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 2-23-2009 

# Figue ro a-M at o s 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 . 07-4007

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 " F i gue r o a -M at os v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1837. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1837NOT 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. 07- 4007 CE CI L R O BE RT O FI G U ER O A - M A TO S, 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 B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls B I A N o. A 31- 031- 083 ( U . S. I m m i gr at i on J udge: H onor abl e R oxanne C. H l ady l ow y cz)

A r gued J anuary28, 2009 B efor e: SC I R I C A , C hi ef J udge, A M B R O and SM I T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed: February23, 2009) 

### MA TT HE WD. BAXT ER , ES QU I RE ( AR GU ED ) Law Offi c e s of Ge ne vi e ve Gr os s & As s oc i at e s , P. C. 2655 Phi l m ont

Ave nue , Sui t e 206 Hunt i ngdon Va l l e y , Pe nns yl vani a19006 Attorney fo r Petitioner NANC Y E . FRI ED MAN, ES QU I RE ( AR GU ED ) RI CHARD M. EVANS, ESQUI RE SHARON M. CLAY, ESQUI RE Un it ed Stat es Departm ent of Justi ce Offi c e of I mmi gr at i on Li ti gat i on P. O. Box 878, Be n Fr ankl i n St at i on W a s hi ngt on, D. C. 20044 Att orne y s for

Re s ponde nt2 OPI NI ON O F THE COURT SC I R I C A , C hi ef J udge. C eci l R obert o Fi guer oa- M at os , a nat i ve and c i t i zen of the D om i ni can Republ i c, pet i t i ons forr evi ew of an or derof the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s . W e w i l l gr antt he pet i t i on. F ig u e ro a -M a to s w a s a d m itte d to th e U n ite d S ta te s in 1 9 7 4 , a t th e a g e o f n in e . Pet i t i oner ’ s tw o chi l dr en, par ent s and gr ands on ar e U ni t ed St at es ci t i zens . I n J une of 1 9 8 7 , p eti ti o n er p led g u il tyto attem p ted c ri m inal p o sses sion o f a w ea p o n in the thir d d e g re e u n d e r N .Y . P e n a l C o d e § § 1 1 0 , 2 6 5 .0 2 . H e w a s s e n te n c e d to f iv e y e a rs p ro b a tio n . I n Sept ember1989, he w as convi ct ed of c ons pi r acyt o vi ol at e fe der al nar cot i cs l aw and r el at ed cr i m es under21 U . S. C . §§ 846, 812, 841( a) ( 1) and 841( b) ( 1) ( B ) . T he cha r ges ar os e fr om an i nci denti n w hi ch pet i t i onerperm i t t ed a f r i end t o deal drugs atthe gas s t at i on he ow ned i n excha nge for$15, 000. A j uryconvi ct ed hi m of al l char ges , and he w a s s e n te n c e d to tw e n ty-f o u r ye a rs in p ri s o n . T he governm enti s s ued a N ot i ce t o A ppearon J anuary5, 2001, char gi ng pet i t i oner w i th bei ng r emovabl e underI N A §§ 237( a) ( 2) ( A ) ( i i i ) & ( a) ( 2) ( B ) ( i ) forhavi ng comm i t t ed an a ggr avat ed fe l onyand/ ora contr ol l ed s ubs t ance s offe ns e. Pet i t i oners ought re lief u n d e r f o rm e r IN A § 2 1 2 (c ), an d th e IJ h e a rd tes tim o n yf ro m h im a n d se v e ra l o f h is fo rty -som e f

am il ym em b ers in the U n it ed S tat es. T h e IJ a lso c o n side red d o cu m en tary3

evi dence , i ncl udi ng a mem or andum from t he peni t ent i arys t aff chapl ai n and an a w ar ds n o m in a tio n f

o rm f ro m th e p ri s o n . T h e IJ d e ter m in e d th a t p e tit io n e r w a s c re d ib le a n d e n tit led to re lief o n th e b a sis that he had been “gen uinel yrehabi l i t at ed, ” (I J op. , 21 ), that he exp res sed si ncere rem orse forhi s act i ons , and thathe had c ouns el ed at - r i s k y outh and hi s ow n nephew t o encour age them t o cont i nue thei rs chool i ng and t o r efr ai n fr om cr i m i nal act i vi ty . T he I J det erm i ned that p eti ti o n er w o u ld o b tai n stead yem p loym en t up o n release , in li g h t of h is bro ther’s p ro m is e to e m p lo yh im , a n d h is e x te n s iv e e x p e ri e n c e a s a c o o k a n d a re s ta u ra n t m a n a g e r. T he I J concl uded thatthes e s ubs t ant i al equi t i es outw ei ghed pet i t i oner ’ s pr i orcr i m i nal b e h a v io r. ( Id .) T h e g o v e rn m e n t a p p e a le d , a n d a d iv id e d p a n e l o f th e B IA s u s ta in e d th e a p p e a l. T h e B IA rev iew ed the IJ’s d iscreti o n aryd eterm ination an d co n clud ed that p eti ti o n er’s d rug crim e w as su ff

ici en tl yseriou s to o u tw eigh p eti ti o n er’s p o sit ive e q u it ies. B o ard M emberC ol e di s s ent ed, s t at i ng thats he found no c l earerr ori n the I J ’ s det erm i nat i on of the fa ct s , w hi ch s erve “a s the founda t i on fora de novo r evi ew of the [I J ’ s ] l egal c o n c lu s io n s [ ,]” a n d th a t s h e w o u ld h a v e a f f ir m e d th e IJ ’s g ra n t o f

