## 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. 12

- 2471 F H

- T, 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 of the Bo ard of Immigration App eals
.

No . 12- 2471
A RGUED A PRI L 18, 2013

— D ECI DE D J UL Y 23, 2013

B efore B AUER, F LA UM, a nd S YKES, C ircu it Judges . F LA UM, Cir cu i tJudg e . Peti ti onerFH-T appeal s fro m th e d ec isio n o f th e B oa rd of Im m igr at ion A p p ea ls affir m in g th e I m m igr at ion Ju d ge ’s rem ov al ord e r . P et itio n er’ s a pp l i cati ons f oras yl um and w i thhol ding of re m ova l w er e denie d o n the basi s that he had p ro vi ded m ate ri alsupport to the Er i tr ean P eo p l e’ s Liber ati on Fr ont ( “EPL F”) , wh i ch the Board and I m m i gr ati on J ud ge2 N o. 12

- 2471

c las sifie d as a “T ier II I” te rro ris t o rg an iza tio n . See8 U. S
. C. § 1 182( a) (3) ( B)( vi ) ( I I I )
. The Boar d did not deci de w hether P e t iti one r w ou ld be eligible f or asylum “bu t for” the m ate ri alsupport bar, fi nd i ng it u n necess ar y t o re ach FH

- T’s ar gum ents chal l engi ng the deni alo fhi s political perse cuti on cl ai m o n the m eri ts. On app eal, Peti ti oner ar gu es th atth e B oa rd sh ou ld h av e fo u n d h im eligib le for th e “kn ow ledge exem p tion ” t o the m aterial su p p ort f o rt er r o r i sm b ar b eca us e he di d no t k no w tha t th e EPL F was invol ved i n the unl awfu l u s e o ff o r c e , a s c o mpared to the law fu l u se of f or ce a s par t o fa w aro fi nd epen den ce . Be ca us e Pe ti ti o ne rdi d no t ex ha us t th i s ar g umen tb e f o r e the Bo a r d, thi s c l a i m ca nn o ts uc c e e d. Peti tio ner next cl ai m s that be cause the Boa rd di d not c on sid er th e m er its ofh i s as ylu m cla im , he is in elig ible f ora ter ro ri sm b arwaive r und ercurr ent Depart m ent o f H o m el an d S ec ur i ty( “DHS” ) p o l i cy, e ffec ti ve l y nul l i fy i ng a sta tutory ri ght to w ai ver consi derat i on. H e fur ther su g g es ts th atg o ve r nm en t pr o ce dur es f o ra dj udi ca ting w ai ver s a re “l ega l l y fl aw ed” bec ause the pr oce ss l acks co o r di na ti o n a m o ngv ar ious ag en ci es : i n mos t ca se s, the B oard i ssu es a f in a l rem oval order before a w aiver de term i nati on ha s be en i ssued byDH S. FH-T co ntends that thi s bi furcat ed sys tem fr ustr ate s Congr ess ’ s pro vi si on f o rj udi ci alr ev i ew o fe xe m pti o n de te r m i na tions in the conte xt o fa pet i ti on forr evi ew o ffi nalr em ova lo rder s. F o rthe f o l l o wi ngr ea so ns , we den y the pe ti ti o n.N o. 12

- 2471 3 I . B a c kg r o und A. Fa c t ua l B a c kg r o und FH -T j oin e d t h e E P L F w h en h e w as ap p ro x im at ely fi fteen yea rs ol d i n 1 9 82, w hile Eritrea and Et hiop ia w ere i n the mi ds to fa wa rtha two ul d l a s tthi r ty y ear s . By w ay ofbac kgr ound, i n 195 0 th e U ni ted N ati ons General A sse m b ly voted to m er ge Eri tr ea w i th Ethi opi a a s an auto nom ous federa ted uni t, with Eri tr ea und erEthi opia n so ver ei gnty. E thi opi a abol i shed the federa ti on uni l ater al l y i n 1962 , annexi ng Eri tr ea and t ri gge ring th e onset o fthe war . FH

- T’ s as y l um a ppl i ca ti o n s ug g es ts tha t he w as m oti vate d to j oi n the EPL F by “yo uthfulem oti ons” as w ell as th e “ p re va ilin g w ar a n d p o litic s.” H e q u ick ly r e g r e t t e d th i s d e c i s i o n a n d a t t e mpt e d t o r e tu r n h o me after tw o days, though the EPL F re fused to l et hi m l ea ve . He serve d i n the EPLF f o rthe ne xtnine yea rs , working in com m unica ti ons and as a sm al l ca r an d t r uckdr i ve ri n S ud an, a l o ngthe b o r dero fthe so u th er n reg ion of E rit re a. H is re sp on sib ilitie s p rim ar ily i nv o l v e d t r a n s p o r t i n g f o o d a n d c l o th i n g a s a d r i v er a nd tr ansfer ring cal l s, as wellas r el aying r equests f ortruck parts
. H e di d not t ra nsportweapons. I n 199 1, the EPL F defeat ed the Ethio pia n ar m y, a c hi e v i ng Er i t r e a n i nd e pe nd e nc e . I n 1 9 9 4 , the EPLF diss ol ved i tse l fand tr ansf or m ed into a m ass pol i ti cal party, the Peopl e’ s F ro nt f orDem oc ra cy and Just i ce ( “PFDJ” ) , wh ich r em ai ns Eri tr ea’ s o nl y pol i ti calparty. The PFDJ m ai ntai ns a com pu l sory l aborpro gr am re fer re d to as th e “ N a t i o n al Se rv ice ” u n d er w h ich all E rit re an c itiz en s m u st w or k for th e gov er n m en t . W h ile4 N o. 12

- 2471

c on sc rip tio n is su p p os ed to las t fo r e igh te en m on th s, in pract i ce the Eri tr ean g ove rnm ent fre quentl y doe s no t r e l e a s e N a t i o n a l S e r v i c e w o r k e r s a ft e rth e i rt e r m i s c o mp let ed an d req u ire s t h em to rem a i n i n th e Se rv ice ind efin ite ly. C on sc rip tio n w or ke rs lab or u n d er p oo r c on d it i o ns a nd a r e pa i d mea g e r wa g e s . W he n the war ended, FH -T w as em plo yed as a tr anspor tat i on s up er vi sorata gov er nm ent- own ed com pany. M any o fthe peopl e with w hom Peti ti onerworke d w er e g ove rnm ent c onscr i pts. I n 200 5 a nd 20 06, Peti ti onerr epeate dlyexpre sse d concerns abo ut abuse s o fthe N ati onalSer vi ce pr ogr am by the PF DJ. W hen h e re c ei ved no re sponse, he e l evat ed his com p la in ts to a high-ran king m em ber of the PFD J. This indivi du althr eat ened FH-T w i th i ncarc er ati on ifhe con tinu ed to voice opp ositi on to th e N a t ional Servic e. In Ju n e o f 20 06 , E rit re an “In te rn al Se c u rit y” offic ials ar re ste d tw o ofPeti ti oner ’ s s up er vi sor s a t the go vernm entown ed com pany. A m onth o r so lat er on J uly15 , 20 06, Peti ti oner w as al so ar re ste d by tw o I nter nalS ecuri ty offi cer s. FH

- T w as i m pri sone d in a m i l i tar y pr i son cam p f or ap p roxim ately fi ve m ont hs . Th e con d iti ons w ere d ep lorable; in m ates w ere hou sed in sh ipp ing con tainers w i thout propersa n itat i on, ve nti l ati on, o r i nsul ati on fro m weather condi ti ons. Peti ti onerbec am e i l land l ost th irty pou nd s w hile in p rison. I nt erna l Secu rity officers r epe at edly i nt er r o g at ed hi m , a cc us inghi m o fb el o ng i ng to a n a nt i

- Gov ernm en t g r o up. F H

- T de ni ed i nv o l ve m en t i n any such grou p. N eve rthel ess , i nter ro gat or s pre sente d him with a fi l e deta i l i ng hi s co m pla i nts r e-N o. 12

- 2471 5

T he I m m i gr at i on J udge gr ant ed P et i t i one r defer ra l of 1 re m ovalunde r the C on v en t i on Agai ns tTor t ur e, whi c h the go ve r nme nth a s n ota ppe a l e d. gar ding the Nati onalS er vi ce and quest i oned hi s a ud aci ty i n chal l engi ng the go vernm ent. H e was ev entual l y r el eas ed, having neve r been charg ed w i th o r convi cted o f any c ri m e. U pon re l eas e, FH-T w as re quir ed to r epor t t o h i s o ffi c e a tth e g o v e r n me n t
- o wn e d t r a n s p o r t a t i o n c o mp an y every d ay, how ever h e w as no t pe rm itted to perf or m any w or k a nd w as n ot pai d fo r hi s t i m e. H e a l so re m ai ned und ersur vei l l an ce b y Inter nalS ecuri ty, was re gu lar ly in te rro ga te d , an d rec eiv ed th re at s u p on h is l i fe. W hen he “b elieved the gov er nm ent was ab out to k i l lhi m f o rpo l i ti ca l d isob edi en ce , ” he fl ed Er i tr eaa nd m ade hi s wa y to t h e U ni ted S tat es, wh er e he fi l ed f or asy l um . FH-T’ s f atherand si ste r w er e a rr ested w hen he fl ed the countr y.
B . P r o c e dur a l B a c kg r o und A n I m m i gr ati on J ud ge denie d FH

- T’s appli cati ons f or asy l um and w i thhol ding ofr em ova lunder 8 U
. S. C. §§ 1158 and 1 2 3 1 ( b ) ( 3 ) a nd o r de r e d r e mov a l
. T he de ni a lwas 1 base d up on a l ternati ve fin d ings that ( 1) FH-T l acke d cre dibi l i ty, ( 2) FH-T f ai l ed to pro ve hi s e l i gibi l i ty f or as ylu m on th e m er its , an d (3) FH -T w as st at u to rily in elig ibl e forhaving pro vi ded m ate ri alsupport to the EPLF, w hich the Im m igrati on Jud g e c lassified as a T ier I I Iterro ris t o rg an iza tio n . W ith res p ec t t o c re d ibilit y, th e Im m ig r at i o n J udg e di sb el i ev ed th atPe ti ti o ne rwas i gno r ant6 N o. 12

