2010 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 Third C ir c uit 9-17-2010 

# P atel v . Atty Ge n U SA P re c e de nt i al or N on-P re c e de nt i al : N on-P re c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-1676

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al works at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s brou ght t o you for f re 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 Third C irc 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 2010 D e c i sion s by 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 more 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
" P at el v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 599. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2010/599NO T PRECEDEN TI AL

U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N o. 08- 1676

N A IM E S H D IN E S H B H A I P A T E L , 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 der o f th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( N o. A 73- 570- 730) Im m i grat i on Judg e: H on . F reder i ck D . H ess Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

Sept ember13, 2010 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , B A R R Y and SM I T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed: Sept ember17, 2010) OP I NI ONIn hi s appli cat i on for natu ra l i zat i on , P at el l i st ed h i s fi rs t 1 n a m e a s “ N a im e s h k u m a r.” 2 S L O V IT E R , C i r cui tJudge . N aim esh D ines h b h ai P atel p eti ti o n s this co u rtto rev iew the d ec isi o n o f th e B o ard 1 of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) di s m i s s i ng forl ack of j ur i s di ct i on Pat el ’ s appea l fr om the d enial byan Im m i grat i on Judg e (“I J”) of h i s m oti on t o reope n h i s in a b se n tia d ep o rt ati o n o rde r. I. I n A pr i l 1995, an I J or der ed Pat el deport ed in a b se n tia w hen he f ai l ed t o appea rat h is d e p o rta tio n h e a rin g . P a tel re m a in e d in th e U n ited S tate s th e re a f ter a n d e v e n tu a lly m a rr i e d a l a w f

u l r e s i d e n t . P a t e l a p p l i e d f o rn a tu r a l i z a t i o n , b u tw a s t a k e n i n t o c u s t o d y i n J une 2007 bec aus e of the out s t andi ng 1995 in a b se n tia d e p o rt a tio n o rd e r. P a tel f iled a n d w a s g ra n ted a m o tio n to sta yh is d e p o rta tio n . H e th e n a p p lied to r eopen the deport at i on pr ocee di ngs and r es ci nd the in a b se n tia or deron the gr ound that he di d notr ece i ve pr opernot i ce of the 1995 hea r i ng. O n A ugus t20, 2007, the I J deni ed Pat el ’ s m ot i on, fi ndi ng thatPat el “w as cl ear l ys erved per s onal l yw i th the [not i ce] a p p r i s i n g h i m o f

th e c h a r g e s a g a i n s th i m a n d th e d a t e o f h i s h e a r i n g . ” Ap p . a t6 3 . On S e p tem b e r 6 , 2 0 0 7 , the D e p a rtm e n t o f H o m e lan d S e c u rity(“ D H S ” ) d e p o rte d P a tel to In d ia . Pat el appea l ed the deni al of hi s m ot i on t o r eopen, butthe B I A hel d thati tl acke d3

j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e rth a ta p p e a l b e c a u s e P a t e l h a d a l r e a d y b e e n d e p o r t e d . M o r e s p e c i f i c a l l y, the B I A r efe r ence d 8 C . F. R . § 1003. 3( e) , w hi ch s t at es that“[d] epartur e fr om the U ni t ed St at es of a pe r s on w ho i s the s ubj ectof deport at i on pr ocee di ngs , pr i ort o the t aki ng of an a p p e a l f ro m a d e c isio n in h is o r h e r c a se , sh a ll co n stitu te a w a iv e r o f h is o r h e r rig h t to a p p e a l . ” P a t e l t i me l yp e t i t i o n e d th i s c o u r tf o rr e v i e w. Pat el ’ s pr i m aryar gum ent s befor e us ar e that : ( 1) the B I A err ed i n hol di ng thathe h a d w a iv e d h is a p p e a l b yv irtu e o f h a v in g b e e n d e p o rte d b e c a u se th a t d e p o rta tio n w a s in vi ol at i on of the aut om at i c s t ayfound i n 8 C . F. R . § 1003. 23( b) ( 4) ( i i i ) ( C ) ( “[t ] he fi l i ng of a m ot i on t o r eopen unde rpar agr aph ( b) ( 4) ( i i i ) ( A ) of thi s s ect i on s hal l s t aythe deport at i on of the al i en pendi ng deci s i on on the mot i on and the adj udi cat i on of anypr oper l yfi l ed a d m in is tr a tiv e a p p e a l” ) a n d 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 b (c )( 3 ) ( “ [ t] h e f ilin g o f a m o tio n to re o p e n . .

