FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J UNE 7, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 13 77 3 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Agen cy No. A0 12 -3 60 -8 41 ALBERT A. CAMPBELL, a.k .a. Alb ertCam

pb el l, a.k .a. Alb ertA. Cam

pb el l, a.k .a. Glen n C am

pb el l, Pet it io ne r,

ve rs us U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, Res po nd en t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pet it io n fo r Rev ie w of aDeci si on of t he Bo ardof I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Jun e 7 , 20 11 )Befo re EDMONDSON, CARNES, an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

PER CURI AM: Pro ceed in g p ro se, Al be rt An th on y Cam pb el l p et it io ns forrev ie w of the fin al ord er o f th e Bo ardof I m m ig rat io n Ap pe al s af

firm in g t he Im

m ig rat io n Ju dg e’s or de r of

rem ov al . InMarc h 2 00 8, the Depa rtment o f Hom el an d S ecurit y se rv edCam

pb el l wi th a no ti ce t o app ear c ha rg in g t ha t h e was rem ov eab le (1) un de r Im m ig rat io n a ndNati on al ity Act § 21 2( a)(2 )(C) as an a li enwho ha s en ga ge d i n the tra ffi ck in g o f a co nt ro ll edsubs tanc e an d (2 ) un de r INA § 21 2( a)(2 )(A)(i )(II) as a n a li enco nv ic te d o f a co nt ro ll edsubs tanc e o ffen se . At Ca m pb el l’s re m ov al he ari ng , th e g ov ern m en t s ub mitte d e vi de nc e o f hi s 19 81 co nv ic ti on fordi st rib ut io n o f an d p os se ss io n wi th in te ntto di st rib ut e h ero in . The IJ d en ie d C am

pb el l’s re qu es t fo r a h eari ng onth e tr affi ck in g c ha rg e b ecau se Cam pb el l re m ai ne d re m ov eab le ba se d o n h is pri orco nv ic ti on fora co nt ro ll ed subs tanc e o ffen se . At a l at er h eari ng Cam

pb el l s ub m it te d a n app li cat io n fo r a wai ve r of in adm is si bi li ty und er fo rm er INA § 21 2( c) an d a n app li cat io n fo r withh ol di ng of rem ov al un de r th e Uni te d Nat io ns Co nv en ti on Agai ns t To rtu re, 8 C.F.R. § 20 8.1 6( c). The IJ d en ie d C am pb el l’s re qu es t fo r a h eari ng on hi s § 21 2( c)

2ap pl ic at io n, g ran te d the go ve rn m en t’s m ot io n t o p ret erm itCam pb el l’s § 21 2( c) ap pl ic at io n, an d d en ie d C am pb el l’s CAT cl ai m

aft er a s ep arat e h eari ng . Cam pb el l co nt en ds th atth e IJan d t he BIA erre d b y fin di ng th at : (1 ) he was in el ig ib le fora waiv er o f in adm is si bi li ty und er fo rm er INA § 21 2( c) b ecau se he was co nv ic te d a fte r a jury tri al rathe r th anaft er p le ad in g g ui lty , and(2) hi s ev id en ce was in su ffi ci en t t o e st ab li sh eli gi bi li ty for wit hh ol di ng of r em ov al un de r CAT. Cam

pb el l al so co nt en ds th athe was d ep riv edof due pro ces s b ecau se th e IJ de ni edhi s re qu es ts for

anev id en ti ary he ari ng an d b ecau se th e IJde pr iv edhi m of a fai r he ari ng on hi s C AT clai m . I. W e rev ie w de n ov o i ss ue s o f subjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on . Am ay a-Artun du ag a v . U.S. Att’y Gen., 4 63 F.3d12 47 , 12 50 (11 thCir . 20 06 ). The pl ai n l an gu ag e o f th e INA pr ecl ud es jud ic ia l re vi ew of anIJ’s fi na l o rd er o f rem ov al foranali enwho is rem ov eab le forhavi ng co m m it te d c ert ai n o ffen se s, in cl ud in g aco nt ro ll edsubs tanc e o ffen se . 8 U.S.C. § 12 52 (a)( 2) (C), INA § 24 2( a)(2 )(C) (“Not withs tand in g a ny oth er p ro vi si on of l aw . . ., no co urt s ha ll ha ve juri sd ic ti on to rev ie w any fin al ord er o f rem ov al ag ai ns t an ali enwho is rem ov ab le by reaso n o f ha vi ng co m