- 2471 of th e E P L F’s vio len t a n d “w e l l

- kn ow n te rro ris t a c tiv iti es” between 1982 and 1 991, such as the EPL F’ s att acks on Un i ted N ati ons re lief c onvo ys, a l ar ge- scal e 1 982 at ta c k on A sm ar a, an d as sa ss in a t i o n s o f E rit re an civ ilian s. W h ile FH -T te st ified to be in g p re se n t a t m on th ly EPL F “ pol i ti cali nd oct rinati on” m eet i ngs where he was i nfo rm ed ofi ts curr ent a cti ons, h e n everthe l ess st ate d that he was i gnor ant o fm any s uch event s be cause he di d n o t pe r s o na l l y wi tne ss them
. Based o n these equi voca ti ons , the I m m i gr ati on J ud ge deter m ined that FH

- T w as not cre dibl e. T h e Im m igr at ion Ju d ge al s o fou n d FH -T ine ligib le f oras yl um and w i thhol ding ofr em ov al on the bas i s that his claim ed pers ecu tion w as no t on acc ou ntof a st atut o r i l y pr o te ct ed g r o und. F H

- T a ss er te d tha t he had been per sec u te d by the Eri tr ean g ove rnm ent for c om p lain in g a b ou t w or kin g c on d itio n s a n d low p ay in the Nati onalS er vi ce, how eve r the I m m i gr ati on J ud ge deter m i ned t h at FH

- T’s “co m pla i nts about tr eat m ent o f m em b er s o f th e N at ion al Se rv ice w ith inth e s c op e o f h is em plo ym ent with the go vernm ent o fEri tr ea did not quali fy a s a n expres si on o fa p olit i calo pini on for asy l um p ur po s e s . ” T he I mm i g r a t i o n J ud g e fur the rr e ason ed that the fac t t h a t FH -T’s father an d sister w ere ar re ste d fo l l owing hi s departure fro m Eri tr ea f ai l ed to est abl i sh a w el l

- f ounded fearthathe woul d be per secuted upon hi s r etur n because those ar re sts were ti ed to hi s pre vi ous inter nalco m pla i nts r ega rdi ng t he N ati onal Se rv ice . B ec au se h e c ou ld n o t e s ta b lish as ylu m eligib ility , th e Im m igr at ion Ju d ge rea so n ed th at“itn ec es sa rily f o l l o ws tha t th e r es p o nde ntha s f ai l ed to s at i sfy theN o. 12

- 2471 7

m or e s tr ingent probabi l i ty ofper secuti on s tandard r eq u ire d for w ith h old in g of re m ov al.” Fi nal l y, the I m m i gr ati on J u dge dete rm i ned that eve n i fFH-T w er e found to ha ve suffer ed past perse cuti on an d/ o ra wel l

- f o unded fea ro ffutur e per se cut i o n, he wou ld st i l lb e st atut o r i l y b ar r ed fr o m r el i eff o rha ving g i ve n mat er i als uppo r t to a t er r o r i sto r g an i za ti o n, c i ting P e t i t i o n e r ’ s n i n e y e a r s o f s e r v i c e i n th e E P L F
. T he I mm i gr ati on Judge dete rm i ned that the EPLF sat i sfi ed th e d efi ni ti on o fa Tie r I I Ite rr or i st or gani zati on under 8 U.S
. C. § 1 182( a) ( 3) ( B)( vi ) ( I I I ) and furtherco n c lu ded that FH

- T had not m et hi s bur den ofs how i ng bycl ear an d c o nv inci nge vi den ce tha t he di d no t k no w the g r o up was a t er r o r i sto r g an i za ti o n. The Board a ffi rm ed the I m m i gr ati on J ud ge’ s d ecis i on tha t F H

- T w as bar re d fr om r ecei vi ng as yl um and w i thhol di ng ofr em ova lbec ause he pro vi ded m ate ri alsupport to a T ier I I Iterr orist organization. FH -T ha d argue d before th e Bo ar d tha t th e I m m i g r at i o n J udg e er red b y : ( 1) f ai l i ng to consi der hi s i m pu ted polit i calo pini on theor y o f as y l um ; ( 2) fi ndi ngtha t hi s co m pl aint s r eg ar di ngthe N ati onalS er vi ce a m ounted to m er e whist l e-bl owing; ( 3 ) fi nd i ngh i s de ni a lo fkno wl e dge tha tthe EP LF en g ag ed i n t er r orista ct i vi tyno t to b e cr edibl e; a nd ( 4 ) a p p l y i n g th e ma t e r i a l s u p p o r t b a r b e c a u s e t he su p p o r th e p r o v i d e d t o th e E P L F wa s n o t“ ma t e r i a l
. ” T he Board r ej ecte d these ch all enges . The Boar d agr eed with the I m m i gr ati on J ud ge’ s dete rm i nati on t h at FH

- T had not sat i sfi ed hi s bur den ofpro vi ng l ack ofkno w l edge that the EPL F w as a ter ro ri st or gani zati on , because8 N o. 12

- 2471

w hi l e Pet i ti onerdeni ed be in g aw ar e o fthe EPL F’ s a cts ofvi ol ence, he ofte n equi voca ted, r el yi ng o n the f act that he did not p erson all y w itnes s th e even ts. T he Boa rd al so r el i ed upo n F H

- T’ s te st i m o ny i ndi ca tingthat he ha d b ee n p r es en t atmonthl y po l i ti ca li ndo ct r i na ti o ns w h er e c u rre n t e ve n ts w er e d isc u ss ed an d FH -T “o n ly hear d that they [ the EPLF] w er e a tta cking th e ci vi l i an tr ucks orki l l i ng ci vi l i ans. ” ( Tr. A t 195, 20 1- 03)
. These equi voca ti ons, co m bi ned w i th the fa ct that F H

- T ser ved i n the EPLF f o rnine y ea r s, l ed to the Bo ar d’ s co nc l usio n th atth e Im m ig r a t i o n Ju d ge d id n otcle ar ly er r in fi ndi ngtha t F H

- T ha d no t es tabl i sh ed w ith cl ea ra nd convinc in g evi dence thathe di d not know o r shoul d not h av e r ea so n ab ly kn ow n th atth e E P L F w as en ga ge d in te rro r i sta ct i vi ti es . The Bo ar d di d no t r ea chF H

- T’ s ar g um ents chal l engi ng the deni alo fhi s pol itica lper secuti on cl ai m o n th e m er i ts be ca us e i t det er m i ne d th at the m ate ri alsupport barr endered hi m i nel i gibl e for asy l u m and w i thhol ding ofr em ova l
. FH-T now app eal s, chal l engi ng the Boar d’s concl usi on that he does not qualify forthe knowle dge exe m pti on t o the m ate ri al supp or t forte rr or i sm bar, the Boa rd ’ s deci si on notto ad j ud i cate the m er i ts ofhi s cl ai m , and the proce ss by whi chthe g o vern m en t adj udi ca te s wai ve r s. F o rthe f o l l o wi ngr ea so ns , we den y F H

- T’ s pet i ti o n.
I I . Discussi on “Wher e . . . the Bo ar d r el i es o n the fi ndi ng s o fthe [ I mmi g r a t i o n J u d g e ] b u tadds i t s o wna n a l y s i s , we review the IJ ’s dec isi on as sup p lem en ted by the Boa rd ’sN o. 12

- 2471 9 add i ti onalr eas oni ng. ” Y i X ia n C hen v. Ho lder, 70 5 F
. 3d 6 2 4 , 6 2 8 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 1 3 ) ( i n t e r n a l c i t a t i o n o m i t t e d )
. We re vi ew ag ency fi nd in gs of f act f or“s ubstanti alev i dence” an d m ayr ev er se the I m m i g r at i o n Judg e’ s det er m i na ti o ns “onl y i fwe deter m i ne thatthe evi dence com pels a differ ent r esu l t. ” A bra ha m v. Ho lder, 64 7 F
. 3d 626, 63 2 ( 7th Cir
. 20 11) ( em phasi s a dd ed) ( ci ti ng B alogun v. Ashcrof t, 374 F.3d 492, 498 (7th Cir. 2004). W e review the B o a r d ’s le g a l co n c lu sio n s d e n ov o, O rejuela v. G o nz a les , 42 3 F
. 3d 666, 671 (7th C ir. 2005) (in t e r na l citation om itted ), “o w[ing ] the Bo ar d de fer en ce i n its in te r pr et at i o n o fthe [ I m m i gr ati on a nd N ati onal i ty A c t] , ” D uron- O r t iz v. Ho lder, 69 8 F
. 3d 523, 526 ( 7th Ci r. 20 12) ( i nter nalci tat i on om itted ). “W e are not at liberty to overtu rn th e B o a r d ’s de t e r mi na t i o n s i mpl y b e c a us e we wo ul d h a v e de c i ded the c ase d ifferentl y. ” B ueso -A vil a v. Ho lder, 66 3 F
. 3d 934, 937 ( 7th Ci r. 20 11) ( quoti ng Ja m a l-D a o u d v . Go nz a les , 403 F.3d 918, 922 (7th Cir. 2005)).