. s hal l s t aythe deport at i on of the al i en pendi ng di s pos i t i on of the mot i on”) ( r epea l ed 1 9 9 6 ); (2 ) P a tel’s d e p o rta tio n a n d th e B IA ’s d e c isio n sh o u ld b o th b e re v e rse d b e c a u se h is deport at i on vi ol at ed hi s due pr oces s r i ght s , as hi s fundament al r i ght s t o an i ndepende nt r evi ew of the in a b se n tia o rd e r a n d h is a c c e ss to a n d a b ili tyto c o m m u n ica te w ith c o u n se l
w er e i nt ended t o be pr ot ect ed by8 C . F. R . § 1003. 6( a) ( a dec i s i on underw hi ch an appeal m aybe t aken “ s hal l notbe exe cut ed dur i ng the t i m e al l ow ed forthe fi l i ng of an appeal unl es s a w ai verof the r i ghtt o appea l i s fi l ed, nors hal l s uch dec i s i on be exe cut ed w hi l e an appea l i s pendi ng”) ; and ( 3) the B I A ’ s i nt erpr et at i on of § 1003. 3( e) contr avene s the r egul at i on’ s expl i ci tl anguage .4

T h e G o v e rn m e n t, af

ter re q u e stin g th re e tim e e x ten sio n s, f iled a tw o p a g e m o tio n to re m a n d P a tel’s c a se to th e B IA f o r re c o n sid e ra tio n o f

w h e th e r th e B IA h a d ju risd ictio n in lig h t o f 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 3 (b )(4 )(iii)(C ). P a tel o p p o se d th e re m a n d , arg u in g th a t, al though § 1003. 23( b) ( 4) ( i i i ) ( C ) i ndeed mandat ed thatdeport at i on be s t ay ed dur i ng the p en d en cyo f th e ti m e to a p p ea l, rem an d to the B IA w o u ld b e f u ti le i n li g h t of

the B IA ’s cont i nued pos i t i on that“i tl acks author i tyt o r eopen r emoval , deport at i on, orexcl us i on pr ocee di ngs . . . i f the al i en has depart ed the U . S. aft ercompl et i on of thos e admi ni s tr at i ve pr ocee di ngs . ” Pet i t i oner ’ s R es pons e t o R es pondent ’ s M ot i on t o R emand t o the B oar d of Im m igrati o n A p p ea ls at2 , N o . 0 8 -16 7 6 (3d C ir . fil ed M arc h 9 , 2 0 0 9 ). T h e c ler k o f

th is c o u rt th e n f

iled a lette r o n o u r b e h a lf d ire c tin g th e p a rties to s ubm i tm emora nda addr es s i ng the i m pacton thi s cas e of ourr ece ntdeci s i on i n Les l i e v. A t t or ney G en. , 611 F. 3d 171, 180 ( 3d C i r . 2010) , w hi ch hel d “thatw hen an a gency pr om ul gat es a r egul at i on pr ot ect i ng fundament al s t atut oryorcons t i tut i onal r i ght s of p a rties a p p e a rin g b e f

o re it, th e a g e n c ym u st c o m p lyw ith th a t re g u latio n . F a ilu re to compl yw i l l m er i ti nval i dat i on of the cha l l enged a gencyact i on w i thoutr egar d t o w hether the al l eged vi ol at i on has s ubs t ant i al l ypr ej udi ced the compl ai ni ng party . ” In h is re sp o n se , P a tel a rg u e d th a t L e slie w as di r ect l yr el evantt o thi s cas e bec aus e 8 C . F. R . § 1003. 6( a) i s a r egul at i on pr om ul gat ed t o pr ot ectthe due pr oces s r i ght s of pet i t i oner s t o a fa i rhear i ng and t o acc es s t o couns el . T he G overnm ent ’ s m emora ndum di s agr eed, buti ns t ead of addr es s i ng the i m pactof L e slie , the G overnm entar gued fortheW e f in d it v e ry d istu rb in g th a t th e G o v e rn m e n t w o u ld f a il 2 t o d i scover or d raw ou r at t enti on t o a sup po sedl ydis po si t i ve case u n til w e in v ited su p p lem e n tal b rie f in g o n a d if

