2009 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 Thir d C ir c uit 8-21-2009 

# D exte r S cotl and v

. Atty Ge n U SA P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-3072

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y 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 Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll 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 2009 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

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

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " D ext e r S c otl and v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 792. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/792NOT 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. 08- 3072

___________ DE XT E R S CO T L AND,

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 D e p a rtm e n t o f

H o m e lan d S e c u rity ( A gencyN o. A 22- 138- 496) Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

A ugus t19, 2009 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , ST A PL E T O N and C O W E N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: A ugus t21, 2009)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM D ext erScot l and, a ci t i zen of A nt i gua, pet i t i ons forr evi ew of a f i nal expedi t ed r emoval or deri s s ued bythe D epart m entof H om el and Secur i ty( “D H S”) . Forthe fol l ow i ng r eas ons , w e w i l l denythe pet i t i on.2

Scot l and ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es as a non- i m m i gr anton N ovember18, 1976, w hen he w as l es s than a y earol d. I n A pr i l 2000, Scot l and pl eade d gui l tyt o att empt ed c rim in a l sa le o f

a c o n tro lled su b sta n c e in v io latio n o f N e w Y o rk P e n a l L a w § 2 2 0 .3 9 in the Supr eme C our tof N ew Y or k, B r onx C ounty . T he courts ent ence d Scot l and t o 6 m o n ths’ im p ri so n m en t and 5 y ea rs of p rob ati o n . (A d m inistrati v e R ec o rd a t 22 . ) In M a rc h 2 0 0 3 , the sa m e c o u rt c o n v icte d S c o tlan d o f th e sa m e c h a rg e a n d se n ten c e d h im to o n e y e a r o f

im p ri s o n m e n t. ( Id .) S c o t l a n d c a me t o th e a t t e n t i o n o f th e Bu r e a u o f

I mmi g r a t i o n a n d Cu s t o ms E n f o r c e m e n t( B I C E ) i n M a y 2 0 0 8 w h e n h e w a s a rr e s t e d i n M o n r o e C o u n ty, Penns y l vani a. D avi d C uffe e, a B I C E I m m i gr at i on E nfor cementA gent , i nt ervi ew ed S c o tlan d , w h o , ac c o rd in g to C u f f e e , co n f irm e d th a t h e w a s b o rn in A n tig u a a n d w a s n o t a U ni t ed St at es ci t i zen. Scot l and’ s father , w i th w hom C uffe e s poke overthe t el ephone, confi r m ed thathe uns ucce s s ful l ytr i ed t o obt ai n ci t i zens hi p forhi s s on. Fi nal l y , C uffe e not ed thatScot l and had no f earof r eturni ng t o A nt i gua and thathe neve rs erved i n the U n it ed S tat es m il it ary . (Id. at 8.) T h e a d m inistrati v e re co rd a lso c o n tai n s a sw o rn s t at ement , w hi ch Scot l and s i gned, aff i r m i ng thathe w as born i n A nt i gua and thathe i s not a U n ite d S ta te s c itiz e n . (I d . a t 9 .) O n M ay14, 2008, D avi d C l ark, a Supervi s oryD et ent i on and D eport at i on O ffi cer w i th B I C E , s entScot l and a “ N ot i ce of I nt entt o I s s ue a Fi nal A dm i ni s tr at i ve R emoval O rd e r.” T h e n o tice in f

o rm e d S c o tlan d th a t D H S d e ter m in e d th a t h e w a s a m e n a b le toW hi l e B l ake i s s ued the or deron J une 10, 2008, D H S di d notnot i fyScot l and of the 1 o rd e r u n til J u n e 2 8 , 2 0 0 8 . T h e re f o re , h is J u ly 1 4 , 2 0 0 8 p e titio n w a s tim e ly.

