2006 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 5-10-2006 

# S m al lhorne v

. Atty Ge n U SA P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 05-1898

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd 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 l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2006 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

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

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " S m al l hor ne v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1130. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/1130Be causewe ha ve converted the present c ase into a pe tition for direct review, weare * re qu ir e d to su

bs tit utetheAttor

ne y General f

or thec ur rent re sp on dent ( Se c re tary, U .S. Depa rtment of Homela

nd Security

). 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(3) (A).

1 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL U N I TED STA TES C O U RT O F A PPEA LS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

__________ N o. 05- 1898

__________ BA RRI NG TON SM ALLH OR NE,

A ppel l ant v. ATTO RN EY G ENER AL O F THE UN I TED STATES *

__________ 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 A gencyN o. A 35- 959- 428 Im m igrati o n Ju d g e: C h arles A . W iega n d III I ni t i al l yD ocket ed as an A ppeal fr om D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s eyN o. 04- cv- 5965

Pr i ort o t he Enact m entof the R eal I D A cton 2005 D i s t r i ctJ udge: T he H onor abl e J os e L. L i nar es

_________ Subm i t t ed underT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a) – J anuary23, 2006

_________ B efore: R E N D E L L and S T A P L E T O N , C i rcui tJudg es.Honora ble L ouis H. Poll ak, District Judge f or the United States District Court of the ** Easter n District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. 2 and PO L L A K , D i s t r i ctJ udge. ** ( Fi l ed: M ay10, 2006)

_______ OP I NI ON

________ PO L L A K , D i s t r i ctJ udge: A ppel l antB arr i ngt on Sm al l hor ne appe al s an or derof the U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ct C o u rtfo r th e D istri ct of N ew Jerse yd en y ing S m all h o rne ’s pe ti ti o n fo r habeas cor pus . B eca us e w e w r i t e pr i m ar i l yfort he part i es , w ho ar e pr es um abl yfami l i arw i t h t he fac t s and pr ocedur al hi s t or yof the ca s e, w e w i l l s um m ar i ze the fa ct s and hi s t or yof the cas e onl ybr i efl y . Sm al l hor ne, a ci t i zen of J amai ca, w as admi t t ed t o t he U ni t ed St at es as an i m m i gr anti n D ece m ber1979. I n 1993, he w as convi ct ed i n N ew Y or k of cr i m i nal p o ss e ss io n o f

a w e a p o n a n d c rim in a l p o ss e ss io n o f a c o n tro lled su b sta n c e in th e se v e n th deg ree. H e w as conv i ct ed o f a si m i l ar drug off ense i n 1 99 6. A s a r esul tof these convi ct i ons , r emoval pr ocee di ngs w er e i ns t i tut ed aga i ns tSm al l hor ne, and he w as det ai ned and tr ans ferr ed t o a det ent i on cent eri n O akdal e, L oui s i ana. T her e, on Sept ember 12, 1997, an i m m i gr at i on j udge det erm i ned Sm al l hor ne had be en convi ct ed of an aggr avat ed fe l onyand ther efor e or der ed hi m r emoved. Sm al l hor ne appe al ed t o t he B I A , buthi s appea l w as di s m i s s ed byor derdat ed J anuary19, 2000. Sm al l hor ne l at erSmallhorne did file a pe tition for habeas corpuson July 7, 2000 in the United States 1 District Court for the Southern D istrict of NewYork. How ever , that proce edingwas dismissed without prejudice by

stipulation of the parties pendingthe outcome of Calcano-Martinez v. I NS, 232 F.3d 328 (2 d Ci r. 20 00 ), wh ic h w a s th e n p e ndingbe fo retheCourt of Appe a ls. Ac c ordin gto theg ov e rnme nt, thestipu latio n s pe c if ie d th at, i f S mallh or

nefaile d to re ins tatehis pe tition wi thin 30 days of the Court of Appe als’ dec ision in Calcano-Martinez , his petition would be deemed dis mis se d w ithpre

judic e . T heg ov e rnme nt repre se nts tha t Smallh or

nene ver re ins tate d h is pe tition , a

nd there fo reit w a s dism iss e d w ithpre judic e . Sm a llh or

nedo e s n ot disp utethi s asser tion. 3 m o v e d th e B IA to re c o n s id e r, w h ic h th e B IA d e c lin e d to d o b yo rd e r d a te d J u n e 2 2 , 2 0 0 0 . T he r ecor d does noti ndi cat e thatSm al l hor ne appe al ed ei t herof thes e dec i s i ons . 1 F o rr e a s o n s n o tma d e c l e a rb yt h e r e c o r d , S ma l l h o r n e wa s r e l e a s e d f r o m I NS cus t odyats om e poi nt , buthe w as r e- arr es t ed and t aken i nt o cus t odyi n N ew J er s eyon O c to b e r 7 , 2 0 0 4 . A f

