a i s aci t i ze n o f G uat em al a w ho has bee n l i vi ng i n the U ni t ed S t a t e s f orne a r l y tw e nty y e a r s . H e be c a m e al a w f ul pe rm a ne ntr e s i de ntof the U ni t e d S t a t e s i n 1989. C a s tr o- G a r c i aha s s i nc e m a rr i e d aU ni t e d S t a t e s c i t i z e n a nd i s the f a the rof tw o c hi l dr e n.On 25 November 2002, President B ush signe d into law the Homeland Security Act of 2002 1 (“H SA”), Pub. L . No. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135. The HSA cre ated a new Depar tment of Homeland Se c uri ty ( “ D H S ” ) , a

b o l i s h e d th eI N S , an d tran s f er re d i t s f un c ti o n s t o th en ewd ep artme nt. Nevertheless, be causethis case wa s initi ated while theI NS was still in ex istence, this opinion refers to t heag ency a s th eI NS. 3 O n 14 O c t obe r1999, C a s tr o- G a r c i aw a s s e rve d by the I m m i gr a t i on a nd Na tu r a l i z a t i o n Se rv i c e ( “ I NS” ) wi th an o t i c e t o ap p e a r( “ NTA” ) . Th e NTA 1 a l l e ge d tha the w a s ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of G ua t e m a l a , tha the w a s a dm i tt e d t o the U n ite d S ta te s o n 1 1 D e c e m b e r1 9 8 9 , a n d th a t h e w a s c o n v ic te d in aF lo r id as ta te c our ton 25 O c t obe r1990 f ors e l l i ng c oc a i ne , a nd a ga i n on 23 M a r c h 1998 f or tr a f f i c ki ng i n c oc a i ne . B a s e d on tha ti nf orm a t i on, the N T A c ha r ge d tha tC a s tr oG a r c i aw a s s ubj e c tt o r e m ova l f r om the U ni t e d S t a t e s unde rthe I N A f orha vi ng been conv i ct ed of vi ol at i ng a s t at e’ s c on trol l ed subst ance l aw and for havi ng been conv i ct ed of an aggravat ed fe l on y r el at i ng t o i l l i ci ttra ff i cki ng of a c on trol l ed s ubs t a nc e . T he r e c or d c ont a i ns , i n r e l e va ntpa r t , ac e r t i f i e d doc um e ntf

r om the F l ori da st at e c ou rtw here C as tro-G ar ci a w as conv i ct ed. T he do cum entst at es that C a s tr o - G a r c iaw a s a d

ju d ic a te d g u ilty o f

p o s s e s s io n o f

c o c a in e w ith th e in te n t to s e l l orde l i ve r( the l e s s e ri nc l ude d of f e ns e of tr a f f i c ki ng i n c oc a i ne w i th w hi c h he w a s o r ig in a lly c h a r g e d ) a n d w a s s e n te n c e d to o n e y e a ro f im p r is o n m e n t. C a s tr o- G a r c i as ubs e que nt l y f i l e d a n appl i c a t i on f

ora s y l um a nd w i thhol di ng of re m ov al , w here i n h e s t at ed thathe w as pers ec ut ed on ac coun tof hi s pol i t i ca l opi ni on. O n 23 A pr i l 2002, C a s tr o- G a r c i af i l e d am ot i on f