A . The Boa r d’s A naly si s o f8 U . S.C. § 1158 ( b)( 2) ( A ) ( v) An i ndi vi duali s barred f r o m a sy l um a nd wi thho l di ng ofr em ova li fhe ha s pro vi ded m ate ri alsupport to a Tie r I I I ter ro ri st or gani zati on, unle ss he ca n d em onst ra te that he “di d not know , and should n ot re aso nabl y hav e kn ow n, th at th e orga n iza tio n w as a te rro ris t o rg an iza tio n .” See8 U
. S. C
. §§ 1158(b)(2)( A )( v); 1182(a)(3)( B )( iv)( V I)(d d ), (vi) (I I I ). Th e im m igrati on sta tu t e s d eli ne ate th ree tiers ofte rr or i st or gani zati ons: Ti er s Iand I Iar e desi gnate d as te r r o r i sto r g an i za ti o ns b y the De par tmentof Hom el an d10 N o. 12

- 2471

U nlik e T iers I a n d I I, the G ov ern m en t d oe s no t m ain tain 2 a f orm al li stoforganizat ions f all ing und er Tie r I II
. Se c u rit y a n d th e D ep ar t m e n t of St at e, re sp ec tiv ely . A T ier II I ter ro ris t o rg an iza tio n, by c on tr as t, is b ro ad ly defined as a “ group oftwo orm or e ind i vi du al s, wh ether o r g an i ze d o rno t, whi che ng ag es i n, o rh as a s ubg r o up w h ich e n ga ge s in, th e ac tiv itie s d es c rib ed in su b c lau se s (I) th ro ugh ( I V), 8 U
. S. C. § 1 182( a) ( 3) ( B)( vi ) ( i i i )
. ” The “ ac- 2 tiv itie s” refe r e n c ed th er ein co n c er n “t er ro ris t a c tiv ity ,” m ea ni ng“ any a ct i vi tywhi chi s unl awfulunde rthe law s o ft h e p lac e w h er e itis co m m itt ed (or w h ich , i f it had been co m m i tte d in the U ni ted S tat es, would be unl awfulunde rthe l aws o fthe Uni te d S ta te s o ra ny S ta te ) ” an d i nv ol ve s co nduc t su cha s as sa ss i na ti o n, vi o l en t at ta ck s upo n a n int erna ti o na l l y pr o te ct ed per so n, sab otage, and high-j ackin g. 8 U
. S. C
. § 1182(a)(3) (B)(i ii ). Underthe s o - ca l l ed “kno wl edg e exe m p tion, ” th e m ate ri alsupport barappli es onl y i fFH-T knew orr eas o nab l y s ho ul d h a v e kno wn tha tthe EP LF wa s e ng a ged i n a n a ct i vi tytha t i s ei th erunl awful w here it to ok pla ce or w ou ld be u n law fu l in th e U n ite d Sta te s. See 8 U
. S. C
. §§ 1158(b)(2)( A )( v); 1182(a)(3)( B )( iv)( V I ), ( vi)( I I I ). O n ap p ea l, FH -T ad va n c es a n u an c ed arg u m en t c h allenging th e B oard ’s conc lusion th at he doe s not q ua li fy for th e kn o w le d ge ex em p tion to the m aterial su p p ort bar : H e ar gues that he has consi ste ntl y cl ai m ed i gnor ance ofany unlawfulact i vi ty com m i tte d by the EPL F, w hi l e s i m ult aneously a cknowle dgi ng hi s a w ar eness o f “law ful” viol en ce u nd ertaken by the EP L F a s p art of aN o. 12

- 2471 11 str uggl e fori nd ependence. A c cor dingly, Peti ti onerdoes no t di s pu t e tha t he wa s a wa r e o f the fi g ht i ngbet w een Er i tr ea n a nd Ethi o pi anf o r ce s dur i ngthe war, b ut conte nd s that he und er sto od the E P LF to be oper ating as a pseudo- gov er nm ent e ngage d i n a l egi ti m ate w aro f i nde pen den ce . Nev er th ele ss , he c l ai m s th athe ha s co nsi stentl y deni ed havi ng anykno w l edge o fany unl awfu l ( t e r r o r i s t ) a c t i v i t i e s , s u c h a s a t t a c k s o n c i v i l i a n s c o mm i tte d by the EPL F during the ti m e he w as affi l i ate d w i th the gr oup. H i s i gn orance ofsuch unl aw ful vi ol ence, FH -T co n tin u es , i s c or ro b or at ed by a let te r fro m h is fri en d and the tes t im o n y of E ritrean cou nt ry exp ert Tri sha Hep ner, w ho expla i ned that a hi gh l eve l ofse cre cy was a ss o ci at ed wi ththe EP LF’ s m i l i ta r y a ct i o ns a nd com bat str ate gy. Peti ti onerar gues thatthe Board’ s o pini on g l oss ed ove r the s i gni fi cant di stincti on betw een hi s know l edge ofthe EPL F’ s l aw ful vi ol ent a cti vi ti es as com pared to i ts unlaw ful ones , and i ts f ai l ure to adequatel y a dd re ss su ch a cri tical com p one ntof his claim i s groun d s for a re m an d
. Cham pi on v. Holder, 626 F.3d 952 , 957 (7th C ir. 2012 ) ( “Find in g that the BI A er re d by f ai l i ng to co nsi der th e impac t o fYo m i ’ s po te nt i alde po r ta ti o n, we r emand thi s m att eri n or der forthe BIA to add re ss thi s cr i ti cal c om ponent o fthe hardshi p anal ysi s. ”)
. Fur ther, as a m at te r of p olic y, P et itio n er co n te n d s t h atC on gr es s d id not i nt en d to i m p ose “strict lia b ili ty” on asylum -seekers so as to ren d er th em ine ligib le for as ylu m on t h e b as is ofany su p portf orar m ed i nd ependence m ove m ents aga i nst di ctat or i alr eg im es. In advanci ng thi s a rgum ent, Pe ti ti o ne rur g es tha t wars of i nde pen den ce a r e l awful12 N o. 12

- 2471

In add it ion, Peti ti oner argu es that ev en ifE thi opia is the “l aw 3 ofthe pl ac e” f or pur pos es o f the kno wle dge ex em pt i on t o the m at er i al sup por tbar, i t“i s no tc l ea r thatthe EPLF’ s ac t i ons w o u l d b e c on sid ered un law ful i n se .” (P et iti o n er ’s B r. a t 2 1 ). Et h i o p i a ’ s mo s tr e c e n tc o n s t i t u t i o n ( r e l e v a n tb e c a u s e t he la n g u a g e o f th e st a tu te is in th e p r es en t te n se , see 8 U. S
. C. § 11 8 2 (a )( 3)(B)(i ii) ), states tha t “[e] v ery N atio n, N atio na lity (co n tin u ed ...) und eri nter nati onall aw , E ri tr ean l aw , and the l aw s o f the Unite d Sta tes
. The l an g ua ge o fthe s ta tu te s ug g es ts tha t th e r el ev an t an a l y s is for p u rp os es of th e k n ow led ge ex em p tio n is whethe rthe a ct i vi tyo fw hi chFH- T was a war e i s “u nl awful und erthe l aw s o fthe pla ce w h er e iti s co m m i tte d (o r w hi ch, i fi t had be en co m m i tte d i n the U ni ted S tat es, w ou ld be u n law fu l un d er th e la w s o f t h e U n ite d Sta te s).” 8 U .S.C . § 11 82 (a)( 3)(B )(iii). W h i l e a c kn ow led gin g th atit i s ano penque st i o n whe th era c o ur t o ug ht t o e xa m i ne the l aw o fthe n ew l y ind ependent nati on o r the l aw s o f the o pp re sso r nati on ( i n ass ess in g an act i on’ s l aw fulne ss “u nd er the law s of th e place w he re i t is com m itted ”), Pe ti ti o ne rs ubmi ts that Er i tr eai s th e r el ev an t “l aw o fthe pl ac e” f o rpur po se s o fthe i nqui r y surr o undi ngthe l eg al i ty o f th e EPLF ’ s ac ti vi ty
. The Er i tr ean Co ns ti tu ti o n, Pe titi one r su ggests , un su rp rising ly recogn izes the E PL F’s w ar tim e a c tiv itie s a s la w fu l. SeeEri
. C onst
. p m bl
. ( express in g “[e] ternal[ g] ra ti tude to the sco re s o ftho usands of our m ar tyr s who sac rific ed thei r l i ves f orthe causes o f o urr i g ht s an d i nde pen den ce , dur i ng th e l o nga nd he roic r evolut ionary stru ggle for l iberation.”). 3N o. 12

- 2471 13

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 3 a n d P eo p le in E th io p ia h a s a n u n co n d iti o n a l ri g h t to sel fd eterm ina tion , in c l u d ing the rig ht to secession .” Eth
. C on st. a rt . 39 , p t. 1 (19 9 5 ). O the r cou rts ha v e en cou nte red v ario u s ve rsion s of this 4 argum ent. The N inth Circui t, f or i nst ance, has exp lai ned that

“ t h e r e m ay b e an excep tion to the d efinition of ‘ terro rist act ivity’ w here ‘ the law of the country in quest ion i ncorporates i nter nat i ona l l aw s uc h thatthe c onduc ti n ques t i on i s no lo n g er ‘un la w fu l’ u n d er th e c o u n tr y ’s d o m es tic la w .’ ” (co n tin u ed ...) Further, Peti ti onerar gues that the EPL F a cti vi ti es of whi chhe was a war e do no t vi o l at e Uni te d S ta te s la w. To th i s en d, F H

- T conc edes tha t “i t vi o l at es the l aw t o c o nspi re o r ai m to o ver thro w the gov er n m ent o fthe U ni ted S t a te s,” 18 U .S.C . §§ 2 38 4, 23 85 , bu t a rg u es th atth is com pari son i s a n im properanal ogue . Instea d, Peti ti oner ur g es us t o i m ag i ne a f o rei g n o ppr es so ro per at i nga no ndem ocr ati c g ove rnm ent, not i ng tha t o ur dom est i c l aw did notbaro ur o w n i nd ependence m ove m en t a gainst Bri tain. FH-T al so re fer s us to the Guara ntee Clause , U
. S. Const. , A rt
. IV, § 4, wh i ch pro m i ses a re pu bl i can f o r m o fg o ve r nm en t a nd r equi r es the fede r alg o ve r nm ent t o prot ect aga i nst invasi on a nd d om est i c vi ol ence. Id. A m i cus adds thatco ngre ssi onali ntent, as expre sse d via th e Im m igr at ion an d N a tio n alit y A c t’s br oa d d efin iti on o fr efugee s, see8 U. S
. C. § 1 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 2 ) , i s a to dds wi th th e n o t i o n o fe x c l ud i nga l a r g e s wa th o fa s y l u msee ker s o n the basi s o fthe i r i nvol vem ent with an ind epend ence m ove m ent. 414 N o. 12

