NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N os . 09- 2198 & 09- 3444

___________ VANNE Y VAN, 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 ons forR evi ew of O r der s of the B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( A gencyN o. A 027 356 788) I m m i gr at i on J udge: A ndr ew R . A r thur

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

Sept ember23, 2010 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , J O R D A N and G R E E N B E R G , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: Sept ember24, 2010 )

OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM Pet i t i onerV anneyV an, a nat i ve and c i t i zen of C ambodi a, s eeks r evi ew of fi nal o r d e r s i s s u e d b yth e Bo a r d o f I mm i g r a t i o n Ap p e a l s ( “ BI A” ) . F o rth e r e a s o n s th a tf o l l o w,V a n c o m m itt e d th e se o f f e n se s in 1 9 9 3 a s a tee n a g e r b u t w a s p ro se c u ted a s a n a d u lt. 1 D H S al s o char ged V an w i th r emovabi l i tyundera fourth gr ound, butther e w er e no 2 fi ndi ngs m ade on thatchar ge, and i ti s notati s s ue her e. 2 w e w ill d e n yth e p e tit io n s f o r re v iew in p a rt a n d d ism iss th e m in p a rt. B e c a u se th e p a rties a re f a m ili a r w ith th e b a c k g ro u n d , w e w ill p re se n t ith e re o n ly i n sum m ary . In 198 4, as a y ou ng chil d, V an en t ered the U nit ed S t at es w i th h i s fam i l yas a re f u g e e . In 1 9 8 8 , h e b e c a m e a law f u l p e rm a n e n t re sid e n t (“ L P R ” ) o n a c c o u n t o f h is r efuge e s t atus , as of the dat e of hi s entryi nt o the U ni t ed St at es i n 1984. O n A pr i l 23, 1 9 9 7 , h e w a s c o n v i c t e d a f t e rp l e a d i n g g u i l ty i n P e n n s yl v a n i a s t a t e c o u r tt o r o b b e ry, a t t e mp t e d r a p e , b u r g l a ry , p o s s e s s i n g i n s tru me n t s o f c r i me , a n d c r i mi n a l c o n s p i r a c y . He w as s ent ence d t o one t o t en y ear s of i m pr i s onm ent , s ervi ng thr ee y ear s befor e bei ng r el eas ed. I n l at e 2007, the D epart m entof H om el and Secur i ty( “D H S”) i ni t i at ed r emoval

1 p ro c e e d in g s, c h a rg in g V a n w ith th re e a g g ra v a ted f e lo n y -b a se d g ro u n d s o f re m o v a b ili ty u n d e r 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 7 (a )( 2 )( A )( iii) , f o r h a v in g b e e n c o n v ic te d o f a c ri m e o f

v io le n c e , a th e f t o f f e n se , an d a ttem p t o r c o n sp ira c yto c o m m it an a g g ra v a ted f e lo n y , p u rsu a n t to s ect i ons 1101( a) ( 43) ( F) , ( G ) , and ( U ) , r es pect i vel y . V an appl i ed forw ai ver s of 2 i nadmi s s abi l i tyunder8 U . S. C . § 1159( c) ( I N A § 209( c) ) and form ers ect i on 1182( c) ( form erI N A § 212( c) ) . H e al s o appl i ed fordefe rr al of r emoval underthe U ni t ed N at i ons C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e and O therC ruel , I nhum an orD egr adi ng T r eatm entor P u n ish m e n t (“ C A T ” ). V a n tes tifie d a t a h e a rin g b e f o re th e Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e (“ IJ” ) in s uppor tof hi s appl i cat i ons forr el i ef. T he I J found thatV an w as r emovabl e forhavi ng

### T h e B I Ac i t e d8 C . F . R . § 1 0 0 3 . 2 ( c ) i ns up p o rt , b ut th e p r o v i s i o ng o v e rn i n gth e ti me 3 