f e re n t p o in t. T h is is es peci al l ytr oubl i ng beca us e the B ej ar o pi ni on i s noti n fac t dispo si t i ve of Pat el ’ s cas e, and bec aus e, as di s cus s ed bel ow , the G overnm ent ’ s form erm ot i on t o r emand i m pl i ed th at di ffe r ent r egul at i ons appl i ed t o Pat el than thos e thatappl i ed i n B ej ar . I n d e e d , itis c lea r th a t th e G o v e rn m e n t’s c u rre n t u n d e rsta n d in g is in e rr o r a n d th a t P a te l w a s d e p o rt e d u n la w f u lly. I n B ej ar , w e r ecogni zed t hatan al i en w ho w as found r emovabl e , a n d th e n r e mov e d b e f o r e h e rt i me t o a p p e a l th at di s pos i t i on had t ol l ed, w as notr emoved i n contr avent i on of the r egul at i ons . O ur h o lding turned on the pr emi s e thatthe im m i g ra tio n c o u rtp ro c e e d in g s w e re g o v e rn e d b y8 C .F .R . § 3. 23( b) ( 4) ( i i ) ( now 8 C . F. R . § 1003. 23( b) ( 4) ( i i ) ) , a r egul at i on that pr ovi ded onl ythatthe fi l i ng of a mot i on t o r eopen s t ay s r emoval unt i l the di s pos i t i on of thatm ot i on. W e not ed othe rpr ovi s i ons s peci fi cal l yi ncl uded l anguage sta y i ng enfor cementof an or der unt i l appea l , and w e ther efor e as s um ed that the abse nce of anys uch l a n g u a g e i n 8 C . F . R . § 3 . 2 3 ( b ) ( 4 ) ( i i ) w a s i n t e n t i o n a l . S i g n i f i c a n t l y, in d o in g so w e sp e c if

ica llyc o n tra ste d 8 C .F .R . § 3 .2 3 (b )(4 )(ii) w ith 8 C . F . R . § 3 . 2 3 (b )(4 )(i ii ) (no w 8 C . F . R . § 1 0 0 3 . 2 3 (b)(4 )(i ii )), w h i c h , in c o m b in a tio n w ith 8 C .F .R . § 3 .6 (b ) ( n o w 8 C .F .R . § 1003. 6( b) ) , “r equi r [es ] the s t ayof an a l i en’ s r emoval dur i ng the 30- dayappea l per i od fr om the deni al of a mot i on t o r eopen f i l ed i n in a b se n tia deport at i on and exc l us i on cas es . . . . ” 324 F. 3d at132. T he or i gi nal 1995 char ge fi l ed agai ns t Pat el w as that he w as deport abl e. T he in a b se n tia or derw as that he be de por t ed. M o re o v e r, th e IJ’ s d e c isio n a d d r e s s e d w h e th e r P a tel’s m o tio n to 5 fi r s tt i m e thatourear l i eropi ni on i n B e ja r v . A sh c ro