- 2471

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 4 A n n ach am y v. Hol der, 68 6 F
. 3d 7 29 , 73 4 n
. 4 ( 9th Cir
. 2012 ) ( c i t i ng K han v . Hol der, 58 4 F .3d 773 , 78 1 (9th C ir. 20 09 ))
. B eca u se the petition eri n Anna c h a my f ail ed to provid e “any evidence thatSr i Lank a h as i nc or por at ed s uc h i nt er nation al l aw, ” the Ni nth Ci r c ui tde c l i ne d t he pe t i t i on e r ’ s i nv i t a t i ont o r e m a nd
. Id. ; s e e a l s o Kha n, 5 8 4 F
. 3 d a t7 8 1 ( “ An action wo ul d b e l awful withi n the m ea ni ng o f§ 1182 (a)( 3) ( B) ( i i i ) i fthe l aw of the country i n quest ion i ncorporates i nter nati onal l aw s uch thatthe c onduc ti n ques t i on i s no l onge r ‘ unl awful ’ unde r the country’ s do m es ti c l aw , but K han has m ade n o a rg um ent that th a t is th e ca s e h e re .”); cf
. M cAl l is t e rv. Att ’y Ge n. , 444 F. 3d 178, 1 8 7(3d C ir . 20 0 6 ). In the presen t case, w hil e Pet it ioner argues on appe al thati nt er nat i ona l l aw re c ogni ze s thatthe us e of f or c e du r i ngh os t i l i t i e s i n war s o fi nd e pe nd e nc e c a n be l awful , l i ke the uns uc c es s ful pe t i t i one r i n A nnachamy, he has no t articu lated a claim th a t E ritrea ha s i ncorpor at ed such i nter
nati on a l l a w a utho r i z i ngthe us e o ff or c e i n i nd e pe nd e nc e m ov em en ts. R eg ard less, f or the re aso ns stated , F H -T d id note xh aus t th i s c l ai m be f or e the Boar d and h i s ar gum en t c a nn ots uc c e e d. W e n ee d n otd ec id e w h et h e r th e v iole n t a c tiv ity P et iti onerknew about w as l aw ful i n the pla ce where it w as com m i tte d orwould be l aw ful i n the U ni ted S tat es, ho wev er, b ec au se FH

- T di d no t ex ha us t th i s “l awful vi ole n ce ” ar gum ent b ef or e the Boar d. W e hav e e xplained that “an a l i en m ust e xhaust ‘ al ladm i ni str ati ve re m edi es av ai l ab l e to the a l i ena s o fr i g ht, ’
. . . a nd thi s i nc l ude s th e obl i gat i on fi rs t t o prese nt to the Board anyar gum ents that l i e withi n i ts pow erto address
. ” Issaq v . H o l der, 61 7 F
. 3d 962, 96 8 ( 7th Ci r. 2010 ) ( ci ti ng 8 U
. S. C. § 1252 ( d)( 1) ) ( othe rN o. 12

- 2471 15 ci tat i on o m i tte d). Thi s r ule i s no t j uri sdic ti onal, but ra ther is a “c as e-p ro c es s i n g ru le th atlim its th e a rg u m en ts av ailabl e t o an ali en i n thi s co urt w hen thos e a rgum ents have not been ra i sed proper l y at the age n c y l eve l
. ” Id. The exhausti on re quir em ent i s m eant to provi de “the Board an o ppo r tu ni tyt o a ppl y i ts s pec i al i ze d kno wl edg e an d ex p er ien c e t o th e m at te r” as w ell as “p ro vid e[] t h e p et iti o ne rwi th the r e l i e fr e qu e s t e d in the fi r s ti ns t a nc e, and .
. . provi des us w i th re aso ni ng to revi ew . ” Arob e l i dze v. Ho lder, 653 F.3d 513 , 517 (7th C ir. 2011). In hi s br i efbefor e t h e Boar d, Peti ti onerar gued that

“ [ i ] n p r e s u mi n gth a t[ P e t i t i o n e r ] mu s tha ve kn o wn about the full sco pe of acti vi ti es of the EPL F, the I m m i gr ati on J ud ge i gnor ed” expert t est i m ony and the l ett er from FH -T’s fri en d
. Petitioner’s ap p eal before the B oard fu rt h er arg u ed “ [t]h e Im m igr at ion Ju d ge a lso err on eo u sly c on c lu d ed th at[P et itio n e r ] kn ew or s h ou ld rea so n ab ly ha ve kno wn th atEPLF was a t er r o r i sto r g an i za ti o n. ” The g o ve r nm en t co nt en ds th ats ucha r g um en ts b efo r e th e Board were ai m ed at pe rs uading i t that F H

- T w as a l t o geth eri g no r an t o fthe EPLF ’ s ac ti vi ti es , no t th athe p os se ss ed inn oc u ou s a s o p p os ed to in c u lp at in g k n ow ledg e. Inde ed, F H

- T di d not use the “ l awful ” ve r su s “u n law fu l” a c tiv ity te rm in o l o gy be for e t h e B oa rd , d id not discu ss th e la w s o f th e place s w he re the E PL F’s vi ol ence w as car ri ed out orU ni ted S tat es l aw , and did not c ite th e d efin itio n of “t er ro ri stac tiv ity ” c on ta in ed in § 1182 (a)( 3)(B)(i ii ). W e a gr ee w i th t he go vernm ent that F H

- T did not ex ha us t th i s ar gu m en t be f o r e th e Bo ar d. The f ac t th atthe16 N o. 12

- 2471 argu m en t FH -T ad van ced before the B oard ap p ears co ns i s t e ntwith hi s cl ai m o n appealthathe was aware o f the ( po s s ib l y ) l a wfulvi ol en c e c o mm i t t e d b y the EP LF but si m ult aneously i gnor ant o fi ts u n law ful acti vi ti es i s no t e n o u g h f o r p u r p o s e s o f e x h a u s t i o n : i t i s n o tt he Board’ s r es p on sibi l i ty to divine and r espond to theo ri es th ata r e unf o r m ed an d l ac k i ngi n c ita ti o n t o s uppo r ting au th or ity
. See E l-G a z a w y v . Ho lder, 69 0 F
. 3d 852, 85 8- 59 (7th C ir. 2012) (un form ed argum en ts before the Boa rd wer e “s i m ply too th inf o rthe BI A to r ec o g ni ze [ ] i n the f o r m t he p e t i t i o ne rn o w u r g e s u s t o c o ns i de r. ”)
. On appeal Peti ti onercl aim s th at “[ b] y focusing br oadl y o n w hetherPeti ti on er knew ofany vi ol ence com m i tte d by the EPL F ratherthan any unl awfu l viol en ce, the B oard ’s an aly si s as k ed th e wro ngque st i o n an d r ea ch ed th e wro ngc o nc l us i o n.” (Pet i ti o ne r ’ s Br
. a t 12 )
. The g o ve r nm en t r i g ht full y po i nt s o uttha t th i s fr amewor ktur ns th e e x h au st ion req u ire m en t o n its h ea d : th e b u rd en is affi r m at i ve l y o n the pe ti ti o ne r, no t th e Bo ar d, t o pr es en t “ar gum ents that l i e withi n i ts pow erto address
. ” Is s aq, 61 7 F
. 3d at9 68
. P eti ti o ne r ’ s ar g um en ts b efo r e th e Bo ar d were insu ffi ci en t to pr o vi de no ti ce o fthe “ l awful vi ol ence” theo ryhe a dvances o n appeal
. H ad Peti ti oner em pl o y e d t he l a wful

- ver sus- unlawful te rm i nol ogy b elo w , c i t ed th e d efin itio n of te rro ris t a c tiv ity in § 11 82 ( a) ( 3) ( B) ( i ii ), o re l uci dat ed ar g um en ts tha t th e types off or ce use d b y th e EPL F o fwh i ch Peti ti oner had kno wl e dg e a r e l a wfulu nd e rEr i t r e a n o rAmer i can l a w, o urfi nd i ngma y we l lhav e b e e n di ffe r e nt
. Ind e e d, i n i ts b r i efthe g o ve r nm en t do es no t di spu te tha t th e te xt ofthe re l evant st atuto rysche m e r equi re s know l edge o fN o. 12

- 2471 17

I n s t e a d, th e g o v e r n me n tn o t e d, wi th o u tana l y s i s , th a tt wo 5 fed er a l co u rt s o f ap p ea ls r eje ct ed v er sio n s o f th e a rg u m en t F H -T no w a d v a n c e s o n a p p e a l
. ( Go v e r n me n t ’ s B r . a t2 7 )
. T h e g ov ernm ent did not add res s the argum ent on it s ter m s, i nst ead r e l y i n g u p o n e x h a u s t i o n a s we l l a s a n a r g u me n tth a t“ t he Boar d’ s r ul i ng thatF H -T f ai l ed t o pr ove he di d notkno w, or sho u ld no t rea so na b ly h av e k no w n o f E P L F ’ s terro rism ofci vili ans i s independ entl y d is posit ive. ” Id. unlaw ful viol en ce for pu rp oses of the m aterial su p p ort b ar ’s k n ow led ge ex em p tio n in t h e c on te x t o f a T i e r II I te r r o r i sto r g an i za ti o n. See A p p ell ee’s B r. at 26. B ut FH -T’s 5 f a i l u r e t o a r t i c u l a t e th i s n o v e la r g u me n tb e f o r e t he Bo ar d r equi r es us t o fi nd tha t he di d no t ex ha us t i t, a nd hi s cl ai m thathe f al l s under the kn ow l edge e xem pti on to the m ate ri alsupport barm u st ther ef or e f ai l
. W e nee d no t r ea chthe g o ve r nm en t’ s al tern at i ve c l ai m tha t th e B oard and I m m igrati on Jud ge clearly foun d that FH -T f ai l ed to di spro ve hi s aw ar eness o fEPL F’ s a tta cks on ci vi l i an s ( ev en as su m i ng th at th e EPLF at ta cks on the E th iopian m il itary do n ot qu ali fy as terrori st activity).

