FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT A pr i l12, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ 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 o. 05- 15421 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ B I A N o. A 36- 469- 045 J E A N F I D E S A L E X A N D R E , 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 on f orR e vi e w of

aD e c i s i on of

the B o a r d o f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls

_________________________ ( A p r i l12, 2006) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B IR C H an dC A RN E S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: J e a n F i de s A l e xa ndr e , ana t i ve of H a i t i , pe t i t i ons f

orr e vi e w of

the de c i s i onIn September 1996, theIlleg al Immigration Reform and Immigra nt Responsibil ity

Act 1 of 1996 (IIRIRA) repeale d § 212(c) , which allowe d deporta ble aliens to seek a waiver of inadmissibil ity . See Pub. L . No. 104-132, § 304(b) , 110 Stat. 3009-546. 2 o f th e B o a r d o f

I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls ( B I A ) d e n y in g h is m o tio n to r e o p e n h is depo rt at i on proceedi ng s i n o rdert o p erm i thi m t o app l y f or re l i ef un der f orm er IN A § 2 12 (c ). T he B IA deni ed the m ot i on t o reopen o n the grou nd thatA l exandre

1 w as i nel i gi bl e f

or § 2 12 (c ) r el i ef

because he had been conv i ct ed of drug char ges am ou nt i ng t o an agg ravat ed fe l on y and had served fi ve ye ar s of hi s s ent ence . T hat c o n v ic tio n w a s im p o s e d in 1 9 8 9 b yaF lo r id as ta te c o u rt f o llo w in g aju rytr ia l. We n o t e a tth e o u t s e tth a t , e v e n th o u g h Al e x a n d r e i s ac o n v i c t e df e l o n , we do have j uri sdi ct i on t o h ear hi s c l ai m s on app ea l because they are const i tut i on al a nd l e ga l i n na tur e . S e e 8 U . S . C . § 1252( a ) ( 2) ( C ) , ( D ) ( s tr i ppi ng us of j ur i s di c t i on t o revi ew a f

i nal re m ov al order a gai nstan al i en conv i ct ed of cert ai n cri m i nal offe nses exce ptt o the ext entthata pet i t i on erra i se s aconst i tut i on al qu es t i on or a q u e s tio n o f

la w ) . I . A l e xa ndr e c ont e nds tha t§ 106 of the R E A L I D A c tP ub. L . N o. 109- 13, 119 S t a t . 231 ( 2005) vi ol a t e s the S us pe ns i on C l aus e of the U ni t e d S t a t e s C ons t i tut i on be c aus e i te xpr e s s l yf

or e c l os e s a nyhabe a s r e vi e w , a nd ape t i t i on f orr e vi e w i s not the e qui va l e ntof

one s e e ki ng habe a s c orpus r e l i e f s i nc e the r e vi e w i ng c ourti s not a llo w e d to ta k e e v id e n c e .3

T he S uspensi on C l ause prov i des that“ [t ] he P ri vi l ege of the W ri tof H abea s C orpu s s hal l no tbe suspended. ” U . S . C on st . art . I, § 9 , cl . 2. T he S up re m e C ou rt h a s h e ldth a t, “th e s u b s titu tio n o f ac o lla te r a l r e m e d yw h ic h is n e ith e rin a d e q u a te no r i neff ec t i ve t o t es tthe l egal i ty of apers on ' s det ent i on do es no tconst i tut e a s us pe ns i on of

the w r i tof

habe a s c orpus . ” S w a i n v. P r e s s l e y , 430 U . S . 372, 381, 97 S. Ct . 1 2 2 4 , 1 2 3 0 , 5 1 L. Ed . 2 d 4 1 1 ( 1 9 7 7 ) . I f as u b s t i tu t e r e me d yp r o v i d e s th e s a me s c ope of r e vi e w a s ahabe a s r e m e dy , i ti s a de qua t e a nd e f f e c t i ve . I d. a t381- 82, 97 S . C t . at1 2 2 9 -3 0 . “ C o n g ress co u l d , w i th o u trai si n g an y co n st i tu t i o n al q u est i o n s, pr ovi de a n a de qua t e s ubs t i tut e thr ough the c ourt s of appe a l s . ” I m m i gr a t i on a nd N a tur a l i z a t i on S e rv. v. S t . C y r , 533 U . S . 289, 314 n. 38, 121 S . C t . 2271, 2287 150 L . E d. 2d 347 ( 2001) . “ H abe a s r e vi e w a va i l abl e i n § 2241 pe t i t i ons bya l i e ns c ha l l e ngi ng r e m ova l or de r s ” i nc l ude s c ons t i tut i ona l i s s ue s a nd e rr or s of l a w , but