ft , 3 2 4 F .3 d 1 2 7 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 3 ), is di s pos i t i ve i n thi s cas e bec aus e underi t s hol di ng ther e w as no r egul at oryvi ol at i on m ade in c o n n e c tio n w ith P a tel’s d e p o rta tio n . C o n se q u e n tly , the G o v e rn m e n t w ith d re w its m ot i on forr emand. 2re o p e n s a tis f ie d th e c rit eria fo u n d in 8 C .F .R . § 1003. 23( b) ( 4) ( i i i ) ( A ) , the r egul at i on r egar di ng the r eci s i on of “dep ort at i on or ex cl usi on proceed i ng s. ” G i ve n these ci r cumst ance s , w e conc l ude, as d i d the i m m i gr at i on court s , that Pat el ’ s cas e i s governed by 8 C . F. R . § 1003. 23( b) ( 4) ( i i i ) ( A ) r ather than 8 C . F. R . § 1003. 23( b) ( 4) ( i i ) . T hus the hol di ng of B ej arf u lly s uppor t s the conc l us i on thatPat el ’ s cas e sh oul d have be en au tom at i cal l ys t ay ed thr ough the t i m e per i od thatthe r egul at i ons g a v e h im to a p p e a l. T he G ov ernm ent fail e d com plet el yt o ack no w l edg e these fac t s , des pi t e the fa ctthatthe G overnm ent ’s re m and mot i on had im p licitlyre c o g n ize d th a t 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 3 (b )(4 )(iii) ap p lied in Pat el ’ s cas e. R egar dl es s , w e not e thatthe 1996 amendm ent s t o the IN A sta ted th a t “ a n y re f e re n c e in law to a n o rd e r o f re m o v a l sh a ll b e deemed t o i ncl ude a r efe r ence t o an or derof exc l us i on and d e p o rt a tio n o r a n o rd e r o f d e p o rt a tio n .” P u b . L . N o . 1 0 4 - 2 0 8 , § 3 0 9 , 1 1 0 S tat. 3 0 0 9 , 3 0 0 9 -6 2 7 (1 9 9 6 ). T h is d o e s n o t m e a n th a t 8 C . F . R . § 1 00 3. 23 (b) (4) (i i i ) has been w ri t t en out of the regu l at i on s. In d e e d , the IJ a p p a re n tlyb e liev e d th a t th a t re g u latio n w a s s til l v iable a n d ap p li ed itto P atel’ s c a se. In a n yev en t, P atel’s deport at i on pr ocee di ngs and i n abs t ent i a o rd e r o f d e p o rta tio n b o th p r e d a t e d th e 1 9 9 6 a me n d me n t s t o th e I NA. I n s um , the dec i s i ons of th e im m i gr at i on court s vi ol at ed 8 C . F. R . §§ 1003. 6( b) and 1003. 23( b) ( 4) ( i i i ) ( C ) byfai l i ng t o s t ay P a tel’s re m o v a l to In d ia d u r in g th e tim e g iv e n f o r h im to a p p e a l. I n i t s br i ef, the G overnm entas s ert s that“[s ] hould this C our tfi nd thatthe ac t i ons t aken by D H S i n vi ol at i on of [8 C . F. R . ] § 1003. 6( a) vi t i at es [s i c] the B oar d’ s det erm i nat i on bel ow , thi s cas e s houl d be re m a n d e d b a c k to th e B o a rd f o r a f u ll h e a ri n g o n th e m e ri ts .” R e sp o n d e n t’s B r. at 8 . B e c a u se w e a g re e th a t a r e m a n d is wa rr a n t e d i n l i g h to f th e BI A’ s e rr o n e o u s i n t e rp r e t a t i o n o f 8 C. F . R. § 1003. 3( e) , w e need not deci de w hether Pat el w oul d be r equi r ed t o s h o w p r e

j u d i c e i n o r d e rf

or us t o e n f

o r c e th e 8 C. F . R. § 1 0 0 3 .2 3 ( b ) ( 4 )( iii) (C ) a u to m a tic s ta yp ro v is io n . S e e L e slie , 611 F .3 d a t 1 8 0 . 67 II. Un d e rth e BI A’ s i n t e rp r e t a t i o n o f 8 C. F . R. § 1 0 0 3 . 3 ( e ) , a n a l i e n d e p o r t e d b yDHS i s deemed t o have w ai ved the abi l i tyt o appea l a deport at i on or der . W e w i l l gi ve the B I A ’ s i nt erpr et at i on of § 1003. 3( e) contr ol l i ng w ei ghtunl es s i ti s “pl ai nl yerr oneous or i ncons i s t entw i th the r egul at i on. ” S ta rEn t e r . v . EPA , 235 F. 3d 139, 147 ( 3d C i r . 2000) (i n te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ). T o reach it s conclusi on that unde r § 100 3. 3(e) P at el ’s dep ort at i on act ed as a
w ai ver , the B I A nece s s ar i l yequat ed the w or d “depa r tur e” w i th the w or ds “deport at i on” and/ or“r emoved. ” Thatpos i t i on i s unt enabl e. Fi r s t , the w or ds “depa r tur e” a nd “deport at i on” both appea ri n § 1003. 3( e) buti n di ffe r entcont ext s , i . e. , the s ubs ect i on appl i es t o the “de partur e” of s om eone w ho i s i n “deport at i on pr ocee di ngs . ” N orar e the tw o w o rd s u s e d in te rc h a n g e a b ly in o th e r p a rt s o f th e re g u la to ry sc h e m e . F o r e x a m p le , 8 C . F. R . § 1003. 2( d) r eads : “A nydepartur e fr om the U ni t ed St at es , i ncl udi ng the deport at i on orr emoval of a pe r s on w ho i s the s ubj ectof exc l us i on, deport at i on, or re m o v a l p ro c e e d in g s, o c c u rrin g a f ter th e f ili n g o f a m o tio n to re o p e n o r a m o tio n to re c o n sid e r, sh a ll co n stitu te a w ith d ra w a l o f su c h m o tio n .” Id e n tica l lan g u a g e is f o u n d in 8 C . F. R . § 1003. 23( b) ( 1) . T hus , thos e r egul at i ons s peci fi cal l yacknow l edge w hen “depa r tur e” i s deemed t o i ncl ude “de por t at i on. ” N ot abl y , C . F. R . §§ 1003. 2( d) and 1 0 0 3 . 2 3 ( b ) ( 1 ) b o th a d d r e s s w h e th e ra m o t i o n i s d e e m e d t o h a v e b e e n w i th d r a w n b y a pet i t i oner , a ci r cumst ance anal ogous t o w hen a pe t i t i oners houl d be dee m ed t o haveW e furthernot e thati n the w ake of U ni on P aci f i c R. R . v. 3 B rotherho odof Loco m oti ve E ng i neers , 1 3 0 S . C t. 5 8 4 , 5 9 0 (20 0 9 ), w h ich h e ld th a t ad m in istra tiv e a g e n c ies c a n n o t co n tra c t th e ir s t atut oryj ur i s di ct i on byr egul at i ons ordeci s i ons , i tr emai ns uncert ai n w hetherthe B I A can cat egor i cal l ydi s avow j ur i s di ct i on o v e r a p p e a ls b yd e p o rt e d o r d e p a rt e d p e titio n e rs , s ee Mar i n- R odr iguezv. H older , 612 F . 3d 591, 595 ( 7th C i r . 2010) ( “ Th e Boa r d ma ywel l b e e n t i t l e d t o r e c a s ti t s a p p r o a c h a s o ne res t i ng on a cat ego ri cal exerci se of d i scr et i on , bu ti t c a nn ot i nsi st th a t ith a s e lec ted to f