### for fi l i ng am oti on t o r e ope n a ppe ar s at 8 C. F. R. § 1003. 2(b) ( 2) . 3 b e e n c o n v i c t e d o f

c r i me s c o n s t i tu t i n g a g g r a v a t e d f e l o n i e s a s d e f

i n e d i n 8 U. S . C. §§ 1101( a) ( 43) ( F) , ( G ) , and ( U ) . T he I J al s o det erm i ned V an w as i nel i gi bl e fora w ai ver under8 U . S. C . § 1159( c) , not i ng s uch w ai verdepends upon an appl i cat i on t o adj us ts t atus u n d e r se c tio n 1 1 5 9 (a ), an d th a t V a n w a s n o lo n g e r e lig ib le f o r th a t ad ju stm e n t b e c a u se h is st atus al readyw as previ ou sl yadjust ed, and that he w as no long er a r efug ee. T he IJ al so d e t e r mi n e d th a tVa n wa s i n e l i g i b l e f o ra wa i v e ro f

d e p o r t a t i o n u n d e rf

o r me rI NA § 212( c) ( form er8 U . S. C . § 1182( c) ) due t o hi s cr i m i nal convi ct i ons occurr i ng aft erthe ef fe cti v e d ate o f th e a b o li sh m en t of the p rov isi o n . F u rth er, th e IJ d en ied V an ’s appl i cat i on forC A T r el i ef a nd or der ed V an r emoved t o C ambodi a. I n a dec i s i on dat ed M ar ch 24, 2009, the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) aff i r m ed the I J ’ s or derof re m o v a l an d d ism iss e d V a n ’s a p p e a l. 

### Van fi l e d wi th the BIA am oti on t o r e ope n and r e c ons i de r , r e que s ti ng a djus tm e nt of s t at us and awa i ve r

of i na dmi s s ibi l i ty

unde r INA § 212( h) ( 8 U. S. C. § 1182( h) ) . The BIA d enie d V an’s m otion, no ting that it was untimely

as a motion to rec on si der. 3 

### Cons i de r e d a s am oti on t o r e ope n, the BI A c onc lude d that Van pr e s e nt e d no ne w and m at e ri a le vi de nc e that

woul d a ffe c t

the out c om e of the pr oc e e di ngs , c i ti ng 8 C. F. R. § 1 00 3.2(c) (1), and reject ed Van’s argum ent regarding the s ec ti on11 82 (h) wai ver. V an fi l ed t i m el ypet i t i ons forr evi ew r egar di ng both the B I A ’ s deci s i ons , and the mat t er s haveW e d e e m a ll o th e r i s s u e s to b e w a iv e d . S e e L ie v . A s h c ro f t, 3 9 6 F .3 d 5 3 0 , 5 3 2 n .1 4 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). T he w ai verpr ovi s i on of s ect i on 1159( c) i s s etforth as a “c oor di nat i on w i th s ect i on 5 1 1 8 2 ” (c o n ce rnin g inad m issi b le ali en s), li sti n g w h ich p rov isi o n s o f se cti o n 1 1 8 2 w ere in a p p lica b le f