ter h is re -a rre st, o n O c to b e r 2 2 , 2 0 0 4 , S m a llh o rn e f iled a m o tio n to r e o p e n h i s c a s e wi t h t h e BI A. T h e BI A d e n i e d t h a tmo t i o n o n No v e mb e r2 4 , 2 0 0 4 . On D ec em b er 6 , 2 0 0 4 , S m all h o rne fil ed a p eti ti o n fo r habeas cor pus i n fede r al cour ti n N ew Je rse y . T h e D istric t C o u rt d e n ied S m a llh o rn e ’s p e tit io n o n M a rc h 8 , 2 0 0 5 , fin d in g it lack ed juri sd ict ion to rev iew , u n d er the au sp ices o f a p eti ti o n fo r habeas cor pus , t he B I A ’ s exer ci s e of di s cr et i on i n deny i ng a mot i on t o r eopen. O n M ar ch 19, 2005, S m a llh o rn e f

iled a n o tice o f

a p p e a l. O n M ay11, 2005, t he Pr es i dents i gned i nt o l aw t he s o- cal l ed “Real I D A ct . ” Pub. L . N o . 1 0 9 -13 , 1 1 9 S tat . 2 3 1 . A m o n g o ther thin g s, the R ea l I D A ct dra m ati ca ll yalt ers t he r egi m e of j udi ci al r evi ew of r emoval or der s bypr ovi di ng t hat , exce pti n veryl i m i t ed c irc u m sta n c e s, “ a p e tit io n f o r re v iew f

iled w ith a n a p p ro p ria te c o u rt o f a p p e a ls . . . sh a llHa vin gbe e n s o c onve rt e d, Smallh or ne ’s c a sefac e s a

n a dditi on a l proc e dural oddit y 2 cre ated by

the Real ID Act. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)( 2), as amended, instructs that pe titions for revie w “shall be filed with the cour t of appe als for thejudicial circuit in which the immigration judg ec omp le te d th eproc e e din g s. ”Smallh or ne ’s remov a l proc e e din g s w e rec on du c te d in L ouisiana, within the g eographicrea ch of theFifth Circuit. However, § 1252(b)(2) is a venue provision, not a jurisdictional provision, and, under c ircumstance s simil ar to those presente d here , this court has re tained ca ses despite this technical defe ct in venue. Se eBo nh om e tre , 414 F .3 d at 44 6 n .5 ; Belizaire v. Att’y Gene ral , 1 52 F e d. Appx. 2 58 , 2 59 n. 1 ( 3d Cir . 2 00 5) . Wewi ll follow suit and decideSmallhorne’s ca se. 4 b e t h e s o l e a n d e x c l u s i v e me a n s f o rj u d i c i a l r e v i e w o f

a n o r d e ro f

r e mo v a l . . . . ” 8 U. S . C. § 1252( a) ( 5) . D i s t r i ctcour t s t her efor e no l ongerhave a ut hor i t yt o ent er t ai n habeas cor pus p e titio n s th a t c h a lle n g e re m o v a l o rd e rs . See Bonhom etr e v. G onz al es , 414 F. 3d 4 4 2 , 4 4 5 -4 6 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ); Jor don v. A t t or ney G en. , 4 2 4 F . 3 d 3 2 0 , 3 2 6 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). O n Ju ly1 5 , 2 0 0 5 , jus t d a y s a f ter b rie f in g in th e in sta n t ca se w a s c o m p lete d , this C o u rt c o n s id e re d h o w to p ro c e e d in a p ro c e d u ra l s itu a tio n a k in to S m a llh o rn e ’s . See B on ho m etre , 414 F. 3d 442. I n B on ho m etre , w e n o te d th a t “ [ i] n th e R e a l I D A c t . . . C ongr es s w as s i l entas t o w hatw as t o be done w i t h an appe al fr om a di s t r i ctcour thabea s deci s i on t hati s now pendi ng befor e a c our tof appe al s . ” Id . at446. W e w enton t o deci de th a t su c h p e tit io n s “ a re p ro p e rlyc o n v e rte d to p e tit io n s f o r re v iew a n d re tain e d b yth is C o u rt ” a n d a re e v a lu a te d a s if th e d is tr ic t c o u rt o p in io n d id n o t e x is t. Id . S m all h o rne ’s pet i t i on, l i ke B onhom etr e’ s , w as pendi ng befor e thi s C our ton t he dayt he R eal I D A ct w a s s ig n e d in to la w , a n d w e th e re f o re c o n v e rt it to a p e titio n f o r r e v ie w .