re lie f. T he B I A l acks the author i tyt o r evi ew fi ndi ngs of fa ctbyan i m m i gr at i on j udge de novo, buti tm ayr evi ew thes e fi ndi ngs forcl earerr or . 8 C . F. R . § 1003. 1( d) ( 3) ( i ) ; s ee C havarr i a v. G onzal ez, 446 F. 3d 508, 516 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . T he B I A m ayr evi ew “ques t i ons of l aw , di s cr et i on, and j udgm entand al l otheri s s ues i n appea l s fr om deci s i ons4

o f im m igrati o n jud g es d e n o v o . ” 8 C . F . R . § 1 0 0 3 . 1 (d)(3 )(i i) . In d eterm ining w h ethe r a p eti ti o n er m erit s reli ef

u n d er § 2 1 2 (c), the B IA m u st ba lanc e the ad v erse fa ctors evi denci ng the pet i t i oner ’ s undes i r abi l i tyas a perm anentr es i dentw i th the s oci al and hum ane f

act or s pr es ent ed i n the pet i t i oner ’ s favor . I n r e Edw ar ds , 20 I . & N . D ec. 191, 195 ( B I A 1990) . T he keyi s s ue pr es ent ed bythi s pet i t i on forr evi ew i s w hetherthe B oar d, havi ng r eci t ed the corr ectl egal s t andar d, m i s appl i ed thats t andar d byi gnor i ng t he m o s t s ig n if

ic a n t o f p e titio n e r’ s p o s itiv e e q u itie s . P e tit io n e r a ss e rts th a t th e B IA e n g a g e d in d e n o v o f a c t f in d in g b yre f

u sin g to r ecogni ze thatthe I J had det erm i ned thatpet i t i onerhad bee n “genui nel yr ehabi l i t at ed. ” Pet i t i onerar gues thatthe B I A m er el yi gnor ed thi s fi ndi ng and s ubs t i tut ed i t s ow n fi ndi ng thatpet i t i oner“has a cr i m i nal di s pos i t i on and i s l i kel yt o be a r eci di vi s t . ” ( Pet . B r . , 19; s ee BIA op. , 2. ) Pet i t i oneral s o as s ert s thatthe B I A pr e- j udged hi s cas e i n vi ol at i on of d u e p ro c e s s b yc a te g o ri c a lly d e n y in g w a iv e rs to a p p lic a n ts w ith s e ri o u s d ru g c o n v ic tio n s . C f. In re B u rb a n o , 2 0 I. & N . D e c . 8 7 2 , 8 7 7 (B IA 1 9 9 4 ) ( d is c la im in g s u c h p o lic y ). W e agr ee w i th pet i t i oner ’ s fi r s tas s ert i on. T he I J cons i der ed the evi dence and d e ter m in e d th a t p e tit io n e r h a d b e e n re h a b ili tate d , su c h th a t h is p a st c rim in a l co n d u c t d id nots uppor ta pr es um pt i on of futur e cr i m i nal i ty . T he B I A concl uded, w i thoutm ent i oni ng pet i t i oner ’ s r ehabi l i t at i on, thatpet i t i oner ’ s cr i m i nal hi s t oryevi dence d hi s “cr i m i nal tend en cies,” an d su g g ested that h e re m aine d a d an g er to the co m m u n ity . (B IA o p . at 2.) T he B I A di d notexpl i ci t l ydeem t he I J ’ s fi ndi ng of r ehabi l i t at i on cl ear l yerr oneous , nor5

di d the B oar d offe rr eas ons fori m pl i ci t l yconcl udi ng thatpet i t i onerhad notbeen re h a b ilita te d . T he governm entcont ends thatpet i t i oner ’ s chal l enge a m ount s t o a di s agr eement w ith the w eigh t th e B IA ac co rde d to the fa v o rab le an d u n fa v o rab le fa ctors in p eti ti o n er’s c a s e . T h is C o u rt w o u ld la c k ju ri s d ic tio n to c o n s id e r s u c h a c h a lle n g e . 8 U .S .C . § 12 52 (a) (2) (B )( i i ). T he g ov ernm ent, ho w ever, m i scharact eri zes the B IA ’s decis i on atl east in p art. D esp it e re cit ing the p rop er stan d ard fo r w eigh ing the e q u it ies, the B IA m isa p p lied th a t sta n d a rd b yig n o rin g th e f a c to r th a t th e IJ f

o u n d m o st s ig n if

ica n t – pet i t i oner ’ s genui ne r ehabi l i t at i on. A s di s cus s ed bythe I J , genui ne r ehabi l i t at i on m eans thatpet i t i oneri s a cha nged per s on and no l ongera dange rt o s oci ety . I n di s cus s i ng the pos i t i ve equi t i es , the B I A di s cus s es pet i t i oner ’ s l ar ge fa m i l ycons i s t i ng of m anyU ni t ed S ta te s c itiz e n s , h is m o d e l b e h a v io r i n p ri s o n , a n d h is re m o rs e f o r h is p a s t a c tio n s . H ow ever , none of thes e thr ee obs ervat i ons cons t i tut es an ac know l edgment , l etal one d iscu ssion , o f th e IJ’s f ind ing that p eti ti o n er h as b ee n reh ab il it ated . A lth o u g h the B IA has di s cr et i on t o acc or d thi s fac t orl i t t l e w ei ght , the B I A l acks author i tyt o i gnor e the f a c to r a lto g e th e r, es p e c iallyw h e n th e IJ r e lied p rin c ip a llyo n th a t f a c to r in d e c id in g to g ra n t r e lie f. Forthe af

or ement i oned r eas ons , w e w i l l gr antthe pet i t i on forr evi ew and r emand t o the B I A forfur therpr ocee di ngs cons i s t entw i th thi s opi ni on.