m it te d [aco nt ro ll edsubs tanc e o ffen se ]. ” Acco rd in gl y ,

“ [w]hen[a cri m in al ] al ie n p et it io ns forrev ie w of arem ov al ord er d en y in g h is CAT 3cl ai m , we m ay no t re vi ew th e adm in is tra ti ve factfin di ng s o f th e IJor t he BIA as to th e su ffi ci en cy

of t he ali en ’s evi de nc e an d t he li ke li ho odth atth e al ie n wi ll be to rtu redif re tu rn edto th e co un try in que st io n.” Sin gh v. U.S. Att ’y Gen., 5 61 F.3d 12 75 , 12 80 –8 1 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 9) . Cam pb el l ad m it te d tha t h e h adbe enco nv ic te d o f di st rib ut io n o f an d po ss es si on with i nt en t t o d is tri bu te he ro in . There fo re, t o t he ex te ntCam pb el l ch al le ng es th e IJ ’s andth e BIA’s fi nd in g t ha t h e fai le d t o e st ab li sh hi s el ig ib il ity fo r rel ie f un de r CAT, we di sm is s the pe ti ti onforrev ie w forlac k o f jurs id ic ti on . II. The INA do es , ho wev er, p res erv e o urjuri sd ic ti on to rev ie w th e le ga l an d co ns ti tu ti on al is su es Cam pb el l ra is es . 8 U.S.C. § 12 52 (a)( 2) (D), INA § 24 2( a)(2 )(D) (“Not hi ng insubp arag rap h (B ) or(C), o r in any ot he r pr ov is io n o f th is ch ap te r (o th er tha n thi s s ect io n) whi chli m it s o r el im in at es jud ic ia l re vi ew, sh al l b e co ns tru edas p recl ud in g re vi ew of co ns ti tu ti on al cla im s o r qu es ti on s o f law rai se d upo n ape ti ti on for rev ie w fil edwith an app ro pr ia te co urt o f ap pe al s.”) Bec au se th e BIA d idno t ex pr es sl y ad op t the IJ’s o pi ni on , we rev ie w on ly th e BIA’s d eci si on . Al Najjar v. Ash cro ft, 2 57 F.3d12 62 , 12 84 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ). W e rev ie w qu es ti on s o f la w de n ov o, wi th ap pr op ria te de fere nc e to th e BIA’s reas on ab le in te rp ret at io n o f th e st atut e in qu es ti on . Ferg us on v. U.S. Att ’y Gen., 456 3 F .3d12 54 , 12 69 n.2 5 (1 1th C ir. 2 00 9) . Howev er, n o d efer en ce i s o wedto an

ag en cy in te rp ret at io n i nv ol vi ng th e ret ro act iv e ap pl ic at io n o f a s ta tu te . Id. Und er the law as itex is te d a t the ti m e o f Cam pb el l’s 1 98 1 c on vi ct io n, an al ie n c ou ldap pl y

for di sc ret io na ry

rel ie f un de r fo rm er INA § 21 2( c) dur in g t he co ur se of r em ov al pro ceed in gs . Howev er, § 21 2( c) was rep eal edby the Ill eg al Im m ig rat io n R efo rm

an d Immig ran t Re sp on si bi li ty A ctof 1 99 6 (I IRIRA) an d

“ rep la ced. . . with ane w sec ti on th atgi ve s the Att orne y Gene ral th e au th or ity

to can cel rem ov al fora na rro w cla ss of i na dm is si bl e o r de po rtabl e al ie ns .” INS v . St. Cyr, 53 3 U.S. 2 89 , 29 7, 1 21 S.Ct . 22 71 , 22 77 (20 01 ). Neve rth el es s, i n S t. Cyr, the Supr em e Co urt h el d tha t § 21 2( c) re li ef remaine d a va il ab le to anali enwho ha d be enco nv ic te d o f a d is qu al ifyin g o ffen se by ple a ag reem en t b efo re en act m en t o f IIRI RA. St. Cyr, 53 3 U.S. at31 4– 15 , 12 1 S .Ct. at22 87 . Foc us in g o n t he qu idpro qu o n atur e o f a p le a ag reem en t, the Supr em e Co urt h el d t ha t II RIRA’s re pe al of § 21 2( c) h adanim