B. W hethert he Peti t i on M ust be G r ante d Because Cu r r e ntGo v e rnme ntP r o c e dur e s f o rAdj udi c a t i ng M ate rial S u p p ort for T erro rism W aiv ers are Legal l y Fl aw ed Peti ti onernext ar gues that eve n a ssum i ng hi s a cti vi ti es tr i g g er ed th e m at er i als uppo r t ba r, the de ni alo fa sy l um an d the en try of a rem oval order w ere n e v e r th eless erroneo us becau se th e B oard ’s dec isi on d ep rived h im of a18 N o. 12

- 2471

Th e a m e nd e d l a ng ua ge pr ov i de s tha t“ no c ourtshal l h a ve 6 j ur i s di c t i on t o r evi ew s uc h a det er m i nat i on or r evo cation exc ept i n a proceeding f or re view ofa fin al order ofrem oval pu r s uant t o s e c t i on1 2 5 2 o fthi s t i t l e a nd r e vi e w s ha l l be lim ite d t o th e e xt en t p ro v id ed in sec tio n 12 5 2 (a )(2)(D ).” 8 U .S.C . § 1 1 8 2 (d )(3)(B )(i). f ai ro ppo r tu ni tyt o o bt ai n a w ai ve rfr o m tha t ba r . The Se cre taryo fS tat e a nd S ecr eta ryo fH om el and Secur i ty m ay, i n c o ns ul t a t i o n wi th o ne a no the ra nd the At t o r ne y Ge ne ra l, wa i v e the a pp l i c a t i o n o fthe ma t e r i a ls up po r tb a rf o ri nd i v i du a la l i e ns o rg r o up s . 8 U
. S
. C. § 11 82 ( d) ( 3) ( B )( i )
. The l eg i sl at i ve hi st o r y s ur r o undi ng th e avai l abi l i ty ofsuch waiv er s o r exem pti ons, wh i ch ar e r ar el y i ssued, sugg est s that Congr ess was conce rned th at th e br ea dth o f th e defi ni ti o n o f “t er r o r i sm” as co nta in ed in t h e b ar s m igh t s w ee p to o b r o a d ly, effe c tiv ely denyi ng as yl um to o ther w i se deser vi ng appl i cants. See“ The ‘ M at er i alS uppo r t’ Ba r : De ny i ngre fug e to the P er se c u te d ,” S . H rg . 110 -75 3, 7 (S ep t. 19 , 200 7). In add i ti on, w hen Congre ss l astam ended the exem pti on p ro c es s, it a d d ed lan g u a ge ind ica tin g th atw aiv er d ec isi ons shal lbe su b j ec t to ju d icia l r ev iew un der § 1 252( A ) ( 2) ( D). The C on sol i dated A pp ro pri ati ons A ct 6 2008 , Pub. L. N o. 110- 161, D i v. J, § 691, 12 1 S tat
. 18 44, 23 64- 66 (D ec. 26, 2007). FH -T c onte nd s that publ i shed DH S pol i cy sugge sts that the Depart m ent wil lnotco nsi der whether to gr ant a w ai verunti l : ( 1) the peti ti onerwas f ou nd el i gibl e for asylum “bu t fo r ” the m aterial su p p ort forterrori sm bar; an d ( 2) the pe ti ti o ne rha s r ec ei ve d a fi na l orde rde ny i ngN o. 12

- 2471 19 hi m as yl um ( and thus or deri ng re m ova l )
. I t i s undis pu ted th at the Boa rd i s r equi re d to prom ptl y pr oce ed w i th an as yl um cas e a nd cannothol d i t ind efi ni tely i n abey a n c e w hile aw aiting w aiver adj ud ication by D H S. See8 C.F
. R. 10 03. 1( e)(8) ( re quir i ng the Boar d, w i th cer tain excepti ons, to ad j ud i cate cas es w i thi n 90 days ( f ors ingl e- m em berbo ar ds) or18 0 days ( f orthr eem em ber p an els))
. FH

- T ar gues that thi s pro cedure i s l ega l l y fl aw ed as ap p lied t o thi s ca se i n two re spects : ( 1) the Board e rr ed in i ts ad j ud ication b y not ad d ressing w he th er FH -T w oul d be e l i gibl e for as yl um “but f or ” the m ate ri al su ppo r t f o rt er r o r i sm ba r, de spi te th e facttha t ane xem pti on pos sibi l i ty exi ste d; and (2 ) the Board e rr ed in orde ring rem oval and de ny ing asylum before DH S adj ud i cated the exem pti on m att er, effecti vel y pr eve n tin g jud icia l rev iew of an y w aiv e r d e te rm in at ion in th e c on te x t o f a fin al re m ov al or d er , as a u th or ize d in 8 U
. S. C
. § 1182(d )( 3)(B)(i ).
( i ) Th e B o a r d’s Dec i s i o n No tt o Adj udi c a t e t he M erit s of P etit ione r’ s C laim P e t i t i o n e rfi r s ta r g ue s th a tb e c a u s e p u b l i s h e d D HS po l i cyr equir es tha t a pet i ti o ne rb e el i g ibl e f o ra sy l um “b utf o r ” th e m at er i als uppo rt b ar i n o r dert o b e co nside red f or a w aiv e r , i t w as errone ou s for th e B oard to di smi ss Pe ti ti o ne r ’ s as y l um c l ai m wi th o uta ddr es sing th e me r i t s . T h e B o a r d e x p l a i n e d th a t“ [ t ] o th e e x t en t that the r espondent has ar gued hi s pos sibl e e l i gibil i ty f o ra wa i v e ru n d e rs e c t i o n 2 1 2 ( d ) ( 3 ) ( B ) ( i ) o fth e Ac t, we20 N o. 12

- 2471

The Boar d ex pl ai ne d “[a]s the r es ponde nti s bar re d f ro m 7 re c ei vi ng a s yl um and withho l di ng o fr em oval, we ne ed n ot (co n tin u ed ...) note thatthe Se cre tar y o fS tate has the sol e a uthor i ty to g r a ntthi s wa i v e r, a nd thi s p r o v i s i o n do e s n o ta f f ect th e d isp os itio n of th e in st an t re m ov al p ro c ee d in gs ,” (Sup p lem en tary A p p en d ix at 3, n. 1) (hereafter “SA ”), effecti vel y a cknowle dgi ng the exi ste nce o fsuch a w ai ver but r eco gni zi ng i ts l ack ofautho ri ty to deci de the i ssue. A s p re vio u sly m en tio n ed , 8 U .S.C . § 11 82 (d )(3) (B )(i) em pow er s the S ecr eta ryo fS tat e a nd S ecr eta ryo fH om el an d S ec ur ity, i n c o ns ul ta ti o n wi tho ne a no th era nd the Att o r ne y Ge ne r al, t o w ai ve the a ppl i ca ti o n o fthe m at er ial su p p or t b ar for in d ivi d u a l a lien s o r gr ou p s. It furtherpro vi d es that no co urt shal lhave j uri sdic ti on “ to re vi ew such a deter m i nati on” excep t in a pr oce edi ng f or re vie w o fa fin al re m ov al or d er . Id. A ccor ding to a “ Fact Sh ee t” p u b lish ed by D H S re ga rd i n g s u c h w aiv er s, a thre shol d requi re m ent foro btaini ng a w aiv eri s that a n ap p li cant“ i s se ek i nga b en efi t o rpr o te ct i o n un derthe A ct an d ha s b e e n d e t e r min e d t o b eo t he rwi s ee ligibl e forthe be ne fi t o rpr o te ct i o n. ” ( S A at4 6) ( emphas i s adde d)
. The FactS heet expla i ns t h at an as yl um peti ti on wil lo nl y b e gi ven e xem ption co nsi derat i on “ i fr el i efo r prot ecti on w as denie d sol el y o n the basi s o fo ne o fth e gr ounds of in ad m i ssibi l i ty f orwh i ch exem pti on a uthor i ty has be en exer ci sed bythe Se cre tar y. ” (SA at49 )
. FH-T ar gues th at bec au se th e B oard ha lted i ts an alysis u p o n d eterm i ni ng tha t the m ate ri alsupport barhad b ee n tr i gger ed and decl i ned to adj ud ica te the m er i ts, Peti ti oner 7N o. 12

- 2471 21

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 7 ad d r e ss th e oth er ar g u m en ts on ap p eal reg ard ing the m erits ofthe r es ponde nt ’ s c l ai m ofpe rs ec ut i on i n Er i t re a o n a c c ount ofactual or i m pu ted polit ic al opinion. ” ( S A at 3). w as necess ar i l y deni ed the op p or tu n i ty to see k a waive r fro m DH S, as the sta tute perm i ts. Pe ti ti o ne ra r g ue s th atthe pr ec ar i o us po si ti o n h e occupi es

— unabl e to se eka w ai ve rbec au se no fi na lfi ndi ng o fa s y l um e l i g ib i l i ty “ b utf o rthe b a r ” ha s b e e n i s s ue d, and unabl e t o r e c e i v e a f ul l a dj ud i c a t i o n of as y l um e l i g ibi li ty o n the b as i s th athe i s su bj ec t to the m ate ri al support bar