orac ont i nua nc e , s t a t i ng4

tha the m a y ha ve s uf

f e r e d as tr oke . W i th the m ot i on, C a s tr o- G a r c i ai nc l ude d a l e tt e rf r om hi s doc t or , w ho s t a t e d tha tC a s tr o- G a r c i apr e s e nt e d s y m pt om s of w ea kn es s a nd nu m bn es s i n h i s e xtre m i t i es , had sl urre d speec h, and h ad se vera l i n st an ces o f h ead ach es. T h e d o ct o r al so i n d i cat ed th atC astro -G arci a w as atri sk f o rar e c u rr e n t e p is o d e . A t h is in itia l m a s te rc a le n d a rh e a r in g , th e I J d e te rm in e d th a t C a s tr o - G a r c ia w as re m ov abl e. C as tro-G ar ci a a dm i tt ed thathe w as no tel i gi bl e f or as yl um base d on hi s c on vi ct i on s, bu ti nd i ca t ed thathe w as go i ng t o see k w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al r e lie f u n d e rth e I N A a n d th e C A T . D u r in g h is s u b s e q u e n t r e m o v a l h e a r in g , h is a tt orne y c onc e de d tha ttr a f f i c ki ng w a s apa r t i c ul a r l y s e r i ous of f e ns e ( ac onc e s s i on th a t C a s tr o - G a r c ian o w c la im s w a s b a s e le s s ) . A tthe heari ng , C as tro-G ar ci a t es t i fi ed thatw hen h e w as se vent ee n h e j oi ned al oc a l c i vi l i a n pa tr ol . T he gr oup s e rve d a s ani ght l y l ookoutf orhi s vi l l a ge a nd w oul d w a rn f

a m i l i e s aboutthe a rr i va l of the gove rnm e nt . A ttha tt i m e , a c c or di ng t o C a s tr o- G a r c i a , the G ua t e m a l a n gove rnm e ntr out i ne l y ki l l e d i nnoc e ntpe opl e w ho o p p o s e d th e g o v e rn m e n t. I n hi s f i r s ty e a rw i th the pa tr ol , the G ua t e m a l a n m i l i t a ry ki dnape d hi m a nd hi s c ou si ns. C as tro-G ar ci a w as beat en up by hi s i nt errogat ors, ca l l ed a gueri l l a, a n d a c c u s e d o f

s to c kp ilin g w e ap o n s . A f te raw e e ko f

d e te n tio n , h e e s c ap e d w ith s o m e c o u s in s a n d f

le d to M e x ic o a n d la te rto th e U n ite d S ta te s . O th e rth a n h is5

c ous i n a nd unc l e w ho l i ve i n C a na da , C a s tr o- G a r c i ac l a i m s tha te ve ry othe rpe r s on in th e c iv ilia n p a tr o l w a s k ille d b y th e g o v e rn m e n t. T o bol s t e rhi s c l a i m s , C a s tr o- G a r c i as ubm i tt e d al e tt e rf r om af a m i l y f r i e nd w ho i s acol on el i n G uat em al a. T he l ett erst at ed thatC as tro-G ar ci a w as i nv ol ved in ad a n g e r o u s s itu a tio n “a s ale f tis t, in o th e rw o r d s , a s am e m b e ro f th e g u e r illa grou ps agai nstthe G ov ernm entof thi s c ou ntry . ” R at18 0. T he l ett erexpl ai ned that som e of C as tro-G ar ci a’ s f am i l y a nd fr i ends w ho al so part i ci pat ed had b ee n a s s a s s i na t e d a nd i tw a rne d tha tC a s tr o- G a r c i aw oul d e xpe r i e nc e the s a m e f a t e i f he re turned t o G uat em al a. W hen the IJqu es t i on ed hi m ov erthe col on el ’ s c l ai m s that he w a s ague r i l l a , C a s tr o- G a r c i ade ni e d a nyi nvol ve m e ntbe y ond hi s s e rvi c e i n the c iv ilia n p a tr o l. C a s tr o - Ga r c i a ’ s m e d i c a l c o n d i t i o n wa s a l s o a ti s s u e i n th e h e a r i n g . On di r e c t , he t e s t i f

i e d tha the w a s on m e di c a t i on f orhi gh bl ood pr e s s ur e a nd pe r s i s t e nt he a da c he s . A f

t e rthe gove rnm e nt , c i t i ng r e l e va nc e , obj e c t e d t o thi s l i ne of q u est i o n i n g , C astro -G arci a’ s att o rn ey i n fo rm ed th e IJ th atsh e w an t ed t o est ab l i sh hi s m e di c a l c ondi t i on, buta dm i tt e d tha ts he w a s notc e r t a i n i f the r e w a s a ny thi ng tha tw oul d a f

f e c thi s t e s t i m ony . T he I J the n e nga ge d i n ac ol l oquy w i th C a s tr oG a r c i ar e ga r di ng hi s drug a nd a l c ohol abus e . A f t e rc r os s - e xa m i na t i on, C a s tr oG arci a w as ask ed o n red i recti f h i s stro k e cau sed an y l o n g t erm m ed i cal p ro b l em s. T he go vernm entagai n o bj ec t ed, and C as tro-G ar ci a’ s a tt orney r es po nd ed that6