pe rm is si bl e ret ro act iv e eff ecton “pe op le who en te redin to pl ea ag reem en ts ” b ecau se su chpe rs on s “ al m os t ce rta in ly reli edup on [th e] lik el ih oo d [o f ob ta in in g § 21 2( c) re li ef] inde ci di ng whet he r to for go [th e] rig htto a tr ia l.” Id . at 3 21 –2 5, 1 21 S.Ct . at 2 29 1– 93 . Inth is cas e, th e BIA fo un d t ha t Ca m pb el l was in el ig ib le for

rel ie f un de r fo rm er INA § 21 2( c) b ecau se he was c on vi ct edof d is tri bu ti on of andpo ss es si on 5with i nt en t t o d is tri bu te he ro in—a dru g t raff ic ki ng off en se —af te r a jury tri al rathe r th anaft er p le ad in g g ui lty inrel ianc e o n t he co nt in ue d a va il ab il ity of § 21 2( c) rel ie f. Cam

pb el l ar gu es th atth e BIA erredbe cau se th e IIR IRA’s rep eal can no t retro act iv el y

be ap pl ie d t o h im . Thatarg um en t i s fo recl os edby ourpre ced en t. In Ferg us onv. U.S. Att ’y

Gen., 5 63 F.3d12 54 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ), anali enwho was co nv ic te d o f a fel on y

aft er a tria l s ou gh t t o “ ex te ndSt. Cyr ou ts id e o f th e g ui lty pl ea co nt ex t.” Id . at 1 26 3; see St. Cyr, 53 3 U.S. at29 7, 1 21 S.Ct . at 2 27 7. We he ldth at“ rel ianc e is a co re co m po ne ntof S t. Cyr’ s re tro act iv ity an al y si s as it ap pl ie s t o a li en s ch al le ng in g the ap pl ic at io n o f IIRI RA’s rep eal of § 21 2( c).” Id . at12 69 –7 0. J oi ni ng th e m ajor ity of o th er ci rcu it s, we h el d t ha t St . Cy r do es no t ap pl y —an d § 21 2( c) re li ef i s u na va il ab le —t o a li en s wh o wer e co nv ic te d a fte r a tri al “be cau se su chali en s’ dec is io ns to go to tri al do no t s at is fy St. Cyr’ s re li an ce requi rem en t.” Id . Thu s, Fe rg us on co ul d n otsee k re li ef u nd er the rep eal edst atut e be cau se sh e d idno t en te r a g ui lty pl ea i n re li an ce o n t he co nt in ui ng av ai labi li ty of § 2 12 (c) re li ef. Id . at 1 27 1. Cam pb el l’s ca se inin di st in gu is habl e fro m Ferg us on . Becau se Cam pb el l d id no t p le adgu il ty to h is dru g traff ic ki ng off en se , he c an no t d em on st rat e th athe de tri m en ta ll y

rel ie d o n the co nt in ue d a va il ab il ity of a§ 2 12 (c) wai ve r of in adm is si bi li ty. Sin ce d etrimenta l re li an ce i s a c rit ic al ele m en t o f an y cla im for§ 621 2( c) re li ef b as edon anall eg edim pe rm is si bl e retro act iv e ap pl ic at io n o f IIRI RA, we de ny Cam