“ doe s noti nc l ude r e vi e w of a dm i ni s tr a t i ve f

a c tf i ndi ngs orthe e xe r c i s e of di sc re t i on . ” C adetv. B ul ger, 37 7 F . 3d 11 73 , 11 84 (11th C i r. 20 04 ). S e c tio n 1 0 6 o f

th e R E A L I D A c t a m e n d e d8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 ( a ) s o th a t a pe t i t i on f orr e vi e w f

i l e d w i th the appr opr i a t e c ourti s now a n a l i e n’ s e xc l us i ve m e a ns of r e vi e w of

ar e m ova l or de r . 8 U . S . C . § 1252( a ) ( 5) , a s a m e nde d bythe R E A L I D A c tof

2005, P ub. L . N o. 109- 13, 119 S t a t . 231 ( 2005) . W hi l e l i m i t i ng th e av en u es o f j u d i ci al rev i ew , th e R E A L ID A ctex p an d ed co u rt s o f ap p eal s’ j ur i s di c t i on t o c ons i de rc ons t i tut i ona l a nd l e ga l que s t i ons pr e s e nt e d i n ape t i t i on f or4

r e vi e w . § 1252( a ) ( 2) ( D ) . C ongr e s s be l i e ve d tha t“ [ b] ypl a c i ng a l l r e vi e w i n the court s of app ea l s, [the R E A L ID A ct ] w ou l d p rovi de an ‘ adequat e and ef fe ct i ve’ a l t e rna t i ve t o habe a s c orpus . ” T he thi nki ng w a s tha tthe A c t“ w oul d notc ha nge the sc op e of r evi ew thatcr i m i nal al i ens c urre nt l y r ec ei ve, because habeas re vi ew d o e s n o t c o v e rd is c r e tio n a ryd e te rm in a tio n s o rf a c tu a l is s u e s th a t d o n o t im p lic a te co n st i tu t i o n al d u e p ro cess. ” 1 5 1 C o n g . R ec. H 2 8 1 3 -0 1 , H 2 8 7 3 . B ecau se C o n g ress ga ve c ourt s of

appe a l j ur i s di c t i on t o r e vi e w a l l l e ga l a nd c ons t i tut i ona l e rr or s i n a re m o v al o rd er , h ab ea s r ev iew b ec am e u n n ec es sa ry . S ee B alo g u n v . U .S . A tt ’y G e n ., 4 2 5 F .3 d 1 3 5 6 , 1 3 6 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( d e c id in g th a t w e h a dju r is d ic tio n to re vi ew w hether the B IA l egal l y e rr ed i n d et erm i ni ng thatal i en’ s c on vi ct i on w as an aggravat ed fe l on y) . W e c an fi nd no faul ti n C on gres s’ re as on i ng . S ec t i on 10 6 o f the R E A L ID A ctd o es n o tv i o l at e th e S u sp en si o n C l au se o f th e C o n st i tu t i o n b ecau se i tp ro v i d es, th r o u g h r e v ie w b yaf

e d e r a l c o u rt o f

ap p e a ls , a n a d e q u a te a n de f f e c tiv e r e m e d yto te s t th e le g a lityo f

a n a lie n ’s d e te n tio n . E v e n th o u g h h ab e a s c o rp u s r e lie f is pr e c l ude d bythe R E A L I D A c t , ade port abl e a l i e n c a n s t i l l s e e k r e vi e w of c o n s titu tio n a l a n d le g a l c la im s b ym o v in g th e B I A to r e o p e n o rr e c o n s id e rits pr e vi ous rul i ng, a nd i f