C as tro-G ar ci a s om et i m es has l apse s of m em ory. A tthatpo i nt , the IJconcl ud ed th a t C a s tr o - G a r c ias h o u ld h a v e r a is e d th e is s u e p r io rto th e h e a r in g if h e th o u g h t it w a s g o in g e f

f e c t h is te s tim o n y . A f t e rc ons i de r i ng the t e s t i m ony a nd the e vi de nc e i n the r e c or d, the I J f ound C a s tr o - G a r c iar e m o v ab le b a s e d o n th e 1 9 9 8 c o n v ic tio n o f p o s s e s s io n w ith in te n t to di s tr i but e c oc a i ne . T he I J c onc l ude d tha tC a s tr o- G a r c i aw a s i ne l i gi bl e f or ca ncel l at i on of re m ov al and asy l um because he w as conv i ct ed of an aggravat ed f e l ony . T he I J f

ur the rde t e rm i ne d tha tC a s tr o- G a r c i aw a s i ne l i gi bl e f or w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al un der the IN A and C A T because hi s c on vi ct i on const i tut ed ap a r tic u la r ly s e r io u s c r im e . C astro -G arci a’ s cl ai m fo r d eferral of rem o v al u n d er th e C A T w as al so r e j e c t e d be c a us e he f

a i l e d t o pr ove tha ti tw a s m or e l i ke l y tha n nottha the w oul d be t ortured i f he r eturned t o G uat em al a. E ven tho ug h C as tro-G ar ci a had suff er ed m is tr e a tm e n t in G u a te m a la , th e I J n o te d th a t it h a d b e e n s e v e n te e n y e a r s s in c e h is a s s oc i a t i on w i th the gue r i l l a s a nd tha the ha d r e turne d thr e e t o f i ve t i m e s w i thout a ny pr obl e m s . W hi l e the e vi de nc e i ndi c a t e d tha tG ua t e m a l aw a s s t i l l ada nge r ous pl a c e , the I J c onc l ude d tha ti tdi d nots how tha tC a s tr o- G a r c i aw oul d be t a r ge t e d on hi s r e turn. A ddi t i ona l l y , the I J di s c ount e d the c ol one l ’ s l e tt e rw a rni ng of the da nge r s t o f

orm e rgue r i l l a s s i nc e C a s tr o- G a r c i aha d t e s t i f i e d tha the w a s i n f

a c tnot ag u e r illa .Our jurisdictional question and Castro- Garcia’ s response were answere d by § 106 of the 2 re c ently enac te d REAL

ID A c t. Thisse c tio n p ro vide s th at th e perm anent rule s n owg ov ern all immigration cases. Pub. L . No. 109-13, Div. B , § 106(a) -(d) , 1 1 9 S tat. 231, 310-11 (2005) . Specifically , § 106(b) provides that the REAL ID Act Amendments shall apply retroactively . 7 F ol l ow i ng the I J ’ s de c i s i on, C a s tr o- G a r c i af i l e d anot i c e of

appe a l w i th the B IA , arg u i n g th atth e IJ erred as a m att er o f factan d l aw i n d en yi n g h i s req u est u n d e rth e C A T . I n th e ap p e a l, h e s ta te d th e I J ’s f in d in g s o f

f a c t w e r e c le a r ly e rr one ous a nd not e d tha the a nd hi s f a m i l y s uf

