# United States Court of App eals F or the Se ven th C ir cu it Ch i cago ,I l l i nois 60 604 A rgued Jul y 8 , 20 09 Deci ded A ugust 2 5, 20 09

B efo re IL A N A D IA M O N D R O V N E R, Cir cu i tJudg e D IA N E P . W O O D , Cir cu i tJudg e A N N C L A IR E W IL L IA M S, Cir cu i tJudg e N o. 08
- 4023 J O S E L UI S G AR C I A- L AR A, P etitio ner, v. ER I C H . H OL DE R, J R. , A tto rney Generalo fthe U ni ted S tat es, Res pond e nt . Pe ti ti o n fo rRe vi ew o fa n Or dero fthe Board o fI m m i gr ati on Ap peal s. N o. A 091 175 801

O R D E R J ose Garci a- Lara, a nati ve and ci ti zen o fM exi co, was f ound to b e r em ovabl e a fteran i m m i gr ati on j ud ge deter m i ned that hi s s tat e co nvi cti on f orcr i m i nalse xual abuse con stitut ed both an aggra vate d felony an d a cri m e involving m oral tu rp itud e. Ga rcia-Lara appe al ed to the Bo ar d o fI m m i g r at i o n Appea l s, makinga r g um en ts unr el at ed to the cl ass i fi cati on o fhi s co nvi cti on. The BI A di sm i sse d the appeal, and Garci a- Lara now ar gues th atthe IJ ’ s cl as si fi ca ti o n o fhi s co nv i ct i o n a s ana g g r av at ed fel o nya nd a c r i m e i nv o l ving m oral tu rp itud e w as error. Th ese n ew argum en ts su ggest seriou s p roblem s w ith th e IJ’ s NONP RE C E DE NT I AL DI S PO S I T I ON To be ci ted o nl y in acco rdance w i th Fe d . R. A p p . P. 32 .1N o. 08- 4023 Page 2

ru lin g, bu t t h ey are w aiv ed be c au se G ar c ia-L ar a fa iled to rais e t h em be for e t h e B IA . Acco r di ng l y, we ar e co ns tr aine d t o di smi ss the pe ti ti o n fo rl ac ko fj ur i sdi ct i o n. I . B AC KGR OUND Garci a- Lara cam e t o the Unite d Sta tes as a tem pora ryr esi dent i n 198 8 a nd bec am e a l aw ful perm anent r esi dent in 199 2. Tw o yea rs l ate r, he pl eaded gui l ty to cri m i nalse xual ab us e, 7 20 I LCS 5/ 12
- 15 ( a) ( 2) , a nd was s en te nc ed to 1 8 m o nths pr o ba ti o n. Al th o ug h the defini ti on o fthe offense has no t cha nged since 1 994, the cl ass i fi cati on has change d fr om C las s A m isd em ea n or to C las s 4 felon y. C o m pa re 720 ILC S 5/12-15(d) w ith id. ( 1994 ) . Und er the s entencing sc hem e a t the ti m e a nd to day, the pri son ter m f ora Clas s A m i sdem eanor m u st be les s t h an on e y ea r. 730 IL C S 5 /5 -4.5 -55 (a); id. at 5/5 -8-3 (a)( 1) (1 99 4). Garci a- Lara cam e t o the federa lgo ver nm ent’ s a tte nti on in 200 7 when he w as ar r es te d f o ra g g r av at ed as sa ul t an d unl awfulr es tr aint . T he g o ve r nm en t, r ely i ngo n the curr ent penal ty f orcr i m i nalse xual abuse— the m axi m um te rm f ora Clas s 4 fel ony i s three y e a r s , 7 3 0 I LCS5 /5
- 4 . 5
- 4 5 ( a )