3 admi ni s tr at i ve r emoval pr ocee di ngs bas ed on hi s non- ci t i zens hi p and hi s 2003 convi ct i on forcr i m i nal s al e of a contr ol l ed s ubs t ance . Scot l and s i gned the ce r t i fi cat e of s ervi ce a nd m a rk e d b o x e s o n th e f

o rm in d ica tin g th a t h e w ish e d to c o n tes t h is re m o v a l, th a t h e is b o th a c iti z e n o f

th e U n ited S tate s a n d a law f u l p e rm a n e n t re sid e n t, an d th a t h e in ten d e d to r eques tw i thhol di ng of r emoval t o A nt i gua bec aus e he f ear ed per s ecut i on bas ed on a p rotec ted g rou n d . (Id. at 3-4 . ) A m em orandu m dated June 3 , 20 08 , i nit i al ed b yC l ark, forw arded S cotl and ’s case t o S c o t tBl a k e , th e As s i s t a n tF i e l d Of f i c e Di r e c t o ri n th e Al l e n wo o d , P e n n s y l v a n i a BI CE offi ce. C l ark i nform ed B l ake thatScot l and s ubm i t t ed l ett er s w r i t t en on hi s behal f s t at i ng thathe w i s hed t o r emai n i n t he countryt o s uppor thi s U ni t ed St at es ci t i zen w i fe a nd her f o u r c h ild re n a n d th a t h e f e a re d re tu rn in g to A n tig u a sin c e m o st o f h is f a m ilyre sid e s in the U ni t ed St at es . ( I d. at11. ) O n J une 10, 2008, B l ake i s s ued a f i nal admi ni s tr at i ve or der of r emoval fi ndi ng thatthe r ecor d es t abl i s hed bycl earand convi nci ng evi dence that Scot l and i s nota U ni t ed St at es ci t i zen a nd thathe i s deport abl e as an al i en convi ct ed of a n aggr avat ed fe l ony . ( I d. at2. ) B l ake a l s o found thatScot l and i s notel i gi bl e forany di s cr et i onaryr el i ef f

r om r emoval . ( I d. ) Scot l and fi l ed a t i m el ypet i t i on forr evi ew fr om that o rde r. 1 W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e v i e w t h e e x p e d i t e d r e mo v a l o r d e ru n d e r8 U. S . C.4

§ 1252( a) . “B eca us e the bas i s forr emoval i s [Scot l and’ s ] convi ct i on foran aggr avat ed fel ony , ourj ur i s di ct i on i s l i m i t ed underthe R E A L I D A ctt o ‘ cons t i tut i onal cl ai m s or q u e s tio n s o f

la w .’” P ie rr e v . A tt’ yG e n ., 5 2 8 F .3 d 1 8 0 , 1 8 4 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) ( e n b a n c ). D H S ent er ed Scot l and’ s or derof r emoval pur s uantt o an expe di t ed r emoval pr ocee di ng. Such pr ocee di ngs ar e perm i t t ed forthe r emoval of an a l i en w ho has comm i t t ed an a ggr avat ed fe l onyand w ho i s nota l egal perm anentr es i dent . See 8 U . S. C . § 1228( b) ( 1) . I n contr as tt o the s t andar d r emoval pr ocee di ngs , the al i en has no r i ghtt o appea rbefor e an i m m i gr at i on j udge and no r i ghtt o anydi s cr et i onaryr el i ef. See 8 U . S. C . § 1228( b) ( 5) ; G onzal ez v. C hert off, 454 F. 3d 813, 815 ( 8th C i r . 2006) . Scot l and arg u es th at he o b tai n ed d eriva ti v e c it izen sh ip thro u g h h is fathe r i n 1 9 9 2 an d there fo re D H S l acke d “j ur i s di ct i on” overhi s cas e. ( Pet i t i oner ’ s B r . at11. ) Scot l and, how ever , had th irtee n d a y s to re b u t th e D H S ’s c iti z e n sh ip d e ter m in a tio n , a f in d in g b a se d , in p a rt, o n h is s w orn s t at ementt o C uffe e. Scot l and di d notpr ovi de anyevi dence thathe obt ai ned Un i t e d S t a t e s c i t i z e n s h i p a n d , th e r e f o r e , DHS p r o p e r l yp r o c e e d e d u n d e r8 U. S . C. § 1 2 2 8 (b). S c o tlan d a lso c o n ten d s th a t D H S v io late d h is d u e p ro c e ss rig h ts d u rin g h is e x p e d ited h e a rin g b yf