f e r e d ha r a s s m e nt , pe r s e c ut i on, a nd t or tur e by the G ua t e m a l a n gove rnm e nt . C ontr a ry t o the I J ’ s a s s e s s m e nttha tthe ci vi l stri fe i n G uat em al a w as l ar gel y r es ol ved, he cont ended thathe had p rovi ded s u f f ic ie n t d o c u m e n ta tio n to s h o w th a t th e s itu a tio n in G u a te m a law a s s till da nge r ous a nd tha thi s l i f e w oul d be i n j e opa r dy upon hi s r e turn. T hus , C a s tr oG ar ci a a rgued thatthe IJerre d i n d ec i di ng thathe had n otshow n thati tw as m ore l i ke l y tha n nottha the w oul d be t or tur e d i f he w a s r e m ove d t o G ua t e m a l a . C a s tr oG a r c i aa s s e r t e d the s a m e a r gum e nt s i n hi s br i e f t o the B I A . T he B I A a f f i rm e d the I J ’s d e c is io n w ith o u t o p in io n . O n appe a l , w e not e d apos s i bl e j ur i s di c t i ona l i s s ue a nd r e que s t e d tha tthe pa r t i e s a ddr e s s the m a tt e ri n the i rbr i e f s . I n a ddr e s s i ng the j ur i s di c t i ona l que s t i on, C a s tr o - G a r c iac o n c e d e d th a t th e p e rm a n e n t ru le s o f I N A ap p lie d . S e e U .S .C . §

2 1 2 5 2 e ts e q . Al th o u g h th e g o v e rn m e n tm o v e d t o d i s m i s s th e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w,Acc ording ly , to the extent that C astro-G arc ia makes diff erent argument s i n his § 2241 3 petition tha n what heraise d in

hisorig inal bri ef on a

pp e al, t he seargumentsarewaive d b e c a us e Castro-Ga

rcia has failed to argue them before our c ourt. See Rowe v. Schreiber , 139 F.3d 1381, 1382 n.1 (11th Cir. 1998) (issues not c learly raised in the briefs are considere d abandone d). In any e vent, Ca stro- Ga

rc ia raise d th esame b asi c argumentsin his o ri g inal brie f o n a pp e al and in his § 2241 petition. 8 w e det erm i ned thatj uri sdi ct i on w as prop erbecause C as tro-G ar ci a r ai se d c o n s titu tio n a l c la im s . W hi l e thi s app ea l w as pend i ng before us, C as tro-G ar ci a f i l ed a habeas co rp u s p et i t i o n i n th e d i stri ctco u rtp u rsu an tt o 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 4 1 as w el l as a c o m p la in t f

o rd e c la r a to ry a n d in

ju n c tiv e r e lie f

, w h e r e in h e r a is e d th e s a m e b a s ic a r g u m e n ts th a t h e s e t f

o r th in h is b r ie f

o n ap p e a l. W e then ent er ed an order tra nsfe rr i ng the § 2 24 1 p et i t i on fr om the di stri ctcourtt o u s, as re qu i re d b y § 10 6(c) o f th e R E A L I D A c t, a n d c o n s o lid a tin g it w ith C a s tr o - G a r c ia ’s o r ig in a l ap p e a l. S ee P ub . L . N o. 10 9-13 , D i v. B , § 1 06 (c ), 11 9 S t at . 23 1, 31 1 (20 05 ). A ft er i nf orm i ng C a s tr o- G a r c i atha tthe § 2241 pe t i t i on w a s tr a ns f e rr e d t o ourc our ta nd c ons ol i da t e d w i th hi s or i gi na l appe a l , C a s tr o- G a r c i ar e s ponde d tha the w oul d not b e f ilin g as u p p le m e n ta l b r ie f a n d w o u ld s ta n d o n th e b r ie f s h e h a d p r e v io u s ly f i l e d. 3 I I . DI S CUS S I ON O urj ur i s di c t i on a r i s e s unde rthe I N A , a s a m e nde d by the R E A L I D A c tof 2 0 0 5 . S e e 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 e t s e q . U n d e rth is s ta tu te , w e la c kju r is d ic tio n to9