— ha s be en r ej ec t e d b y t he Se venth Cir cui t. H e cl ai m s that our case l aw requi re s co o r di na ti o n a m o n g a g e n c i e s wi th o ve r l appi ng author i ty, as betw ee n the Board and DH S orbetw een th e Bo ar d a nd the Depa r tmento fS ta te , a nd tha t th e B oa rd ’s d ec isio n n otto fu lly ad d re ss th e m er its of h is claim cons titute d an ab d ication of its rol e. (Petitioner’s B r. at37(“[T ]h e B oa rd ab d ica te d its co n su lta tiv e ro le by not onl y no t m aking a re com m endati on, but by i ss ui nga de ci si o n whi chhinde r s DH S fr o m maki ng an y e x em p tio n d ec isio n in t h e c as e.” ).) In s u pp or t o fthi s cl ai m , FH-T ci tes a l i ne o fcas es w h ich h e arg u es st an d s for th e pr op os itio n th at a m i n im um l ev el ofc o o r di na ti o n a m o ngthe v ar i o us e xe cuti ve age nci es i s r equi re d and sup p or ts our j uri sdic ti on h er e. See Sid diq ui v . H o lder, 670 F.3d 736 , 741 (7th C ir. 2012 ); Ce t a v. M uka sey, 5 35 F.3d 63 9, 646-47 (7thCir. 2008 ) ( “unle ss [ ] subag enci es engag e in so m e m i ni m alco -22 N o. 12

- 2471

or dinat i on of thei r re specti ve pro ceedi ngs

— f orexam ple , by the i m m i gr ati on co urts f avo rabl y e xerci si ng di scr eti on, i n the appropri ate cas e, to co nti nue proc eedi ngs t o a l l o w the o the rs ub a g e nc y t o a ct

— the s ta tu to r y o ppo r tu
nity to seek [rel ief ] w il l p rove to be a m ere illus ion.”) ; Potda r v. K eisler, 505 F.3d 68 0, 68 4 (7 th C ir. 20 07 ), va ca ted on othergrounds b y P o tda r v. Keisler, 550 F.3d 594 ( 7th Cir. 20 08 ); B o ya niv skyy v. G o nz a les , 45 0 F
. 3d 286, 29 2 ( 7th C ir. 2006); B enslim a ne v . Go nz a lez , 430 F.3d 828 , 832 (7th C ir. 20 05 ); Subhan v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 591 , 595 (7t h C ir. 2004). FH- T s ug g e s t s tha tb e c a us e the Bo a r d’ s a dj ud i c a t i on pract i ces oper ate to “nul l i fy a st atuto ryr i ght” and effecti vely t h w ar t Congr ess ’ s desi re to pro vi de al i ens s ubj ect to terrori s m b a r s w ith an exem p tion p ossibil ity, w e are author i zed to r evi ew such pro cedures and i nstr uct th e Bo ar d t o a dj udi ca te P etitioner’s c lai m i n a parti cul arway. I n C et a , we p r o v i de d a h e l pfuldi s c us s i o n o fthe r e asoning be hi nd the l i ne o fcas es up on wh i ch Peti ti oner re l i es: I n Sub han, we co nc l ude d tha t, des pi te the do o r - cl o sing statu te, w e had j urisd iction to review the d en ialof a continuance w hen such a denia lwould null i fy a n alie n ’ s s tat utor y o pp or tuni ty to adj ust s tatus. S peci fi cal l y, w e fo und i t untenab l e “ that Congre ss, i ntending, as i t cl early d id , t o enti tl e i l l ega lal i ens t o see k a n adj ustm ent o fst atus up on the r ecei pt of [ cer tain re quir ed] cer ti fi cate s . . . , atthe sam e t i m e a l so i nt en ded se ct i o n 1 25 2( a)(2 ) ( B) ( i i ) t o pl ac e be y o nd j u d icia l rev iew d ec isio n s t h atn u llif[y] th e s ta tu te .”N o. 12

- 2471 23

T he go v ern m en t also claim s that P etition er failed to exh au st 8 the arg u m en t be low t h a t the B oa rd w as req u ired to ad jud icate 

### (continued...) Sub han, 3 83 F
. 3d at5 95
. In B enslim a ne v . Go nz a les, we expla i ned that Sub han ap p li es w he n th e d en ialof a continuance re quest has “the effect of a subst anti ve rul i ng o n the appli cati on t o adj ust .
. . st atus. ” 4 30 F. 3d 828, 83 2 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05) ( “A n i m m i grat i on j ud ge cannot b e p er m i tte d, by arbi tr ar i l y denying a m oti on f ora continuance w i thout w hi ch the al i en cannot e stab li sh a groun d on w hich Con gress h as d eterm in ed t h a t h e is eligib le t o s ee k t o re m ain in t h is cou nt ry, 8 U
. S. C
. §§ 115 1(b)(2) (A )( i) , 1255(a), to thw art th e c on gr es sio n al d es ign .”). 535 F.3d at 645-46. Th ese cas es d id n ot c o n c e r n a p urport ed ri ght t o a w ai verdeter m i nati on in the conte xt o f the m ate rial s u pp or t forte rr or i sm bar, but ra ther sta tutory r i ghts to apply foradj ustm ent o fst atus ( C et a , Sub han , Ben sli m ane ) , o r to prese nt ev i dence i n a r em ova l h eari ng ( Boyani vs kyy ) , o r to see k “ l ega l i zati on” ( P o tda r, Si ddi q ui )
. N eve rthel ess , Peti ti onerar gues that these cas es sta nd f orthe gener alp rin c iple thatwe m ust instr uct th e B o a r d t o a dj u d i c a t e th e me r i t s o fh i s c l a i m. The go vernm ent c ounter s that we l ack j uri sdic ti on t o re vi ew the Board’ s ca se adj ud i cati on pra cti ces and argues that the c ase s Pet itio ner ci tes ar e di stingui shabl e fro m th e pre sen t one be cau se th e y c onc erne d “statu tory rights,” w he reas th e w aiver p rovisi on at issue here con fers no s uchr i g ht s. The g o ve r nm en t cl ai m s th at“ [ n] o th i ng 824 N o. 12

- 2471



### (...continued) the m erits of his arg u m en t. T hi s v i ew of exha u stion is too dem and ing. In his briefbef ore the Board , Peti ti oner ex plic

it ly acknow le dg ed the wh il e the grant ofthe disc ret ionary w aiver is outs ide the authori ty ofthe Board or the Im m igration J u d g e to issue d irectly , the B oa rd sho u ld nev erth eless

“ c on s i de r a l l h i s a r gu m e nt s o n a ppe a l e ve n i fthe Bo a r d u ph ol ds the m ater ials u p p o rt b ar” s o thathis abil ity to obtai n other a dm i ni s t r a t i ve r e m e di e s i s n otfr us t r a t e d. ( Adm i ni s t r a t i ve R eco rd at 24 ). Ind eed , the B oa rd d iscussed the issue in its dec i s i on, (SA at6) , fur the r i ndi c at i ng thatthe ar gum en t was a ppr op r i a t e l y e x ha us t e d. The pr ovi s i on al s o e num er at es bar s t o the e xt en s i on of 9 tha tr e l i e fa nd the r i gh tt o j ud i c i a l r e vi e w. 8 U. S
. C. § 11 8 2 (d )(3)(B )(i). i n the e xe m pti o n pr o vi si o n e st ab l i sh es a r i g hti n a ny al i en to app l y fo r an exem pti on, o r any r i ght, enti tl em ent, o ri nt er es t i n the e xe m pti o n po ss ibi l i tyi ts el f
. ” ( Gov ernm en t’s B r. at38 ). I t i s true th at th e l an g ua g e o f th e st atut es perm i tt i ng an i nd i vi du alto vind i cate adj ustm ent o fst atus orl ega l i zati on r i ghts i nvi tes ind i vi du al s t o “apply, ” see 8 U. S
. C. § 1 255( a) ( describi ng the al i en’ s abi l i ty to “m ake [ ] an appli cati on forsuch a dj ustm ent”) , wh er eas the l anguage ofthe w ai verpro vi si on a t i ssue here does not, in st ea d sim p l y e m p ow er in g th e Se c re ta rie s w ith “s ole un r e v i e wa b l e di s c r e t i o n” t o g r a nta wai ve r, 8 U. S
. C. § 11 82 (d )(3) (B )(i). In d ee d , th e Sec re ta ry of D H S h er se lf 9 ha s appa r en tly a dva nc ed th i s unde r st an di ng, de cl ar i ng that her exer ci se ofthe provi si on’ s a uthor i ty i s “ notN o. 12

- 2471 25 i ntended to cre ate any substa nti ve orpro ced u ra lr i ght o r ben efi t tha t is legally enforcea ble by any pa rty.” (SA at 46). T h e g ov er n m en t fu rt h er n ot es th atP et itio n er ’s c as e is dist i ngui shabl e fro m the C et a l i n e in a pro ceduralse nse: FH

- T has no t s ought a c on tinu ance o r the a pp ro valo f an appli cati on fo r a benefi t, bu t instea d seek s “ the e quiva

l ent o fa pardon” to re m ov e the m ate ri alsupport f or te r r o r i sm des i g na ti o n. Thu s, atl eas t a s a m att ero fte xt, the ex em pti on provi si on be f or e us i s t echni cal l y di stinct fro m the ri ghts at i ssue i n the Ce ta l i ne o fcas es. Denyi ng Pet i ti oner r el i efo n thi s ba si s i s so m ewha t tr o ubl ing, as, i n a bro ader sense t h is case i s m uch l i ke the o thercas es i n w hi ch w e e xpect the i m m i gr ati on co urts to co or dinat e acti on with other ex ecu ti ve age nci es so as to avo i d dep riving i nd ivi d u a ls of opp ortu nities to w hich they are l eg i s l a t i v e l y e nt i t l e d. M o r e o v e r , t he S e c r e t a r y o f D H S’s ch ar ac te riz at ion of th e e x em p t i o n p ro vis ion is uns at i sfy i ng : T he s ug g es ti o n tha t he re xe r ci se o fthe provi si on’ s a uthor i ty is n ot “l ega l l y e nfo rce abl e” i s a t l eas t in so m e s ense bel i ed by Congre ss’ s e xpli ci t a uthor i zati on o fj ud i ci alr evi ew o fwaive r deter m i nati ons. N everthe l es s, we ar e o fthe o pi ni o n tha t th e pr es en t case does n ot fal lwithi n the C et a l i ne . In a ddi ti o n t o the te x tualdi stincti ons ( no par t o fthe prese nt st atute aff or ds a p et i ti onerthe opportunity t o “apply ” foran exem pti on) and pro c ed uraldi spari ti es ( FH