o r a lien s s e e k in g a se c tio n 1 1 5 9 a d ju stm e n t o f

sta tu s. It a lso p ro v id e s th a t, w i th cert ai n exce pt i ons notr el evanther e, the Secr et aryof H om el and Secur i tyorthe A t t orneyG ener al m ayw ai ve the pr ovi s i ons of i nadmi s s i bi l i tyforhum ani t ar i an purpos es or fam i l yun i tyreas on s. 4 been con sol i dated i n thi s C ou rt . T he respon den thas fi l ed a m oti on t o d i sm i ss. A s the r es pondentar gues i n i t s m ot i on and i n i t s br i ef, w e gene r al l yl ack j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew fi nal or der s of r emoval agai ns tcr i m i nal al i ens , l i ke V an, w ho have an aggr avat ed fe l onyconvi ct i on. See 8 U . S. C . § 1252( a) ( 2) ( C ) . H ow ever , w e may r evi ew “cons t i tut i onal cl ai m s orques t i ons of l aw ” r ai s ed i n a pet i t i on forr evi ew . See 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (a )( 2 )( D ); P a p a g e o rg io u v . G o n z a le s , 4 1 3 F .3 d 3 5 6 , 3 5 8 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). V an ar gues thatthe B I A err ed i n i t s det erm i nat i ons of hi s cl ai m s conce rni ng s ect i on 1159( c) w ai ver , C A T r el i ef, and deni al of the mot i on t o r eopen f orcons i der at i on of a s ect i on 1182( h) w ai ver . W e w i l l addr es s thes e i s s ues i n turn. 4 V an cont es t s the age ncy ’ s det erm i nat i on conce rni ng hi s ent i t l ementt o a s ect i on 1159( c) w ai ver . T he I J des cr i bed the s ect i on 1159 pr ovi s i on forr efuge es t o adj us ts t atus t o thatof LP R s , and not ed thata w ai verof i nadmi s s i bi l i tyunder1159( c) can be gr ant ed w h en a se cti o n 1 1 5 9 (a) ap p li ca ti o n fo r L P R statu s is pe n d ing . C o n ce rnin g V an , the IJ 5 found thatV an i s no l ongera r efuge e buti s al r eadyan LP R , and, underthe t erm s of the s t atut e, he i s no l ongerel i gi bl e fors ect i on 1159( a) adj us t m entof s t atus and thus notT h e B IA fu rth er c o n clud ed that itlack ed juri sd ict ion to co n side r V an ’s req u est fo r a 6 s ect i on 1159( c) w ai ver , gi ven thatD H S has or i gi nal j ur i s di ct i on overs ect i on 1159 appl i cat i ons forr el i ef, and i f deni ed, the appl i cat i on foradj us t m entof s t atus ( and p r e s u ma b l y , a n ywa i v e rr e q u e s t ) i s r e n e wa b l e i n r e mo v a l p r o c e e d i n g s . S e e 8 C. F . R. § 1209. 1( e) . T he r es pondentar gues thatV an’ s fai l ur e t o addr es s thi s s peci fi c conc l us i on is fatal t o h is cl aim . H o w ev er, be ca u se th e B IA ’s co n clus ion ab o u t i ts j u ri sd ict ion o v er a s e c t i o n 1 1 5 9 ( c ) wa i v e rr e q u e s ti s i n t e r twi n e d wi th i t s i n t e rp r e t a t i o n o f s e c t i o n 1 1 5 9 , we do notconcl ude thatV an has w ai ved cons i der at i on of the s ect i on 1159( c) w ai veri s s ue. 5 el i gi bl e fora s ect i on 1159( c) w ai ver . V an ar gues thathe r et ai ns hi s s t atus as a r efuge e des pi t e havi ng become an LP R pur s uantt o s ect i on 1159( a) , and thatas both an LP R and a r efuge e, he cont i nues t o be af for ded the bene fi tof s ect i on 1159( c) ’ s pr ovi s i on conce rni ng w ai ver s . W e not e thatthe B I A addr es s ed thi s ar gum entand s t at ed that , even a s s um i ng th a t V a n re tain s v e stig e s o f h is re f u g e e sta tu s, se c tio n 1 1 5 9 re lief is u n a v a ilab le to V a n in l i ghtof the s t atut e’ s l anguage thatadj us t m entof s t atus unders ect i on 1159( a) can be g r a n t e d t o a n a l i e n “ wh o h a s n o ta c q u i r e d p e r ma n e n tr e s i d e n ts t a tu s . ” 8 U. S . C. § 1 1 5 9 (a )(1 )(C ). It ap p e a rs, th e n , tha t th e a g e n c y ’s in terp re tatio n o f th e sta tu te is th a t a w a ive r o f in a dm iss ib ili ty of a r efuge e l ogi cal l ycan oc curonl yatthe t i m e w hen the al i en r efuge e i s s eeki ng adm is s i on forl aw ful perm anentr es i dence . V an does notpr es entany a rg u m e n ts th a t p e rs u a d e u s to c o n c lu d e th a t th e B IA e rr e d in its s ta tu to ry in te rp re ta tio n . See C hevr on U . S. A . , I nc. v. N atur al R es . D ef. C ounci l , I nc. , 467 U . S. 837, 842- 43 ( 1984) . See al s o Sai ntha v. M ukas ey , 516 F. 3d 243, 253 ( 4th C i r . 2008) ( r ej ect i ng the pr op os i t i on tha ta n a l i e n r e fu ge e w ho ha s a l r e a dya dj us t e d h i s s t a tus t o tha tof a n LPR m aysti ll ap p lyfo r a se cti o n 1 1 5 9 (c) w aive r as a ref u g ee ). 66