rev i ew a fi n al o rd er o f rem o v al o f “ (1 ) an al i en (2 ) w h o i s rem o v ab l e (3 ) b ecau se he c om m i tt e d ac r i m i na l of f e ns e e num e r a t e d i n the s t a tut e . ” R e s e ndi z - A l c a r a z v. U . S . A tt ’ y G e n. , 383 F . 3d 1262, 1266 ( 11th C i r . 2004) ( i nt e rna l quot a t i ons om i tt ed); se e 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2(a) (2)( c) . C as tro-G ar ci a does notcont es tthathe i s a n a l i e n de s c r i be d i n thi s pr ovi s i on. I ns t e a d, C a s tr o- G a r c i aa r gue s tha the qua l i f i e s f or th e ex cep t i o n t o th e j u ri sd i ct i o n al b ar setfo rth i n th e IN A w h i ch p ro v i d es: N othi ng i n s ubpa r a gr aph ( B ) or( c ) , ori n a ny othe rpr ovi s i on of thi s c hapt er(other than thi s s ec t i on ) w hi ch l i m i t s or e l i m i nat es j udi c i a l r e vi e w , s ha l l be c ons true d a s pr e c l udi ng r e vi e w of c ons t i tut i ona l c l a i m s orque s t i ons of l a w r a i s e d upon ape 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 in a c c o r d a n c e w ith th is s e c tio n . I d . § 1 2 5 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( D ) . O n app ea l , C as tro-G ar ci a r ai se s three chal l enges t o the B IA ’ s order affi rm i n g th e d eci si o n o f th e IJ. F i rst , h e arg u es th atth e IJ v i o l at edh i s d u e p ro cess r i ght s by nothol di ng a n e vi de nt i a ry he a r i ng t o de t e rm i ne i f he ha d c om m i tt e d a

“ part i cul ar l y s er i ou s c ri m e. ” S ec on d, he ar gu es thathi s due proces s r i gh t s w er e vi ol at ed because he re ce i ved i neff ec t i ve as si st ance of coun se l w hen h i s c ou nsel c onc e de d tha thi s c onvi c t i on w a s f ora“ pa r t i c ul a r l y s e r i ous c r i m e . ” T hi r d, he a r gue s tha thi s due pr oc e s s r i ght s w e r e vi ol a t e d by the de ni a l of the de f e rr a l of r e m o v a l u n d e rth e C A T w h e n , a ll ta k e n to g e th e r , th e I J m a d e a d v e r s e c r e d ib ility de t e rm i na t i ons , i s s ue d bi a s e d c om m e nt s , r e l i e d on s pe c ul a t i on a nd c onj e c tur e , a nd10

appl i ed an i ncorrec tl egal st andard. W e a dd re ss ea ch of these const i tut i on al c ha l l e nge s , a nd the r e l a t e d j ur i s di c t i ona l i s s ue s , i n turn. A . F a i l ur e t o H ol d a n E vi de nt i a ry H e a r i ng F i r s t , C a s tr o- G a r c i aa r gue s tha tthe I J vi ol a t e d hi s due pr oc e s s r i ght s by f a i l i ng t o c onduc ta n e vi de nt i a ry he a r i ng t o de t e rm i ne i f hi s c onvi c t i on f

or po ss es si on of cocai ne w i th i nt entt o d i stri bu t e w as a “ part i cul ar l y s er i ou s c ri m e. ” W e r ev iew d e n o v o an alien ’s co n stitu ti o n al ch allen g es . L o n ye m v . U .S . A tt ’y G en. , 35 2 F . 3d 13 38 , 13 41 (11th C i r. 20 03 ) ( per c uri am ). In i m m i grat i on ca se s, 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2(d)(1) al l ow s acourtt o revi ew a f i nal order of re m ov al on l y i f the al i en has e xh aust ed al l of the adm i ni stra t i ve re m edi es a va i l abl e t o hi m . F e rna nde z - B e rna l v. A tt ’ y G e n. of the U . S . , 257 F . 3d 1304, 1317 n . 1 3 ( 1 1 th Ci r . 2 0 0 1 ) . Th u s , w e g e n e r a l l y l a c kj u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e v i e w a n y c l a i ms n o t r a is e d b e f

o r e th e B I A . I d . W e h a v e n o te d th a t o th e rc ir c u its h a v e s ta te d in di ct a thatconst i tut i on al chal l enges a nd som e due process cl ai m s do n otre qu i re ex h au st i o n b ecau se th e B IA d o es n o th av e th e au th o ri ty t o ad j u d i cat e th o se cl ai m s; h o w e v e r , th e B I A c a n c o n s id e rth o s e c la im s if th e B I A c a n p r o v id e ar e m e d y . S un dar v. IN S , 32 8 F . 3d 13 20 , 13 25 (11th C i r. 20 03 ). A l tho ug h w e have never s p e c if ic a lly d e te rm in e d w h ic h d u e p r o c e s s c la im s r e q u ir e e x h a u s tio n , o th e rc ir c u its have det erm i ned thatprocedural du e proces s c l ai m s, as w el l as procedural errors a r gue d i n due pr oc e s s t e rm s , m us tbe r a i s e d be f or e the B I A . S e e B onhom e tr e v.11