uns uc c e s s f

ul , byf i l i ng ape t i t i on f

orr e vi e w i n the c ourtof appeal s. S ee 8 C . F . R . § 1 00 3. 2(c) ; 8 U . S . C . §1 25 2(a) (5), (2)( D ). T hi s proce du re of f e r s the s a m e r e vi e w a s tha tf orm e r l ya f

f or de d i n habe a s c orpus w hi c h pr ovi de d5

l egal , bu tno tfa ctual or di sc re t i on ary, det erm i nat i on s. S ee C adet , 37 7 F . 3d at 1184. S i nc e the s ubs t i tut e r e m e dyof ape t i t i on f

orr e vi e w of

f e r s the s a m e s c ope of r e vi e w a s ahabe a s r e m e dy , i ti s a de qua t e and e f f e c t i ve . S e e S w a i n a t381- 82, 97 S . C t . a t1229- 30. A l exandre had the op po rtun i ty i n h i s m ot i on before the B IA t o o ff er e v id e n c e to p r o v e h is e lig ib ilityf o r§ 2 1 2 ( c ) r e lie f

. A s th e B I A n o te d , h e f a ile d to d o s o . S e e 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 3 3 .4 4 ( f ) ( n o tin g th a t a n a lie n f

ilin g am o tio n u n d e rth is s e c tio n m u s t s u b m it “s u p p o rtin g d o c u m e n ts ” ) . B e c au s e A le x a n d r e b r o u g h t o n lyc o n s titu tio n a l a n dle g a l c la im s o n ap p e a l, it w a s note rr orf

orhi s habe a s pe t i t i on t o be c ons true d a s ape t i t i on f orr e vi e w a nd tr a n s f e rr e d to u s b yth e d is tr ic t c o u rt w h e r e h e f ile dit. II. A le x a n d r e a r g u e s th a t th e B I A e rr e da s am a tte ro f la w in c o n c lu d in g th a t h is § 212( c ) m ot i on t o r e ope n w a s ba rr e d be c aus e he ha d a l r e a dys e rve d f i ve y e a r s of hi s s e nt e nc e , a nd f

ortha tr e a s on he w a s pr e c l ude d f r om r e c e i vi ng r e l i e f

ba s e d on the Im m i grat i on A ctof 19 90 , w hi ch prov i ded thatan al i en conv i ct ed of an aggravat ed fe l on y w ho had served atl ea stfi ve ye ar s of hi s s ent ence coul d n otse ek aw a i ve rof

i na dm i s s i bi l i tyunde rthe n I N A § 212( c ) , 8 U . S . C . § 1182( c ) . S e e P ub. L . N o. 10 1-64 9, § 5 11 (a ), 10 4 S t at . 49 78 , 50 52 (I M M A C T -90). A l exandre ar gu es th a t ap p ly in g th e f

iv e - y e a rb a rto h im p r o d u c e s a n im p e rm is s ib lyr e tr o a c tiv e e f f e c t.6

W e have notye tbeen cal l ed up on t o i dent i fythe st andard of revi ew ap p l i c ab l e t o ad e n i a l o f amo t i o n t o r e o p e n b r o u g h tp u r s u a n tt o 8 C. F. R. § 1003. 44. H ow e ve r , i ti s unne c e s s a ryf orus t o de t e rm i ne w hi c h s t a nda r d of re vi ew i s app ropri at e i n thi s c as e, because A l exandre i s c l earl y notel i gi bl e f or § 212( c ) r e l i e f

unde ra nys t a nda r d. The prov i si on s thatre peal ed di sc re t i on ary r el i ef fr om depo rt at i on un der § 2 1 2 (c) d o n o tap p l y retro act i v el y t o an al i en w h o p l ed g u i l ty t o cri m i n al ch arg es, i n r e l i a nc e on the pos s i bi l i tyof § 212( c ) r e l i e f