— c ha r g e d G a r c i a - La r a a s r e mov ab l e u nd e r8 U. S . C. § 1 227( a) ( 2) ( A ) ( i ) f orhaving be en co nvi cted o fa cri m e invol vi ng m or altur pitud e. An al i en w h o c om m its a c rim e in vo lvin g m or al t u rp itu d e w ith infive ye ar s o f ad m iss ion is re m ovabl e o nl y i fthe cri m e i s o ne ”forwh i ch a sente nce o fo ne ye aro r l onge r m ay be im p osed . ” 8 U . S. C . § 1227(a)(2) (A )( i) (I I ). Th e g o v e r nme ntl a t e ra dde d a no the rc ha r g e o fr e mov ab i l i t y u nd e r8 U. S . C. § 1227 (a)( 2)(A )( ii i) f or havin g been conv icted of an aggravat ed felony, sexu al abus e of a m in or, id. § 1 101( a) ( 43) ( A ) . The I l l i noi s s tatute under w hi ch Garci a- Lara w as convi cted cove rs se xual abuse ofm i nor s a nd non- m i nor s: “The a ccused co m m i ts cri m i nalse xual ab u se if h e o r sh e c om m its an ac t o f se x u al c on d u c t a n d th e a c c u se d kn ew th at th e v ict im w as unabl e t o und er sta nd the nature o fthe act orwas unabl e t o gi ve knowing conse nt. ” 72 0 I LCS 5/ 12
- 15 ( a) ( 2) . T o c o nc l ude tha t Gar ci a- Lar a’ s vi ct i m was i n f ac t a m i no r, the gov er nm ent r el i ed on tw o docum ents. The fi rs t i s a m i sdem eanorco m pla i nt f or m that na m es the v i ct i m a nd c ha r g es Ga r ci a- Lar a wi thf o ndl i nghe rb r ea sta nd s to m ac h fo rthe pu rpos e o fse xual gr ati fi cati on. The c om pla i nt f ol l ows the t ext o fthe sta tute— i t s tat es that th e vi ct i m was unabl e to unde r st an d o rg i ve kno wi ngc o ns en t wi th o utment i o ni ngthe vi ct i m ’ s ag e. F o rtha t f ac t, the g o ve r nm en t r el i ed o n a n a r r es t r epo r t th atr ec i te s th e c o mpl a i ntma de b y the v i c t i m’ s mo the ra nd s t a t e s tha tthe v i c t i m was fi ft e e n y e a r s o l d. A t hea rings b ef or e the IJ, Garci a- Lara denie d the char ges ag ai nst hi m . In re sponse, the g ove rnm ent s ubm i tte d the m i sdem eanorco m pla i nt f or m , the ar re st re port, a cer ti fi ed st at emento fc o nv i ct i o n/ di spo si ti o n fr o m the Ci r cui t Cou r t o fCo o kCo unty, a nd a the ncurr ent c opy o fthe sta tute at i ssue. The IJ as ked Garci a- Lara i fhe obj ecte d to the a dm i ssi onN o. 08- 4023 Page 3

o fthe do cument s, c o uns els ai d he di d no t, a nd the IJ a dm i tt ed th em. Ga r ci a- Lar a r ai se d no ar gum ent about hi s co nvi cti on be yond si m plydenyi ng the char ges o fr em ovabi l i ty. The IJ deter m i ned that Garci a- Lara w as re m ovabl e be cause hi s co nvi cti on c on st itu te d bo th an ag gr av at ed felon y a n d a c rim e in vo lvin g m or al t u rp itu d e. Firs t, th e IJ agr eed with the g ove rnm ent that he coul d rely o n the ar re st re portto deter m i ne the ag e o f th e victim of sex ua l assa ult. W ithou t any discu ssion, the IJalso con clud ed that Ga rcia-Lara w as rem ov ab le b ec au se h e h ad be en co n vic te d of a c rim e in vo lvin g m or al t u rp itu d e. Fi nal l y, the IJ deni ed Garci a- Lara’ s r equest f ora continuance and deter m i ned that he was not el i gibl e fora w ai vero fr em ova lunder I N A § 212( c) bec ause sexualabuse o fa m i norhas no sta tu tory cou nt erp art in § 212(a). Garci a- Lara appeal ed to the BIA, ar gui ng o nl y that he w as enti tl ed to § 212( c) r el i ef an d tha t th e IJ s ho ul d ha ve g r an te d a c o nt i nua nc e. T he BI A di smi ss ed th e appe ali n a wr i t t e n o pi ni o n tha ta ddr e s s e d n o thingmo r e tha n the t wo a r g ume nt s Ga r c i a - La r a r a i s e d. II. A N A L Y S IS Gar ci a- Lar a, r epr es en te d b y ne w co uns el, no w ar g ue s th atthe IJ e r r ed i n c l as si fy i ng hi s co nvi cti on a s a n agg ra vate d fe l ony and a cr i m e invol vi ng m or altur pitud e. W e hav e j uri sdic ti on t o re vi ew the l ega lquesti on wh ethera convi cti on i s pro perl y c l ass i fi ed as an agg ra vate d fe l ony ora cri m e invol vi ng m or altur pitud e, but onl y i fthatquesti on was p ro p er ly p re se n te d to th e a ge n c y. See Ko rsun skiy v . Go nz a les , 461 F.3d 847, 849 (7th C ir. 20 06 ) ( ci ting8 U. S . C. § 1 25 2( d) ( 1) ) . T he g o ve r nm en t ar g ue s th atb y f ai l i ngt o c ha l l en g e th e c las sific at ion of h is c on vic tio n be for e t h e IJ an d th e B IA , G ar c ia-L ar a fa iled to ex h au st h is adm i ni str ati ve re m edi es. G en er ally sp ea kin g, ar gu m en ts n otrais ed be for e t h e B IA are w aiv ed . Se eGhaniv. Ho lder, 55 7 F . 3d 836, 83 9 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09) . Gar ci a- Lara’ s br i efto the BIA argues that he w as enti tl ed to § 212( c) r el i efand that the IJ sho uld have gr anted hi m a continuance, but i t s ays n o th i n gab o u tth e c l a s s i fi c a t i o n o fh i s c o n v i c t i o n a s a n a g g r a v a t e d fe l o n y a n d a c r i me in vo lvin g m or al t u rp itu d e. W aiv er ca n be ex c u se d for a lim ite d n u m b er of re as on s, b u t in hi s br i efto the cour t, Garci a- Lara does not sugge st that any a pp l y. At or alar gum ent, co uns elf o rGa r ci a- Lar a as k ed us t o e xc us e th e wai ve rb ec au se the g o ve r nm en t r ai se d the argu m en ts before the BIA and becau se th e B I A ad d ressed them i n p assing, bu t the record do es no t su ppo r t th es e co nt en ti o ns . F i r st, the BI A’s o pi ni o n s ay s ab so l ut ely no th i ngabo ut the c l ass i fi cati on o fthe convi cti on. S eco nd , as sum i ng tha t a n ar gum ent i s e xhausted w hen it is ra ise d on ly in th e g ov er n m en t’s br ief t o th e B IA an d n otad d re ss ed by th e B IA its elf, see Z ara v. Ashcroft, 3 83 F . 3d 92 7, 9 30
- 31 ( 9th Ci r . 2 00 4) , the b r i efhe r e was no t en o ug h t o put th e B I A on not ice ofthe argu m en ts G arcia-La ra now w ishes to raise. Th e govern m en t’sN o. 08- 4023 Page 4