G on za l ez , 41 4 F . 3d 44 2, 44 5-48 (3rd C i r. 20 05 ) ( addres si ng appeal of habeas c o rp u s p e t i t i o n th a twa s c o n v e r t e d t o ap e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w p u r s u a n tt o th e R E AL ID A ct ); S ob er anes v. C om fort , 38 8 F . 3d 13 05 , 13 09 (10th C i r. 20 04 ) ( no t i ng that th e ju r is d ic tio n a l p r o h ib itio n “e x te n d s n o t o n ly to s u b s ta n tiv e is s u e s , b u t to const i tut i on al obj ec t i on s thati nv ol ve adm i ni stra t i vel y c orre ct abl e procedural errors , even w hen tho se errors ar e f ai l ures t o fol l ow du e proces s” ); T heod orop ou l os v. IN S , 35 8 F . 3d 16 2, 17 2-74 (2nd C i r. ) ( no t i ng “ as a genera l rul e, c o u r ts a r e r e q u ir e d to s tr ic tly e n f o r c e s ta tu to ry e x h a u s tio n r e q u ir e m e n ts ” ) , c e r t. d e n ie d , __U .S . __ , 1 2 5 S . C t. 3 7 ( 2 0 0 4 ) ; C u r f e w s v . I N S , 2 7 5 F .3 d 3 3 2 , 3 3 7 ( 4 th C i r. 20 01 ) ( decl i ni ng t o revi ew const i tut i on al chal l enges “ thatcoul d h ave been a ddr e s s e d by the B I A ” ) ; M e nde s v. I N S , 197 F . 3d 6, 12 ( 1s tC i r . 1999) ( f i ndi ng w ai ved d ue process cl ai m s r ai se d for the fi rs tt i m e i n p et i t i on for r evi ew ); R a s ht aba di v. I N S , 23 F . 3d 1562, 1567 ( 9th C i r . 1994) ( s a m e ) . W e a gr e e w i th our si st er ci rcu i t s. C a s tr o- G a r c i a ’ s f

i r s tdue pr oc e s s a r gum e nti s tha tthe I J e rr e d i n not c onduc t i ng a n e vi de nt i a ry he a r i ng be f or e de t e rm i ni ng tha thi s c onvi c t i on c ons t i tut e d a“ pa r t i c ul a r l y s e r i ous c r i m e . ” T hi s i s a n a l l e ga t i on of pr oc e dur a l e rr or a r g u e d in d u e p r o c e s s te rm s . B e c a u s e C a s tr o - G a r c iaf a ile d to r a is e th is c o n s titu tio n a l c la im b e f o r e th e B I A , h e h a s n o t e x h a u s te d h is r e m e d ie s a n d w e w ill n o t c o n s id e rit.12

B . Inef fe ct i ve A ss i st ance of C ou nsel S ec on d, C as tro-G ar ci a a rgues thathi s due proces s r i gh t s w er e vi ol at ed w hen hi s a tt orney c on ce ded d uri ng the re m ov al hear i ng thathi s c on vi ct i on w as for a

“ pa r t i c ul a r l y s e r i ous c r i m e . ” U nde rthe I N A , a n a l i e n m a y r a i s e i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of

c ouns e l i n hi s m ot i on t o r e ope n af i na l a dm i ni s tr a t i ve or de rof re m ov al . D akane v. U . S . A tt orney G en. , 37 1 F . 3d 77 1, 77 4 (11 th C i r. 20 04 ) ( per curi am ); se e 8 U . S . C . § 1 22 9a(c )( 7). T hu s, i f the al i en ca n p rove thathi s c ou nsel w a s i ne f f e c t i ve , the B I A c a n gr a ntthe m ot i on t o r e ope n a nd r e m a nd the c a s e t o the I J f orf ur the rpr oc e e di ngs . S e e M a tt e rof L oz a da , 19 I & N D e c . 637, 639, a f f’ d, 8 5 7 F .2 d 1 0 , 1 4 ( 1 s t C ir . 1 9 8 8 ) . A s n o t ed p rev i o u sl y, i n i m m i g rat i o n cases, 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 (d )(1 ) al l o w s a c our tt o r e vi e w af