pb el l’s p et it io n fo r rev ie w of the BIA’s de ni al of § 21 2( c) re li ef. III. Cam pb el l al so co nt en ds th athe was d en ie d due pro ces s o f la w bec au se th e IJrefu se d h is reque st s fo r a h eari ng on hi s re m ov ab il ity an d o n h is ap pl ic at io n fo r § 2 12 (c) re li ef an d tha t h e was de pr iv edof afai r he ari ng on hi s C AT clai m . Cam pb el l’s due pro ces s cl ai m co nc ern in g t he IJ’s re fu sa l t o c on du cta he ari ng on hi s re qu es t fo r rel ie f un de r fo rm er INA § 21 2( c) i s wi th ou t m eri t b ecau se “ [t]he re is no co ns ti tu ti on al ly pro te ct edrig htto di sc ret io na ry rel ie f, whi chis th e rel ie f reque st edhe re.” Zafa r v. Un it edSta te s At ty. Gen ., 46 1 F .3d13 57 , 13 67 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d) . Cam pb el l’s o th er co ns ti tu ti on al cla im s al so lac k m eri t. Du e p ro ces s requi res “ a fu ll an d fa ir h eari ng .” Ib rah im v. INS, 8 21 F.2d15 47 , 15 50 (11 th Cir . 19 87 ). Acco rd in gl y , ali en s m us t re cei ve “no ti ce an d a n o pp ortu ni ty to b e h eardin th ei r rem ov al pro ceed in gs .” Fern an de z-Be rn al v. U.S. Att ’y Gen., 2 57 F.3d13 04 , 13 10 n.8 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ). To p rev ai l o n adu e p ro ces s cl ai m , ho wev er, anali en m us t s ho w subs tant ia l p reju di ce—na m el y , th atth e o ut co m e wou ldha ve be en di ffer en t “ inth e ab se nc e o f th e al le ge d p ro cedur al de fic ie nc ie s.” Pa te l v . U.S. Att ’y Gen., 3 34 F.3d12 59 , 12 63 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). 7To the ex te ntth atCam pb el l ar gu es th athe was d en ie d due pro ces s b y th e IJ ’s fai lu re t o h ol d ahe ari ng on hi s re m ov ab il ity , hi s cl ai m lac ks m eri t b ecau se he ha s fa il edto id en ti fy

any ev id en ce tha t h e co ul d h av e p res en te d t o re bu t the ch arg es of r em ov al . Andev enif C am pb el l s uc ces sf

ul ly chal le ng edth e dru g tra ffi ck in g c harg e und er INA § 21 2( a)(2 )(C) , he r em ai ne d re m ov eab le un de r § 2 12 (a)( 2) (a)( i)( II) as anali enco nv ic te d o f a co ntro ll edsubs tanc e o ffen se ; h e adm it te d h is 19 81 co nv ic ti on . See De San do va l v . U.S. Att’y Gen., 4 40 F.3d 12 76 , 12 85 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (“ Pet it io ne r fai ls to sh ow h ow the ad di ti on al pr oc edur es sh e d em an ds wou ldha ve ch an ge d t he res ul t i n h er ca se be cau se sh e ha s ad mit te d a ll of t he fact s n eces sa ry to warran t re in st at em en t o f th e o rig in al rem ov al ord er . . . .”). Fi na ll y , Cam

pb el l ar gu es th atth e IJex hi bi te d h os ti li ty towar d h im at h is CAT he ari ng an d tha t the IJ’s b ia s ag ai ns t h im am ou nt edto a de ni al of due pr oc es s b ecau se he was d ep riv edof aful l an d fa ir h eari ng . Butev enth ou gh th e IJ ex pr es se d frus tra ti on with C am pb el l’s co un se l atth e h eari ng , “ ex pr es si on s o f im pa ti en ce, d is sa ti sf

act io n, an no y an ce, an d e ve n a ng er, tha t ar e withi n t he bo un ds of whatim pe rfec t m enan d wo m en. . . so m et im es di sp lay ,” do no t es tabl is h b ia s o r pa rti al ity . Lite ky v. Uni te d S ta te s, 5 10 U.S. 54 0, 5 55 –5 6, 1 14 S.Ct . 11 47 , 11 57 (1 99 4) . Furt he rm or e, as th e BIA n ot ed , th e IJrev ie wedCam pb el l’s ev id en ce an d 8ga ve hi s co un se l m ul ti pl e o pp ortu ni ti es to id en ti fy whatev id en ce h e was rel y in g on to ass ertth atCam

pb el l wo ul d b e to rtu redaft er b ei ng de po rte d. Acco rd in gl y , Cam pb el l was no t d ep riv edof aful l an d fa ir h eari ng on hi s C AT clai m . PETI TI ON DIS MIS SED I N PART an d DENIE D IN PART .

9