- T did not r eque sta c o nt i nua nc e) , pr ag m at i c co ns i der at i o ns co unseli n f avo r ofabs taini ng fro m encr oac hm ent upon ag en cye xpe r ti se i n this con te xt
. As c o m par ed to the26 N o. 12

- 2471

A lthoug h the prese nt c ase does not f allw ithin the C eta line, 10 thi s do es not m ean, as the go v er n m en t s ugg es ts , thatw e l ack ju r i sd i c t i o n to r e v i e w th e p r o c e d u r a l su ffi c i e n c y o f th e B o a r d ’s ac t i ons . The gove rn m en tar gue s that“[ w] he re ne i ther the s t atut e, r eg ul at i ons , no r the Cons t i t ut i on aff or d FH-T a r i ght or en titlem en t to ap p ly o r b e con sid ered f or a terro rism w aiv er, FH -T n ecess a r i l y a lso lack s any gro u nd up on w hich to (co n tin u ed ...) a dj us t men to fs t a tus o rl e g a l i z a t i o n a pp l i cati o ns , e xe mption gr ants fro m the ter ro ri sm bar s a re exce edi ngl y r ar e. A ccord ingly, w h ile there are sou nd prac tical consid erations w eighing in favor of req u ir ing a fl oor ofi nt erag ency coo rdi nati on in the conte xt o fthe ( re l ati vel y) fre quentl y g ra nted sta tus a dj ustm ents orl ega l i zati on ap pli cati ons, a decree r equi ring a speci fi c m etho d of Board adj u d ica tion i n eve rycas e in w hi ch a peti ti oner ho l ds hi m se l fo uta s el i g ibl e f o ra waiver to the ter ro ri sm bar s m ay ser ve onl y t o pr olo n g the r eso l uti on o fc a s e s i n a n a l r e a dys t r a i ne d s y s t e m. Whi l e i tma ybe o pt i ma li n th e o r y f o rth e B o a r d t o a dj u d i c a t e a l la s y l um ca se s in a m anne rtha t fur ni sh es DHS wi the ve r y po te nti al l y use ful deter m i nati on t o i nfo rm i ts consi derat i on ofexem pti ons, we cannot concl ud e that the C et a l i ne of cases com p els as m uc h. Ind eed , i ns tru c t in g the B oard to ad j u dica te al las yl um cas es i m pli cating the m ate ri al supp or t forte rr or i sm bari n the m anner presc ribed by Pe ti ti o ne rwoul d b e f armore intrusi ve tha n a ny o fo ur pas t m an dat es ( su cha s i ns truct i ngthe Bo ar d t o i ss ue con tinu an ces) on th e basi s o f a far l ess certa in statu tory rig h t, if su c h a rig h t e x ist s a t a ll. 10N o. 12

- 2471 27

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 10 assert th at the jurisd iction al clau se in § 1 18 2(d )( 3)(B)(i )

— prov iding j uris dicti on to re view an ex em ption ‘ determ inatio n,’

— pertai ns t o anything otherthan the exe m ption ‘ determ in a tio n ’ he h a s n o t o b ta in ed .” (G o v er n m en t ’s B r. a t 4 1 -4 2 ). H oweve r, w e have s ai d that“[ t ] he pr oc edur al s uffi c i en c y of an im m igrat ion hearing i s a l egal ques ti on, ” Boyani vskyy, 450 F .3 d a t2 9 1 , a n d t h u s w e p r o p e r l y c o n si d e r th e B o a r d ’s a ct io n s d e n o v o . Id. Indeed, ifw e were t o have c o n clud ed that th e c u rr en t a g en cy p ro ce ss “ th w a rt [s] th e c o n g re ssi o n a l d esign,” Be ns l i mane, 43 0 F .3d at 83 2, w e w ou ld b e w ithin ou r au tho rity in r em and ing the cas e t o the B o a rd fo r a full determ inat ion as t o whe the r Pe t i t i one r wo u ld b e el i gibl e f or as yl um butf or the b a r. Seei d. at83 3( “W e ar e notr equi re d t o pe rm i tBen sli m ane to b e g ro u nd t o b i t s i n th e b u rea u cra tic m ill aga inst the w ill o f C o n g re ss.” ); seeal so L agu n as-Salg a d o v . Hol der, 584 F. 3d 707, 71 3 (7th C ir. 20 09 ) (the im m igr atio n statu te gu ara nte es a fair h ea ri n g ); C eta , 53 5 F
. 3d a t64 5 ( “I n Subh a n, w e con clu d ed tha t, despite the d o o r-c los ing s tatute, w e had juri sdic ti on to re view th e d en ia l o f a c o n t i n u a n c e w h en su ch a d en ia l w o u ld n u lli fy a n al ie n ’s sta tu to ry o p p o rt u n ity to ad ju st st a tu s.” ). I t’ s wor thno ting th at i f Pe ti ti o ne r ’ s i nt er pr et at i o n o fthe DH S Fact Sheet i s in f act accura te, he i s r i ghtfully frustr ate d that b y d ec lin ing t o re ach the questi on o fwh ether he woul d b e el i g ibl e f o ra sy l um “ bu t for” th e ba r, the Board e ffecti vel y d epri ved hi m o fthe opportunity t o pla usib ly se ek a wai verfro m DH S. H owever, i t’ s no t c l ea r th atFH -T ’s in te rp re ta tio n of th e F ac t Sh ee t is co r r e c t, o rth a tth e F a c tS h e e ti s i n a n y s e n s e b i n di ng upo n the Bo ar d o rDHS. F o ri ns ta nc e, the g o ve r nm en t p oin ts ou t t h atth e F a c t Sh ee t re q u ire s o n ly th at“[a ]ll28 N o. 12

- 2471 par ti es . . . ha ve a c ha nc e to l i ti g at e th e m er i ts o fthe c as e u p t h ro u gh t h e B IA ,” (SA at49 ); i t d oe s n otex p licit ly r e q u i r e th e B o a r d t o a dj u d i c a t e th e me r i t s i n a ny parti cul arf ashi on. Perhaps m ore signi fi cantl y, i t i s no t clear fr om the lang ua ge of th e Fact Sh eet th at t h e Boa rd al one p os se sses the abi l i ty to deter m i ne wh etheran alien w oul d be “ othe rwis e e l i gibl e forthe benefi t o r pr o te ct i o n. ” The F ac t S he et ’ s us e o fthe pa ss i ve v o i ce ( th e exem pti on p ro visi on a pp l i es to an al i en “s eek i ng a b e ne fi to rp r o t e c t i o n . . . a nd has b e e n deter m i ned to be othe rwis e e l i gibl e for the benefi t o r prot ecti on. ”) ( SA at 47 ) ( em phasi s a dd ed), sugg est s that o thero ffi ci al s o r ag en c ies , pe rh ap s in c lu d in g D H S its elf, c ou ld th eo re tic ally deter m i ne tha t a n al i en would be “otherwis e e l i gibl e” f or re lief. ( See G overn m en t’s Br. at 56 n. 15). I f th at w e re th e ca se , the Bo ar d’ s dec i si o n n o t to a dj udi ca te the m er i ts ofPeti ti oner ’ s asy lu m cl ai m would not depri ve h im of th e o p p or tu n ity to be co n sid er ed for a w aiv er . U l tim at el y, the al l ege d statutor y r i ght t o consi derat i on f oran e xem pti on i s s i m plyto o nebul ous for u s to re quir e, atth is stage, thatthe Board adj ud i cate such claim s in the p a r ticular m an ne r Petitioner requ ests. FH -T does n ot p oi nt us t o com pel l i ng ev i dence thatCongr ess , r athe rtha n as i ng l e no n-bind ing ag en cypub l i ca ti o n, i ntended the waiv erpro vi si on t o re quir e Boar d ad j u dica

ti on o ft h e m er i ts ofas yl um cl ai m s in eve rycas e t ri gge ring the m ate ri alsupport f orte rr or i sm bar
. W hi le Peti ti oneral er ts us to a disc onc e r t ingl ack ofhar m oni zati on amonge xe cut ive age nc i es , we ca nno t sa y tha t th e Board “l ega l l y e rr ed ” i n decl i ni ng to r each the m er i ts of F H- T ’ s a s y l u m c l a i m.N o. 12

- 2471 29

The gove rn m en tar gue s thatFH- T’ s c hal l en ge r eg ard i ng the 11 tim ing of w aiv er d eterm ina tio n s p resen ts a no n-justiciab le p olitic al qu estion
. W e d isag ree. Th e Su p rem e C ou rt recen tly ex p la in ed th a t “ [t]h e Ju d ic ia l B ra n ch ap p ro p ri a te ly ex er ci se s [ ] author i t y . . . wh er e the que s t i on i s whethe r Congr es s or the Executi ve is ‘ aggrand izi ng it s pow er atthe ex pense of another branch. ’ ” Z i vot of

sky e x rel. Z i vot of

sky v. C l i nto n , 132 S. Ct. 1421, 1 4 2 8 ( 2 0 1 2 ) ( q u o t i ng F reytag v. Co m m ission er, 501 U.S
. 868, 878 ( 1991) )
. FH