i na l or de rof

r e m ova l onl y i f

the a l i e n ha s e xha us t e d a l l of the a dm i ni s tr a t i ve r e m e di e s a va i l abl e t o hi m . F e rna nde z - B e rna l , 257 F . 3d a t1317 n. 13 . T hu s, w e genera l l y l ac k j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew any c l ai m s notra i se d b ef ore the B IA . S un dar, 32 8 F . 3d at13 23 . W e have never e xp re ss l y s t at ed w hether a n a lie n is r e q u ir e d to f

ile am o tio n to r e o p e n w ith th e B I A a n d e x h a u s t h is adm i ni stra t i ve re m edi es before he ca n rai se an i neff ec t i ve as si st ance of coun se l c l a i m i n ape t i t i on f

orr e vi e w . Y e t , s e ve r a l c i r c ui t s tha tha ve a ddr e s s e d the i s s ue have concl ud ed thatthi s c l ai m m ustbe pres ent ed t o the B IA and exh aust ed before i tc a n be c ons i de r e d on appe a l . S e e S obe r a ne s , 388 F . 3d a t1309; S s w a jj e v.13

A s hc r of t , 350 F . 3d 528, 533 ( 6th C i r . 2003) ( “ T he pr ope ra ve nue f orr a i s i ng in e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f

c o u n s e l is b y f

ilin g am o tio n to r e o p e n p r o c e e d in g s w ith the B I A . ” ) ; G oons uw a n v. A s hc r of t , 252 F . 3d 383, 389- 90 ( 5th C i r . 2001) ( “ T he a v a ilab le a d m in is tr a tiv e r e m e d y , c o u p le d w ith C o n g r e s s ’ v e s tin g o f ju r is d ic tio n in the agency, coun se l s a gai nstperm i tt i ng an except i on t o the j uri sdi ct i on al exhaust i on re qu i re m entfor c l ai m s of i neff ec t i ve as si st ance of coun se l no tra i se d be f or e the B I A . ” ) ; B e rna l - V a l l e j o v. I N S , 195 F . 3d 56, 64 ( 1s tC i r . 1999) (dec l i ni ng “ t o revi ew the i neff ec t i ve as si st ance cl ai m because [ pet i t i on er ] has f a i l e d t o e xha us thi s a dm i ni s tr a t i ve r e m e di e s . ” ) ; M oj s i l ovi c v. I N S , 156 F . 3d 743, 748 ( 7th C i r . 1998) ( de c l i ni ng t o r e vi e w i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e c l a i m “ be c a us e s he di d notr a i s e i tbe f

or e [ the B I A ] ” ) ; A r a ngo- A r a dondo v. I N S , 13 F . 3d 610, 614 (2 n d C i r. 1 9 9 4 ). A g ai n , w e ag ree w i th o u r si st er ci rcu i t s. B ec ause the B IA has proce du re s i n p l ac e t o con si der i neff ec t i ve as si st ance of coun se l cl ai m s a nd has am etho d o f gra nt i ng the al i en re l i ef , w e c on cl ud e that C a s tr o - G a r c iaw a s r e q u ir e d to e x h a u s t h is r e m e d ie s b e f o r e th e B I A . M o tio n s to r e o p e n m a y b e f

ile d u p to n in e ty d a y s a f te rth e f in a l o r d e rr e m o v a l is is s u e d . 8 U . S . C . § 1229a ( c ) ( 7) ( c ) ( i ) . I n thi s c a s e , the B I A i s s ue d i t s or de ron 27 A pr i l 2004, a nd on 27 M a y2004, C a s tr o- G a r c i a , thr ough ne w c ouns e l , pe t i t i one d thi s c our tf or r e vi e w . H a vi ng r e t a i ne d ne w c ouns e l pr i ort o the e xpi r a t i on of the s t a tut ory pe r i od f oram ot i on t o r e ope n, C a s tr o- G a r c i aof f e r s no l e gi t i m a t e r e a s on w hy he di d not14