o re sw e a r su b

jec t-m a tter ju risd ictio n th a t it p o ss e ss e s u n d e r a sta tu te.” ). A s w e h o ld th a t th e B IA e rre d in i nt erpr et i ng § 1003. 3( e) t o depr i ve i tof j ur i s dict ion w e nee d not pas s on w hether§ 1003. 3( e) perm i s s i bl ycoul d have. 8 w a iv e d a n a p p e a l. F u rth e r, th e tw o w o rd s h a v e d if f e re n t m e a n in g in e v e ry d a ysp e e c h . T o “ d e p a rt” is to “ g o a w a y ” o r t o “ le a v e ,” a n a c tio n th a t im p lie s a v o litio n a l, s e lf -m o tiv a te d a c t. W ebs t er ’ s I I N ew R i ver s i de U ni ver s i tyD i ct i onary363 ( 1984) . “D epartur e” i s defi ned as the “a ctof l eavi ng. ” Id
. T o “deport ” i s t o “expe l fr om a country . ” I d. a t 3 6 4 . “D eport at i on” i s the “[ e] xpul s i on of an unde s i r abl e al i en fr om a country . ” I d. I n other
w or ds , a deport ed al i en i s excl uded fr om a countrybyother s . A ddi t i onal l y , the us e of 3 th e w o rd “ d e p a rtu re ” ra th e r th a n “ d e p o rta tio n ” in 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .3 (e ) is a p p ro p ria te; it is r eas onabl e t o deem an al i en w ho has l eftthe U ni t ed St at es of hi s orherow n vol i t i on dur i ng a deport at i on pr ocee di ng t o have w ai ved the r i ghtt o appea l anydet erm i nat i on r es ul t i ng fr om thos e pr ocee di ngs , w hi l e i ti s l es s equi t abl e t o s o deem an al i en w ho w as in v o lu n ta ri ly re m o v e d (w h e th e r i n a c c o rd w ith th e re g u la tio n s o r o th e rw is e ).9

I n s um , the B I A ’ s i nt erpr et at i on of § 1003. 3( e) w as pl ai nl yerr oneous . T her efor e, th e B IA h a d ju ri s d ic tio n to re v ie w th e m e ri ts o f P a te l’ s a p p e a l. I I I . Forthe r eas ons s etforth above, w e w i l l gr antPat el ’ s pet i t i on forr evi ew and re m a n d to th e B IA f

o r p ro c e e d in g s c o n s is te n t w ith th is o p in io n .