- T’ s cl aim can properly be c haract eriz ed as an argum ent thatthe Executi ve’ s currentadjud ic ati on procedure s am ountto an a g gr andi ze m en tofi t s power atthe ex p en se o f sta tu to ri ly -en a ct ed re lie f (th e p o ssi b ili ty o f a wai ve r a nd j ud ic i a l r e vi e w the r e of) e x pl i c i t l y pr ov i de d f orby Congr es s . Fur the r, we ha ve re pea t edl y f ound j udi c i al l y m anageable st and ards in determ ini ng whether exe cuti ve ag en cy actio ns h a v e th e effect of nu llify ing im m igr atio n statu tes. S ee Potda r, 55 0 F .3d at 59 6 -9 7, C eta , 53 5 F .3d at 64 5 , Be ns l i mane, 4 3 0 F .3d at 83 2 ; Su b han , 38 3 F .3d at 59 1. Petitio ne r’ s claim is j usti ci able. ( i i ) Th e Bo ar d’s I ssuance ofa Final Re m ov al Order Pri ort o aD H S Exem pti on D eci si on Peti ti onernext ar gues that the e xi sting waiv erpro cess i s fl awe d b ec au se the e nt r y o fa r em o va lo r derb y the Bo a r d prio r to any w aiver adj ud i cati on byDH S ei ther f rust r a t e s j ud i c i a lr e v i e w o rr e qu i r e s the fe de r a lc o ur ts to exp an d their j urisd iction b eyon d de term inations norm al l y t r ea te d a s r emov al ord er s. As pr ev i o us l y men- 11 ti on e d, Co ng r e s s e xp r e s s l y p r o v i de d fo rfe de r a lj ud i c i al re vi ew o verexem pti on dete rm i nati ons und erthe l i m i ted j ur i sdi ct i o na lprov i si o ns o f8 U. S
. C. § 1 25 2( a) ( 2) ( D) a nd 8 U.S
. C. § 1 182 ( d)( 3) ( B)( i )
. Congr ess furtherspecifi ed30 N o. 12

- 2471 that such r evi ew m ust o ccur i n the c on te x t ofa peti ti on f orr evi ew fro m a fi nalr em ova lo rder
. 8 U
. S. C. § 1 182 (d )(3) (B )(i)
. Un d e rc u r r e n tD HS pro c e d u r e s , D HS c o ns i de r s wh e the rt o g r a nta wa i v e ro nl y a fter a fi nal re m ova l orderi s e nter ed. M eanw hi l e, the re m ova lo rder en te r ed bythe Bo ar d t r i g g er s a 30

- d ay w in do w f o rthe a s y l um a pp l i c a ntt o s e e kfe de r a lj ud i c i a lr e v i e w. 8 U. S
. C. § 1 252(b) ( 1)
. The DH S w ai verpro cess and the re m ov al o r derr ev i ew pr o ce ss a r e whol l y i nde pen den t; i n the ty p ica l ca s e (s u c h as th e p re se n t o n e), a p et itio n er w ill have no waiv erdeter m i nati on up on w hi ch to se ek re vi ew as part of hi s fi nal re m ova l or der w i thi n the 30- day wi n d o w. P e t i t i o n e rc o n c e d e s th a ti ti s u n l i k e l y th a tC o ngr ess i ntended D H S w ai verdeci si ons them selves to c o nsti tute separ atel y r evi ew abl e deci si ons anal ogo us to r em oval or der s, a s th i s woul d r es ul t i n twi ce a s m any appe al s t o th i s c o u r t, r a i s i n gc o s t s a n d s t r a i n i ng j ud i ci al r e s o ur c e s . ( Pe t i t i o ne r’ s Br. at41 )
. Thus, the paralleltr ack schem e a s i t cur re ntl y o perat es mayfr us t r a t e Co ng r e s s ’ s c o nfe r r a lo fe xe mpt i o n r e v i ew au th o r i ty upo n th e co ur ts
. Acco r di ng l y, F H

- T c l ai m s “the m or e naturalr eadi ng o fthe sta tute i s to re q u ire that e xe mpt i o n de c i s i o ns b e made b efo rea fi nalr em ova l or der, notafter w ar d.” ( Peti ti oner ’ s Br. at37 ) ( em pha sis i n or i gi nal )
. Peti ti onersugg est s that a s a n alt er nati ve to the pr ese nt sy ste m , “[ t]h e Boar d m i ght, f ori nstance , co m m uni ca te i ts de ci si o n t o the pa r ti es , butwi th

ho l d fi na l i ty fr o m the o r de r un t i l DHS c o ul d mak e a d ecision on th e exe m p tion p ossibil ity. ” (Petitioner’s Br. at 41)
. A t bo tto m , Peti ti onerargues thatthe proce ss by w h ic h DH S and the B oard curren tly coordina te w aiversN o. 12

- 2471 31 ofte rr or i sm - re l ate d i nadm i ssibi l i ty bar s s houl d be d ee m ed u n law fu l. C ong ress ha s e na cted l egislati on ad d ressing th is sort o fpr o bl em i n o th erc o ntext s. F o re xa m pl e, i n the c o nt ex t of8 U
. S. C. § 1 255 a(f) ( 4) , wh i ch author i zes j ud i ci al r evie w ofl eg al i za ti o n de ni al s ( butl i k ewi se o nl y i n the conte xto fa p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w fr o m a fi na lr e mov al or d er ), C on gr es s a u to m at ica lly st ay ed rem ov al f o r ind ivid u als p re se n tin g p rim a fa c ie leg aliz at ion c laim s. 8 U .S.C . § 12 55 a(e )(2) ; see also 8 U
. S. C. § 11 60(d) ( 2) ( sam e, f orappli cants und erf ar m worke r prog ra m )
. Legal i zat i on deci si ons, l i ke m ate ri alsupport barw aiv erdeci si ons, ar e m ade by DH S an d ar e no t r ev i ewabl e by the Bo ard of Im m igr at ion A p p ea ls. 8 U .S.C . § 12 55 a(f) (3)( A ); M a tter of Si ngh , 21 I & N De c. 427 (B I A 1996). Because Congr ess has not si m i l ar l y a uthor i zed auto

m ati c s t a y s f o rDHS ma t e r i a ls up po r tf o rt e r r o r i sm w ai verdeci si ons pend i ng r evi ew , P et i ti onersugg est s that the Boa rd sho uld absta i n fro m i ssui ng a fi nal re m ova lo rderunti lafterDH S i ssues a n exem pti on deter m i nati on, such that the d ete rm i nati on co uld be r ev i ewe d na tu r al l y i n the c o ur se ofa n a ppea lfr o m the re m ova lo rderi tse l f
. Thi s a pp ro ach, he a rgues, would f aci l i tat e a pp ealto thi s cou rt (should i t be com e nec essar y) , v indicat i ng the j ud i ci alr evi ew expl i ci tl y pr ovi ded f orbyCongr ess , wh i l e l i m itin g the pro l i fer ati on o f m ultiple claim s by th e sam e pe titi one r. The governm en t ur g es tha t ado ptingPe ti ti o ne r ’ s ar g um en t w ou ld “t u rn th e s ta tu te on its h ea d to int er p r e t it as req u iring the Sec retaries to afford an alien the opp or-32 N o. 12

- 2471 tuni ty to apply f ora ter ro ris m waive r i n or der t o vi nd i cate a ri ght to j ud i ci alr evi ew o fthatwaive r. ” ( Gover nm ent’ s Br. at42 )
. The go vernm ent r eads the st atute as g ua r an te eingno s uchr i g ht, b utr athe rmer ely i den

tifying w he re (on pet iti on for review of a rem o v a l ord er) and w hen ( aftera deter m i nati on o r re voca ti on) j ud i ci al re vi ew m ay occur, as sum i ng such a deter m i nati on ta ke s p lac e. See 8 U. S
. C. § 1 18 2( d) ( 3) ( B) ( i ). Be ca us e no su chp roce dur ali nt er es t i s pr o m i se d b y the s ta tu te , the go ve rn m en t c on tin u es , th e jud icia l rev iew cla u se its elf ca nno t “fo r ce the Exe cut i ve ” to pr o vi de a det er m i na ti o n. A s a te x tu al m at t e r , t h e g ov er n m en t is co rre c t. Se ei d. A nd Peti ti onerpro vid es no per suasi ve supp or t for th e s ugges ti on that i t i s withi n ourautho ri ty to or der th e D H S and the Board to coo rdi nate adj ud i cati on in thi s f ashi on s o t h at asy l um appli cants ar e no t o rder ed re m ove d b efore a waiv erdeter m i nati on has bee n m ade. The g o ve r nm en t’ s i nt er pr et ati o n i s o fs o m e co nc ern, how eve r, i nsofar as Congre ss did cl ear l y l egi sl ate to provi de f orj ud i ci alr evi ew o fDH S w ai verdeter m i nati ons, and curr ent agencyprac ti ces w i l li n al ll i kel i hood fru st ra te th e o p p or tu n ity for re vie w be c au se B oa rd d ec isi o ns wi l li ss ue mor e qui ck l y tha n DH S e xe m pti o ns (and the p eriod for app ealing a rem oval ord e r w ill othe rw ise lap se ). Ne v e r th e l e s s , th e c o mp a r a t i v e l y c o mp r e h e n s i v e s c h e me in place f or per sest ays i n the context o fl ega l i zat i o n d e c i s i o n s i l l u s t r a t e s th e f a c tth a tC o ng r e s s kn o ws ho w t o so l ve th i s pr edi ca m en t when i t so ch o o se s. To i nstr uct the B oard to auto m ati cal l y s tal lthe i ssuance ofN o. 12

- 2471 33 i ts o pi ni o ns ( i nc l udi ngi n c as es s uc h as the pr es en t o ne w here the peti ti onerhas not re quested a continuance) wh i l e a wa i t i nge x e mpt i o n d e t e r mi n a t i o n s fr o m D HS w h i ch m ay orm ay not ever i s s u e wo u l d n o to n l y g r i nd th e l ev er s o fthe i m m i g r at i o n s y st em to a ne arhal t, b ut woul d c o ns ti tu te a n i m per m i ss ibl e j udi ci ale nc r o ac hm en t upo n a g en cya utho r i ty
. W hi l e Pe ti ti onera g ain a l er ts us to the t r o ub l i ngo pe r a t i o n o fu nc o o r di na t e d p r o c e du r e s; w e a g a i n ho l d tha t i t i s the pr o v i nc e o f Co ng r e s s , r ather than th e co urts , to m end thi s bi furcat ed schem e. W e decl i ne Pet i ti oner ’ s invi tat i on t o re ver se on thi s ba si s.

I V . Concl usio n Forthe f or ego i ng r eas ons, we D EN Ythe pe ti ti o n.

7- 23- 13