V an neve r thel es s ar gues thathe s houl d be af for ded the r i ght s and pr ot ect i ons of a ref u g ee an d b e e li g ible fo r a se cti o n 1 1 5 9 (c) w aive r, stat ing that if ref u g ee statu s w ere lo st u p o n a d

ju stm e n t to L P R sta tu s, “ h e w o u ld b e c o m e su b jec t to re m o v a l p u rsu a n t to IN A § 2 3 7 [ 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 7 ], a n d d e e m e d a ‘d e p o rt a b le a lie n .’” P e t’ r B r. a t 1 6 -1 7 . A lth o u g h V a n d o e s n o t d ire c tlyd isp u te th a t h e is re m o v a b le o n th e b a sis o f h is agg ravat ed fe l on ycon vict i on s, w e no t e that i ti s sett l ed law that an al i en ad m i t t ed as a r efuge e and a dj us t ed t o L PR s t atus i s i ndeed s ubj ectt o r emoval pr ocee di ngs forhavi ng c o m m itte d a n a g g ra v a te d f e lo n y , e v e n th o u g h h is re f u g e e s ta tu s w a s n e v e r t e rm in a te d . S e e R o m a n is h yn v . A tto rn e yG e n e ra l, 4 5 5 F .3 d 1 7 5 , 1 8 5 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). V a n is , in f a c t, a d ep o rt ab le ali en , reg ard less o f h is arri v al i n the U n it ed S tat es a s a re fu g ee . W e a re u n p e rsu a d e d b yV a n ’s a rg u m e n t o n th is p o in t. V an nextar gues thathe i s el i gi bl e forC A T r el i ef a nd thatthe B I A comm i t t ed err or i n deny i ng hi s cl ai m . H ow ever , he does notr ai s e anycons t i tut i onal cl ai m s orques t i ons of l aw on thi s i s s ue. V an’ s ar gum ent s conce rn w hetherthe B I A deci s i on i s s uppor t ed by s ubs t ant i al evi dence i n the r ecor d. A s not ed ea r l i er , beca us e V an has aggr avat ed fe l ony convi ct i ons , thati s s ue i s out s i de of ourj ur i s di ct i on and w i l l be di s m i s s ed. W e now turn t o V an’ s ar gum entconce rni ng hi s cl ai m forr el i ef unde rs ect i on 1 1 8 2 (h ), w h ic h h e p re s e n te d in h is m o tio n to re o p e n o r r e c o n s id e r. 

### W e r e vi e w the de c i s i on t o de ny

am oti on t o r e ope n ort o r econs i derunderan abus e of di s cr et i on s ta n d a rd . S e e B o rg e s v . G o n z a le s , 4 0 2 F .3 d 3 9 8 , 4 0 4 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). 

### Un der that7



### st andard, the BIA’s deci si onm ay be re vers ed on ly

if it is “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.” I d. (c iting G uo v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d55 6, 56 2 (3dCir. 20 04 )) . V a n a rg u e s th is i s s ue as a l egal m att erconce rni ng el i gi bi l i tyunderthe t erm s of the s t atut e and unde rthe F ifth C ir cu it ’s de cisi o n in M arti n ez v . M u k ase y , 5 1 9 F . 3 d 5 3 2 (5th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). H o w ev er, w e agr ee w i th the r es pondent ’ s pos i t i on thatV an does notchal l enge the bas es of the B IA ’s d e n ial o f

th e m o tio n , n a m e ly , tha t th e m o tio n w a s u n tim e lya s a m o tio n to r econs i der , and thatV an pr ovi ded no new and mat er i al evi dence thatw oul d have a ffe ct ed th e o u tc o m e o f

th e p ri o r p ro c e e d in g s . 

### Se e 8 C. F. R. § 1003. 2( c ) ( 1) . Va n h a s n o ts h o wn th a t th e B IA ’s d e n ial o f th e m o tio n o n th e se b a se s w a s a rb itrar y , irratio n a l, orc o n tra ryto l a w. W e w i l l denythe pet i t i ons forr evi ew i n partand di s m i s s them i n part . T he re sp o n d e n t’s m o tio n to d ism iss is g ra n ted in p a rt a n d d e n ied in p a rt.