bri efdi d nothi ng m or e than expla i n the IJ ’ s r ulings o n the offense cl ass i fi cati on a nd st ate that they w er e m ade “a pp ro pri ate l y. ” Counsel al so ask ed that w e e xcuse the f ai l ure to exhaust be cause ofthe ser i ousness of the IJ’ s errors. W e d o not d ispu te th e prem ise ofthis argum en t. Be cau se G arcia-La ra w as convi cted o fa m i sdem eanorpunishabl e o nl y b y ase ntence ofl ess than one yea r, 72 0 I LC S 5/ 12- 15( d) ( 1994 ) ; 73 0 I LC S 5/5- 8- 3( a) ( 1) ( 1994 ) , i t a pp ear s that he shoul d not hav e b e e n f o un d r e mov ab l e f o rh a v i ngc o mm i t t e d a c r i me i nv o l v i ngmo r a ltur pi t ud e . 8 U. S . C. § 1 22 7(a )(2) (A )(i)(II). A m isd em ea n or m ay be cla ss ified as an ag gr av at ed felon y, see Gue r r e r o- Perez v. I . N . S. , 24 2 F . 3d 727, 73 7 ( 7th Ci r. 20 01) , but und erthe cate gor i calapproa ch that gov er ns the deter m i nati on wh ethera convi cti on co nsti tutes the agg ra vate d fe l ony of se x u al a b u se of a m in or, see N ijh a w a n v . Ho lder, 129 S. C t. 22 94 , 230 0 (2 00 9); Gais kov v. Ho lder, 56 7 F . 3d 832, 83 5- 36 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09) , the IJ ar guabl y e rr ed by re l yi ng o n the pol i ce re p or t, see Shep a rd v . U nited Sta tes , 544 U . S. 13, 16, 21 ( 2005 ) (holdin g tha t po li ce rep ort subm i tte d as g ro und s fori ssui ng a cri m i nalco m pla i nt co uld notbe consi dered under c at eg or ica l ap p ro ac h ap p lied to A rm ed C ar ee r C rim in al A c t); Jagge r nau t h v . U . S. At ty. Ge n. , 432 F. 3d 1346, 13 55 ( 11th Cir . 20 05) ( applying Shepar d inim m igr at ion co n te x t); O m ar iv. G o nz a les , 419 F.3d 30 3, 30 8 (5 th C ir. 20 05 ) (sa m e); P a rrilla v. G o nz a les , 41 4 F . 3d 1038 , 10 44 ( 9th Ci r. 20 05) ( sam e) . Ult i m ate l y, tho ugh, the ser i ousness o fthe IJ ’ s e rr or s i s i m m ate ri al w h er e, as h er e, th e e rro rs are on es th e B IA co u ld h av e re m ed ied . See G ha ffa r v. M uk a sey, 55 1 F . 3d 65 1, 6 55 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 8) . T he c o nt r ary r ul e woul d e l i m i na te the e xha us ti o n r equi r ement en tir ely an d d ep riv e t h e B IA of its role as th e p rin c ip al in te rp re te r of im m igr at ion law . See Z eqiri v. M uk a sey, 52 9 F . 3d 364, 36 9- 70 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) . Accordi ngl y, we l ack j uri sdic ti on t o c o ns i de rGa r c i a - La r a ’ s a r g ume nt s b e c a us e the y a r e u ne xh a us t e d.
I I I . C ONC L US I ON Because we l ack j uri sdic ti on t o consi der Gar ci a- Lara’ s a rgum ents, we DI SMI SS th e pet i ti o n.