2008 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 Third C irc uit 4-25-2008 

# Gree ne v . Atty Ge n U SA P re c e de nt i al or N on-P re c e de nt i al : N on-P re c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-3000

F o llow thi s and a ddit ion al works at : http://di git alc ommon s .l a w . vill anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s brou ght t o you for f re e and ope n a c c e s s by 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 Third C irc uit at V ill 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 2008 D e c i sion s by an authori z e d a dmini s trat or of V ill anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

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

w . vill anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Gre e ne v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1324. http://di git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2008/1324NOT 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. 07- 3000 DA VI D LA W REN CE G REEN E, 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 Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof the B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( A gencyN o. A 21- 177- 195) I m m i gr at i on J udge: H onor abl e A nni e S. G ar cy Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

A pr i l 23, 2008 B efor e: B A R R Y , SM I T H and H A R D I M A N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: A pr i l 25, 2008)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM D avi d L aw r ence G r eene , a nat i ve and c i t i zen of M exi co, s eeks r evi ew of an or der of the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) s us t ai ni ng the governm ent ’ s appea l of an I m m i gr at i on J udge’ s ( “I J ”) deci s i on w hi ch had gr ant ed G r eene ’ s appl i cat i on forU nderthi s pr ovi s i on, the A t t orneyG ener al m ay , i n hi s di s cr et i on, canc el the r emoval 1 of an a l i en w ho ( 1) has been l aw ful l yadmi t t ed forperm anentr es i dence fornotl es s than fi ve y ears , (2) has con t i nu ou sl yres i ded i n the U nit ed S t at es i n an yst atus for seven y ears , a n d (3 ) h a s n o t b e e n c o n v icte d o f a n a g g ra v a ted f

e lo n y . O n c e th e se re q u ire m e n ts a re m e t, the I J m us tr evi ew the r ecor d as a w hol e, and “ba l ance the adve r s e fa ct or s evi denci ng the al i en’ s undes i r abi l i tyas a perm anentr es i dentw i th the s oci al and humane cons i der at i ons p re se n ted in h is (o r h e r) b e h a lf to d e ter m in e w h e th e r th e g ra n tin g o f . . . relie f

a p p e a rs in th e b e s t in te re s t o f

th is c o u n tr y .” M a tte r o f C -V -T , 2 2 I & N D e c . 7 , 1 1 (B IA 1 9 9 8 ). (i n te rn a l q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ). 2 c a n c e l l a t i o n o f

r e mo v a l . We wi l l d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. G ree n e w as a d o p ted b yU n it ed S tat es c it izen p are n ts an d ad m itted to this co u n try i n A ugus t1977, w hen he w as 2 m onths ol d. I n 2003, he w as convi ct ed i n N ew J er s ey s t at e courtof enda nger i ng the w el far e of a chi l d. T he nexty ear , he w as convi ct ed of the s ame char ge i n N ew Y ork s t at e court . T he D epart m entof H om el and Secur i ty( “D H S”) char ged G r eene w i th bei ng r emovabl e pur s uantt o I m m i gr at i on and N at i onal i tyA ct ( “I N A ”) § 237( a) ( 2) ( A ) ( i i ) [8 U . S. C . § 1227( a) ( 2) ( A ) ( i i ) ] , as an al i en w ho has been convi ct ed of tw o m or al turpi tude cr i m es notar i s i ng outof a s i ngl e s cheme of cr i m i nal m i s conduct . G r eene conce ded the cha r ge of r emovabi l i tyand appl i ed forcanc el l at i on of rem o v al un d er IN A § 2 4 0 A (a) [8 U . S . C . § 1 2 2 9 b (a)]. 1 T he I J concl uded thatG r eene w as s t atut or i l yel i gi bl e forcanc el l at i on and gr ant ed the ap pli cat i on as a m at t er of dis cret i on , ho l ding that the p osi t i ve aspe ct s of his case outw ei ghed the nega t i ve fa ct or s . T he D H S appeal ed the dec i s i on t o the B I A , w hi ch s u s ta in e d th e a p p e a l, v a c a te d th e IJ ’s d e c is io n , a n d o rd e re d G re e n e re m o v e d to M e x ic o . T h e B o ard co n clud ed that G ree n e h ad n o t suc ce ssf u ll yd em o n str ated that the f ac tors3