, pr i ort o the e na c tm e ntof the re peal erprov i si on s. S t . C yr , 53 3 U . S . at32 6, 12 1 S . C t . at22 93 . If an al i en pl ed gu i l ty or nol o con t endere t o cert ai n cri m es before A pri l 1, 19 97 , he m ayfi l e a m o tio n to r e o p e n h is d e p o rta tio n p r o c e e d in g s in o r d e rto s e e k§ 2 1 2 ( c ) r e lie f . 8 C . F . R . § 1 00 3. 44 . A n al i en i s i nel i gi bl e f or § 2 12 (c ) r el i ef

i f he has been conv i ct ed of a n a ggr a va t e d f

e l ony , unl e s s he w a s c onvi c t e d be tw e e n 1990 a nd 1996 a nd s e rv e d le s s th a n 5 y e a r s o f h is s e n te n c e , o rh e w a s c o n v ic te dp u r s u a n t to ag u ilty p le ab e f o r e 1 9 9 0 . § § 1 0 0 3 .4 4 ( c ) , 1 2 1 2 .3 ( f ) ( 4 ) ( i) - ( ii) . T hi s § 21 2(c) re l i ef

i s notavai l abl e t o al i ens w ho w er e c on vi ct ed af t era tri al in s te a d o f

o n ag u iltyp le a . § 1 0 0 3 .4 4 ( a ) . W e h a v e u p h e ld , a s c o n s is te n t w ith S t. C y r , th e d is tin c tio n b e tw e e n a lie n s w h o p le dg u iltya n dth o s e w h o p r o c e e d e dto tri al . B rook s v. A shcr oft , 28 3 F . 3d 12 68 , 12 74 (11th C i r. 20 02 ).7

T he B IA di d n oterr i n fi nd i ng thatA l exandre w as i nel i gi bl e f or § 2 12 (c ) re l i ef . F rom the re cord, i ti s c l ear thatA l exandre w as conv i ct ed i n 1 98 9 o f an a g g r a v a te d f

e lo n ya f te raju rytr ia l a n dh e s e rv e dm o r e th a n f iv e y e a r s o f

h is s e n te n c e . I t is a ls o c le a rth a t r e lie f u n d e rf o rm e r§ 2 1 2 ( c ) w a s n o t a v a ilab le to h im w hen d eport at i on proceedi ng s w er e i nst i tut ed agai nsthi m i n 1 99 4 b ec ause he had s e rve d a tl e a s t5 y e a r s of hi s s e nt e nc e . S e e I M M A C T - 90, § 511( a ) . H ow e ve r , the r e tr o a c t i v i tyr a t i o n a l e o f St . Cy rd o e s n o tap p l yt o I M M A CT- 9 0 . Th u s , a tth e t i me of hi s de port a t i on pr oc e e di ngs , he w a s i ne l i gi bl e f or§ 212( c ) r e l i e f

be c aus e of

the f iv e - y e a rb a r . A le x a n d r e a r g u e s th a t th e f iv e - y e a rb a rp r o d u c e s an im p e rm is s ib le r e tr o a c tiv e e f

f e c t b e c au s e h e c o m m itte dh is c r im e b e f o r e th e s ta tu te in c lu d in g it w a s pa s s e d, buttha ta r gum e ntw a s r e s ol ve d i n A l e xa ndr e ’ s i ni t i a l appe a l be f or e the B I A , a n d f

o rth a t r e a s o n it is n o t p r o p e r lyb e f o r e u s n o w . E v e n if

th e r e tr o a c tiv ity ra t i on al e of S t . C yrdi d app l y t o IM M A C T -90, i tw ou l d n otappl y t o A l exandre because he di d n otpl ea d g ui l ty t o h i s drug tra ff i cki ng char ges, bu ti nst ea d pr oc e e de d t o tr i a l a nd w a s c onvi c t e d byaj ury . E ve n w i thoutthe f i ve - y e a rba r , the pl a i n l a ngua ge of

§ 1003. 44 a l s o pr e c l ude s thos e w ho di d notpl e a d gui l tyf r om r e l i e f . S e e § 1003. 44( a ) ; § 1212. 3( f ) ( 4) ( i i ) ; B r ooks , 283 F . 3d a t1274. III. P E T I T I ON DE NI E D.