2 T he s ol e ar gum entpr es ent ed bySm al l hor ne i n hi s br i ef on a ppeal fr om t he D i s t r i ct C ou rtorder deny i ng his hab eas pet i t i on i s that none of h i s N ew Y ork con vict i on s,The B IA’s merits ruling wa s ref erred to, and c haracterized as erroneous, in the habeas 3 petition, but that was not the asserte d BIA er ror on whic h petitioner grounded his claim of entitlement to habeasrelief . 5 cons i der ed i ndepende nt l yori n combi nat i on, amount t o an “a ggr avat ed fe l ony ” w i t hi n t he m eani ng of the I N A , and he ther efor e s houl d have be en el i gi bl e forcanc el l at i on of re m o v a l. In re ly in g o n th is a rg u m e n t, S m a llh o rn e ig n o re s th e p ro c e d u ra l p o stu re o f th is ca se. S m all h o rne ’s pe ti ti o n fo r habeas cor pus re q u e ste d re lief

f ro m th e B IA ’s r e f

u sa l to reo p en h is case , n o t th e B IA ’s dism issal of h is ap p ea l on the m erit s (i . e. – the B IA ’s d e te rm in a tio n th a t h is N e w Y o rk d ru g c o n v ic tio n s c o n s titu te d a n a g g ra v a te d f e lo n y ) .

3 A bs entexce pt i onal ci r cumst ance s , w e do notcons i deri s s ues on appea l t hatw er e not ra is e d w ith th e D is tr ic t C o u rt . C ont i nentalC as ual t y C o. v. D ’

A ndr ea , 150 F. 3d 245, 251 ( 3d C i r . 1998) . Sm al l hor ne poi nt s t o no exce pt i onal ci r cumst ance s t hatw oul d j us t i fyour d e p a rtu re f

ro m th e g e n e ra l ru le in th is c a se – in d e e d , S m a llh o rn e f a ils e v e n to a c k n o w led g e th a t h e d id n o t ra ise b e f o re th e D istric t C o u rt th e a rg u m e n t h e p re se n ts in th is a p p e a l. Itis tru e th a t B on ho m etre in stru c ts u s to ig n o re th e D istric t C o u rt o p in io n in ca ses, su ch as th is on e, th at are c o n v erted to p eti ti o n s fo r direct rev iew . H o w ev er, B on ho m etre d o e s n o t r e q u ir e u s to tu rn a b lin d e y e to th e h is to ry o f th e c a s e b e f

o re u s . W hi l e w e w i l l , i n conform i t yw i t h B on ho m etre , vaca t e the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s opi ni on and cons i dert hi s cas e as i f thatopi ni on di d notexi s t , w e s ee no r eas on t o di s r egar d t he fa ct t hatSm al l hor ne’ s chal l enge t o t he mer i t s of the r emoval or deragai ns thi m i s m ade f ort he f irst tim e in th is a p p e a l. W e w ill n o t co n sid e r th a t ch a llen g e , as it w a s n o t p re se n ted inSeenote 3, su pra . 4 Whil ethat is su ewa s n ot add re sse d in thebrie f f

ile d o n Sm a llh or

ne ’s behalf

in t his 5 Court, we will consider theissue since it was the f ocus of the habeaspetition that init iated the litig atio n n owbe fo reus . 6 th e p e titio n f

ile d b yS m a llh o rn e in th e D is tr ic t C o u rt . 4 T he onl ym at t erpr oper l ybefor e thi s cour ti s t he i s s ue thatw as pr es ent ed t o t he D istric t C o u rt – n a m e ly , the p ro p rie tyo f th e B IA ’s d e n ial o f

S m a llh o rn e ’s m o tio n to reo p en . A m o ti o n to reo p en a c ase in the B IA is go v ern ed b y8 C . F . R . § 1 0 0 3 . 2 (c),

5 w hi ch pr ovi des , w i t h cert ai n exce pt i ons notappl i cabl e her e, t hata “mot i on [t o r eopen] m us tbe fi l ed no l at ert han 90 day s aft ert he dat e on w hi ch the fi nal admi ni s t r at i ve d e c isio n w a s re n d e re d in th e p ro c e e d in g so u g h t to b e re o p e n e d .” S m a llh o rn e f iled h is m ot i on t o r eopen w i t h t he B I A atl eas tfoury ear s t oo l at e. W e ther efor e di s cern no err or i n t h e BI A’ s d e n i a l o f

t h e mo t i o n t o r e o p e n . We wi l l d e n yt h e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.