favor abl e t o a di s cr et i onarygr antof r el i ef outw ei ghed hi s “s er i ous cr i m i nal act i vi ty . ” G re e n e f ile d a p e titio n f

o r r e v ie w . T he g ov ernm ent ar gu es that w e l ack jur i sdi ct i on t o h ear G reene’s cl ai m s becau se he i s a cr i m i nal al i en w ho s eeks r evi ew of an or derdeny i ng canc el l at i on of r emoval i n the exer ci s e of di s cr et i on. I ndeed, w e gene r al l ydo nothave j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew fi nal or der s of r emoval agai ns tal i ens , l i ke G r eene , w ho ar e dee m ed r emovabl e bec aus e they we r e c o n v i c t e d o f

, i n t e ra l i a , two c r i me s i n v o l v i n g mo r a l tu rp i tu d e . S e e I NA § 2 4 2 (a )(2 )(C ) [ 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (a )(2 )(C )] (p re c lu d in g ju risd ictio n w h e re a lien re m o v a b le pur s uantt o I N A § 237( a) ( 2) ( A ) ( i i ) [8 U . S. C . § 1227( a) ( 2) ( A ) ( i i ) ] ) . I n addi t i on, w e l ack j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e v i e w p u r e l yd i s c r e t i o n a ryd e c i s i o n s , s e e I NA § 2 4 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( B) ( i i ) [ 8 U. S . C. § 1252( a) ( 2) ( B ) ( i i ) ] , s uch as the “manneri n w hi ch the B I A bal ance d the var i ous pos i t i ve a n d n e g a t i v e f

a c t o r s wh i c h typ i c a l l yi n f o r m th e e x e r c i s e o f

i t s d i s c r e t i o n u n d e r ” I NA § 2 4 0 A [ 1 2 2 9 b (a )]. C ru z -C a m e yv . G o n z a les , 5 0 4 F .3 d 2 8 , 2 9 (1 st C ir. 2 0 0 7 ). D e sp ite thes e j ur i s di ct i on- s tr i ppi ng pr ovi s i ons , w e mayr evi ew “cons t i tut i onal cl ai m s orques t i ons o f l a w” r a i s e d i n a p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. S e e I NA § 2 4 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( D) [ 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 5 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( D) ] ; P a p a g e o r g i o u v . Go n z a l e s , 4 1 3 F . 3 d 3 5 6 , 3 5 8 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 5 ) . T h u s , we m ayco n side r w h ethe r th e B o ard , in ex erc isi n g it s d iscreti o n , v iolated a rule o f law o r a pr ovi s i on of the U . S. C ons t i tut i on. See C hen v. D ep’ tof J us t i ce, 471 F. 3d 315, 329 ( 2d C i r . 2006) ( hol di ng thata pet i t i on r ai s es a ques t i on of l aw w hen i tal l eges a “f act - fi ndi ng w h ich is f

law e d b ya n e rro r o f

law ” o r a n “ a b u se o f

d isc re tio n ” th a t is “ b a se d o n a leg a lly4

e rr o n e o u s s ta n d a rd ” ). I n th e p r e s e n tc a s e , Gr e e n e a r g u e s th a tth e BI A i mp r o p e r l ye n g a g e d i n i t s o wn i ndepende ntfac t fi ndi ng, and fa i l ed t o defe rt o the I J ’ s fac tual fi ndi ngs and r evi ew them forcl earerr or . See 8 C . F. R . §§ 1003. 1( d) ( 3) ( I ) and ( i v) . I n addi t i on, G r eene compl ai ns thatthe B I A i gnor ed uncont es t ed expe r tt es t i m onyconce rni ng the l i kel i hood thathe w oul d r e- offe nd. T o the ext entthatthes e al l egat i ons r ai s e ques t i ons of l aw , w e have j ur i s di ct i on. See W ood v. M ukas ey , 516 F. 3d 564, 568 ( 7 C i r . 2008) ( hol di ng al l egat i on th th a tB I A e x c e e d e d i t s a p p e l l a t e - r e v i e w a u th o r i typ r e s e n t e d a l e g a l q u e s t i o n ) . We c o n c lu d e , h o w e v e r, t h a t G re e n e ’s c la im s a re w ith o u t m e ri t. U nderthe r egul at i ons , “[t ] he B oar d w i l l notengage i n de novo r evi ew of fi ndi ngs o f f a c t d e ter m in e d b ya n im m ig ra tio n ju d g e ,” § 1 0 0 3 .1 (d )(3 )(I), a n d “ w ill n o t en g a g e in fac t fi ndi ng i n the cour s e of de ci di ng appea l s . ” § 1003. 1( d) ( 3) ( i v) . T he B I A ’ s deci s i on thatG r eene di d notqual i fyforcanc el l at i on w as bas ed on hi s fai l ur e t o s how “s uffi ci ent r ehabi l i t at i on. ” A s s uppor tforthi s concl us i on, the B I A ci t ed G r eene ’ s “r ece nt convi ct [i ons ] w i thi n the s pan of 6 mont hs forconducti nvol vi ng ext ens i ve s exual cont act w i th m i nor s , ” hi s “admi s s i on t o engagi ng i n i nappr opr i at e and unc ontr ol l abl e s exual a c tiv ity ” w ith n u m e ro u s “ in a p p ro p ria te p a rtn e rs,” a n d h is s o licita tio n o f a 1 3 y e a r-o ld w hi l e aw ai t i ng s ent enci ng forhi s fi r s tconvi ct i on. I m por t ant l y , thes e ar e notfac t s thatthe B IA in d e p e n d e n tlyf