a ili n g to p ro v id e h im w ith a d e q u a te n o tice a n d a n o p p o rtu n ityto r es pond t o t he D H S’ s fi ndi ngs . U nderthe r egul at i ons governi ng expedi t ed r emoval of aggr avat ed fe l ons , D H S i s r equi r ed t o pr ovi de a N ot i ce of I nt entw hi ch s et s for th the a g e n c y ’ s p r e l i mi n a r yd e t e r mi n a t i o n s a n d g i v e th e a l i e n t i me t o r e s p o n d . 8 C. F . R.T h e re g u latio n s a llo w f o r te n c a len d a r d a y s if

se rv ice o f

p ro c e ss is e f

f e c tu a ted in 2 p e rso n ; h o w e v e r, if s e rv ice is b ym a il, S c o tlan d w o u ld h a v e h a d th irtee n c a len d a r d a y s to r es pond t o t he N ot i ce of I nt ent . 8 C . F. R . § 1238. 1( b) ( 2) ( i ) . I nas m uch as the N ot i ce of In ten t d o e s n o t in d ica te w h e th e r it w a s s e rv e d b ym a il, w e w ill g iv e S c o tlan d th e b e n e f it o f th e th ir te e n d a yru le . C ouns el as s ert s thats he att empt ed t o cont actC l ark beca us e an a l l eged s our ce a t 3 B I C E i nform ed herthatScot l and’ s r emoval w as no l ongerbei ng pr oces s ed thr ough expedi t ed r emoval pr ocee di ngs . ( Pet i t i oner ’ s B r . at9. ) A ccor di ng t o couns el , the agenc y ’ s fai l ur e t o cl ar i fythe ac cur acyof thi s i nform at i on vi ol at es due pr oces s . ( I d. at 10. ) W e do notthi nk thatal l eged r el i ance on m i s l eadi ng i nform at i on fr om an age ncy source w ho w as seem i ng l yno ti nv olved i n S cotl and ’s rem ov al proceed i ng s can give ri se to a d u e p ro c e ss rig h t. 5 § 1238. 1( b) ( 2) . H er e, D H S se r ved the N ot i ce of I nt enton M ay14, 2008, and Scot l and had thi r t een c al endarday s t o s ubm i ta r es pons e t o the age ncy ’ s al l egat i ons of fa ct s and co n clus ion s o f law . S co tl an d too k ad v an tage o f th e re sp o n se p eriod to su b m itlet ters 2 fr om hi m s el f, hi s father , and fr om hi s w i fe a s ki ng thathe be a l l ow ed t o r emai n i n the U ni t ed St at es . C l ark s um m ar i zed thes e l ett er s i n a mem or andum t o B l ake, the D eci di ng Ser vi ce O ffi cer , w ho i s s ued a f i nal admi ni s tr at i ve or derof r emoval 27 day s aft er S c o tla n d re c e iv e d th e N o tic e o f In te n t. Scot l and’ s couns el now al l eges thats he att empt ed t o cont actC l ark byt el ephone befor e the expi r at i on of the r es pons e per i od. ( Pet i t i oner ’ s B r . at9. ) E ven i f couns el coul d pr ove thats he ca l l ed C l ark w i thi n the thi r t een da yr es pons e per i od, s uch cont act w oul d have be en i m pr operas the r egul at i ons , and the N ot i ce of I nt enti t s el f, cal l for w r i t t en r es pons es and s ubm i s s i ons . 8 C . F. R . § 1238. 1( c) ( 1) . T he onl yevi dence of 3 w r i t t en cont actbetw een c ouns el and B I C E i s couns el ’ s J ul y1, 2008 l ett erw hi ch w as s ent6