r a i s e hi s i ne f

f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of

c ouns e l c l a i m be f

or e the B I A . S i nc e he di d not e xha us thi s a dm i ni s tr a t i ve r e m e di e s , w e the r e f or e de c l i ne t o r e vi e w hi s s e c ond c o n s titu tio n a l c la im . C . De f e rr a l o f R e m o v a l u n d e rth e C AT T hi r d, C a s tr o- G a r c i aa r gue s tha thi s due pr oc e s s r i ght s w e r e vi ol a t e d by the deni al of the deferra l of re m ov al un der the C A T w hen, al l t aken t og ether, the IJ m a de a dve r s e c r e di bi l i ty de t e rm i na t i ons , i s s ue d bi a s e d c om m e nt s , r e l i e d on sp ecu l at i o n an d co n

j ectu re, an d ap p l i ed an i n co rrectl eg al st an d ard . S p eci fi cal l y, C a s tr o- G a r c i aa ve r s tha tthe I J w r ongf ul l y di s c ount e d C a s tr o- G a r c i a ’ s t e s t i m ony an d a l ett er fro m a G u at em al an arm y co l o n el w h i ch st at ed th atC astro -G arci a w as a m em ber of agu er i l l a group . H e a l so m ai nt ai ns thatthe IJcont i nu al l y badgered hi m abouthi s i nvol ve m e ntw i th the gue r i l l a s a nd tha tthe I J e rr e d i n di s r e ga r di ng h is m e d ic a l c o n d itio n a n d th e f a c t th a t it m ig h t c a u s e m e m o ry p r o b le m s . A ddi t i ona l l y , he c ont e nds both tha tthe I J ’ s c onc l us i ons on the c urr e ntpol i t i c a l a nd soci al cond i t i on s i n G uat em al a w er e bas ed on spec ul at i on and con j ec ture a nd that the I J appl i e d a n i nc orr e c tl e ga l s t a nda r d w hi c h r e qui r e d C a s tr o- G a r c i at o pr ove th a t h e w o u ld b e to r tu r e d o n a c c o u n t o f h is p o litic a l o p in io n . A s w ith h is o th e rd u e p r o c e s s c la im s , C a s tr o - G a r c iad id n o t r a is e th is bundl e d due pr oc e s s c l a i m be f or e the B I A . S i nc e thi s i nvol ve s a l l e ga t i ons of advers e c re di bi l i ty det erm i nat i on s, bi as , and err on eous fa ctual and l egal15

c o n c lu s io n s b y th e I J , it w a s c e r ta in ly w ith in th e p o w e ro f th e B I A to c o n s id e rth is d u e p r o c e s s c la im a n d p r o v id e a n ap p r o p r ia te r e m e d y , if n e e d e d . T h u s , s in c e th is is n e ith e ra“c o n s titu tio n a l c h a lle n g e to th e I N A its e lf [ n o r ] ad u e p r o c e s s c la im th a t c o u ld n o t b e r e s o lv e d b y aB I A d e c is io n ,” w e o n c e a g a in la c kju r is d ic tio n to c o n s i d e rh i s th i r d c o n s t i tu t i o n a l c l a i m. Su n d a r , 3 2 8 F. 3 d a t1 3 2 5 ; s e e 8 U . S. C. § 1 2 5 2 ( d ) ( 1 ) . I I I . CONCL US I ON In th is ca se , C as tro -G ar cia a p p ea led th e B IA ’s d ec isio n af firm in g th e I J’s de ni a l of a s y l um , w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l , a nd pr ot e c t i on unde rthe I N A a nd the C A T . S in c e C a s tr o - G a r c iad id n o t e x h a u s t th e a d m in is tr a tiv e r e m e d ie s a v a ilab le to h im r e g a r d in g h is d u e p r o c e s s c la im s , w e th e r e f o r e la c kju r is d ic tio n o v e rh is p e titio n to r e v ie w th e m . P E T I T I ON DE NI E D.