o u n d o r w h ich ra n c o n tra ryto th e IJ’ s f in d in g s. R a th e r, th e yw e re a ll clea rl yset fo rth o n the re co rd in the IJ’s d ec isi o n . T h e B IA sim p lyd ef erred to the IJ’sW e n o te th at G ree n e stren u o u slyarg u es th at th e B IA ign o red u n co n test ed ex p ert 2 t es t i m onyconce rni ng the l i kel i hood thathe w oul d r e- offe nd. R evi ew of thi s cl ai m , al ong w i th anydi r ectchal l enge t o the B I A ’ s di s cr et i onarydeci s i on, i s out s i de ourj ur i s di ct i on an d w il l be d ism issed . S ee Jarb o u g h v . A tt o rne yG en era l, 4 8 3 F . 3 d 1 8 4 , 1 8 9 (3d C ir . 2007) ( hol di ng that“ar gum ent s s uch as thatan I m m i gr at i on J udge . . . fai l ed t o cons i der e vi de nc e . . . a r e no tqu e s t i on s of l a w un de r§ 1 25 2( a ) ( 2) ( D ) . ” ) ; X i a o J i Chen v. U . S. D ep’ tof J us t i ce, 471 F. 3d 315, 329- 30 ( 2d C i r . 2006) ( s t at i ng thatj udi ci al r evi ew m aynot b e se c u re d “ b yu sin g th e rh e to ric o f a ‘c o n stitu tio n a l cla im ’ o r ‘q u e stio n o f law ’ to d isgu ise w h at i s ess en ti all ya q u arrel ab o u t fac t- fin d ing o r th e e x erc ise o f d iscreti o n . ”). 5 fac tual det erm i nat i ons , i ncl udi ng thos e fa vor abl e t o G r eene , and, aft erw ei ghi ng the e v i d e n c e , c o n c l u d e d th a tGr e e n e d i d n o twa rr a n tc a n c e l l a t i o n o f r e mo v a l . S e e 8 C. F . R. § 1003. 1( d) ( 3) ( i i ) ( s t at i ng thatthe “Boar d m ayr evi ew ques t i ons of l aw , di s cr et i on, and jud g m en t and all o ther issu es in ap p ea ls from d ec isi o n s o f [ IJs] de novo .”). T h is a n a ly sis ful l ycomport s w i th the B I A r egul at i ons . See W al l ace v. G onzal es , 463 F. 3d 135, 141 2 ( 2d C i r . 2006) ( “A l though anyr ever s al bythe B I A of an I J ’ s di s cr et i onarydet erm i nat i on m us ti nvol ve cons i der at i on of the under l y i ng fac t s , a r evi ew of the fa ctual r ecor d bythe B IA d o e s n o t co n v e rt its d isc re tio n a ryd e ter m in a tio n a s to w h e th e r a p e tit io n e r w a rra n ts [re li ef ] i n to im p rop er f

ac tfi n d ing . ”). F o r t h e f o re g o in g re a s o n s , w e w ill d e n yth e p e titio n f o r r e v ie w .