aft erthe expi r at i on of the r es pons e per i od and af t erD H S i s s ued the fi nal or derof r emoval . T her efor e, beca us e D H S com pl i ed w i th the appl i cabl e r egul at i ons and pr ovi ded S c o t l a n d wi th a f

u l l a n d f a i rh e a r i n g a n d a r e a s o n a b l e o p p o r tu n i tyt o p r e s e n te v i d e n c e , we fin d n o d u e p roc ess v iolati o n . S ee R o m an ishyn v . A tt ’yG en . , 4 5 5 F . 3 d 1 7 5 , 1 8 5 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ). Fi nal l y , Scot l and as s ert s thatD H S err oneous l ydet erm i ned thathe w as convi ct ed o f a n ag g rav ated fe lon y . A stat e d rug co n v ict ion , su ch as S co tl an d ’s N ew Y o rk convi ct i on, cons t i tut es an aggr avat ed fe l onyi f the off ens e of c onvi ct i on i s anal ogous t o a f e lo n yu n d e r t h e f

e d e ra l C o n tr o lle d S u b s ta n c e s A c t ( “ C S A ” ). S e e E v a n s o n v . A tt’ yG e n ., 550 F. 3d 284, 289 ( 3d C i r . 2008) ( des cr i bi ng hypothet i cal fede r al fel onyrul e) . U nder N . Y . Penal L aw § 220. 39, “[a ] per s on i s gui l tyof cr i m i nal s al e of a contr ol l ed s ubs t ance in the thir d d eg ree w h en h e k n o w ing lyan d u n law fu ll ysell s a n arc o ti c d rug . ” In compar i s on, the C SA m akes i tunl aw ful t o m anufa ctur e, di s tr i but e, ordi s pens e, or pos s es s w i th i nt entt o m anufa ctur e, di s tr i but e, ordi s pens e a c ontr ol l ed s ubs t ance . 21 U . S. C . § 841( a) ( 1) . W hi l e i ti s uncl earw hi ch contr ol l ed s ubs t ance Scot l and s ol d, al l of the s u b stan ce s crim inalized b ythe N ew Y o rk statute a re inc lud ed in the C S A . C o m p are N .Y . P e n a l L a w § 2 2 0 .3 9 w ith 2 1 U .S .C . § § 8 0 2 (6 ) a n d 8 1 2 (c ). S co tl an d p o ints t o o u r de cisi o n in S teele v . B lack m an , 2 3 6 F . 3 d 1 3 0 (3d C ir . 2001) , forthe pr opos i t i on thatus e of the w or d “s al e” i n the N ew Y or k Penal code doe s n o t est ab li sh that the o ff en se in v o lved tr ad ing an d d ea li n g . (P eti ti o n er’s B r. at 12 . )7

St eel e i s i nappos i t e. I n t hatcas e, w e hel d thata N ew Y or k s t at e mi s demeanorconvi ct i on forthe s al e of 30 gr ams orl es s of m ar i j uana w oul d notcons t i tut e a hypothet i cal fede r al fel onyunderthe C SA . Scot l and, how ever , w as notconvi ct ed forthe s al e of mar i j uana, w h ic h is p u n is h a b le in N e w Y o rk u n d e r a s e p a ra te s ta tu te . S e e N .Y . P e n a l L a w § 2 2 1 .4 0 . T herefore, becau se w e fi nd that a conv i ct i on un der § 22 0. 39 i s anal og ou s t o an off ense underthe C SA , w e r ej ecthi s ar gum entthathi s convi ct i on does notcons t i tut e an a g g r a v a t e d f

e l o n y. F o rth e s e r e a s o n s we wi l l d e n yS c o t l a n d ’ s p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.