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 Thir d C ir c uit 5-28-2010 

# Rogelio Figue reo -S anche z 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 . 09-2137

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_2010

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 2010 D e c i sion s b y an author i 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 " Ro g e l io F i gue r e o -S anchez v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1251. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1251NOT 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. 09- 2137 RO GELI O FI GU EREO - SAN CH EZ, 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 ( A gencyN o. A 030- 851- 202) Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e : Je f f re yL . R o m ig Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ay27, 2010 B efor e: B A R R Y , A M B R O and C O W E N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: M ay28, 2010)

OP I NI ON P E R C UR I AM R ogel i o Fi guer eo- Sanchez pet i t i ons forr evi ew of a f i nal or derof the B oar d of Im m igrati o n A p p ea ls ( “B IA ”) d ism issi n g h is ap p ea l from the Im m igrati o n Ju d g e’sT he governm entchar ged Fi guer eo- Sanchez as r emovabl e on thr ee gr ounds : ( 1) for 1 b e in g c o n v icte d o f

a n a g g ra v a ted f

e lo n y , (2 ) f

o r b e in g c o n v icte d o f

c o n sp ira c yto c o m m it an aggr avat ed fe l ony , and ( 3) forbei ng convi ct ed of vi ol at i ng a l aw r el at ed t o a contr ol l ed su b stan ce . S ee 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 2 7 (a)(2)(A )(i ii ); (a)(2)(B )(i ). 2 (“ IJ ’s ” ) d e c is io n o rd e ri n g h is re m o v a l. W e w ill d e n yth e p e titio n f o r r e v ie w . I. Fi guer eo- Sanchez , a nat i ve and c i t i zen of the D om i ni can Republ i c, ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es i n 1972 as a y oung chi l d. M or e than thi r t yy ear s l at er , i n 2003, he pl eade d gui l tyi n fede r al courtt o cons pi r acyt o pos s es s w i t h i nt entt o di s t r i but e coc ai ne and w as s ent ence d t o ni nety - s i x m ont hs of i m pr i s onm ent . T he governm entthen s oughtt o have hi m r emoved on t he bas i s of thatconvi ct i on. 1 Fi guer eo- Sanchez chos e t o r epr es enthi m s el f atthe hea r i ng and di d notappl yfor a n yf o rm o f re lie f. H e a d m itte d to th e a lle g a tio n s a n d e s s e n tia lly c o n c e d e d re m o v a b ility. A ft eror der i ng Fi guer eo- Sanchez ’ s r emoval t o t he D om i ni can Republ i c, the I J advi s ed hi m t hathe had the r i ghtt o appea l t o t he B I A . T he I J then s t at ed: “Y ou can a l s o acc ept the or derof deport at i on as fi nal . So, the ques t i on t o y ou i s do y ou w antt o fi l e an appeal ordo y ou acc epta deport at i on or deras a fi nal one?” A dm i ni s t r at i ve R ecor d ( “A R ”) at 4 5 . F i g u e r e o - S a n c h e z r e p l i e d “ I wa n tt o a c c e p ti ta s f i n a l . ” I d . No n e t h e l e s s , a b o u tt wo m onths aft ert he hea r i ng, Fi guer eo- Sanchez w r ot e t o t he “I m m i gr at i on C our t , ” s t at i ng th a th e h a d n o twa i v e d h i s r i g h tt o a p p e a l a n d s e e k i n g h i s “ a p p e a l p a p e r . ” AR a t3 3 . He fi l ed an appeal a fe w m ont hs l at er , cl ai m i ng thatthe s t atut orypr ovi s i ons m andat i ng the3

r emoval of al i ens w ho ar e convi ct ed of c ert ai n cr i m es ar e uncons t i tut i onal beca us e they c o n tain n o e x c e p tio n f

o r a n in d iv id u a l li k e h im , w h o b e c a m e c o m p lete lyim m e rse d in A m e ric a n c u ltu re a s a w a rd o f th e sta te in h is y o u th a n d w h o h a s n o c o n n e c tio n to h is h o m e c o u n t r y. T he B I A di s m i s s ed the appe al forl ack of j ur i s di ct i on aft erconcl udi ng that Fi guer eo- Sanchez had know i ngl yand i nt el l i gent l yw ai ved hi s r i ghtt o appea l . See 8 C . F. R . § 1003. 3( a) ( a “not i ce of appea l m aynotbe fi l ed byanypart yw ho has w ai ved appea l pur s uantt o § 1003. 39”) . T he B I A al s o rul ed i n t he al t ernat i ve that , i f i thad j ur i s di ct i on, i tw oul d di s m i s s t he appe al on t he mer i t s beca us e Fi guer eo- Sanchez had not raised an yissue s tha t th e B IA h ad juri sd ict ion to d ec ide a n d h ad n o t i d en ti fied an yfo rm o f r e l i e f f o rwh i c h h e i s e l i g i b l e . F i g u e r e o - S a n c h e z th e n f i l e d th i s p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. II. W e lac k ju risd ictio n to re v iew “ a n yf in a l o rd e r o f

re m o v a l ag a in st a n a lien w h o is r emovabl e byr eas on of havi ng comm i t t ed” c ert ai n cr i m i nal offe ns es , i ncl udi ng an a g g ra v a te d f

e lo n ya n d a c o n tr o lle d s u b s ta n c e v io la tio n . 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (a )( 2 )( C ). H ow ever , t he R E A L I D A ctof 2005 r es t or ed di r ectr evi ew of cons t i tut i onal cl ai m s and q u e s tio n s o f

la w p re s e n te d b yc ri m in a l a lie n s in p e titio n s f o r r e v ie w . 8 U .S .C . § 1 25 2(a) (2) (D ); P apag eorgi ou v. G on zal es, 41 3 F . 3d 35 6, 35 8 (3d C i r. 20 05 ). B ecause Fi guer eo- Sanchez has been c onvi ct ed of a n aggr avat ed fe l onyand a c ont r ol l ed s ubs t ance vi ol at i on, w e maycons i deronl ycons t i tut i onal i s s ues , pur e ques t i ons of l aw , and i s s ues of4

the appl i cat i on of l aw t o uncont es t ed fa ct s . See K amar a v. A t t ’ yG en. , 420 F. 3d 202, 211 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . W e r evi ew cons t i tut i onal i s s ues and ques t i ons of l aw de novo. I d. T he governm entas s ert s t hat“Fi guer eo- Sanchez does notr ai s e anycons t i tut i onal iss u e s o r le g a l q u e stio n s in h is o p e n in g b rie f ” a n d th a t w e m u st th e re f o re d ism iss h is pet i t i on forr evi ew forl ack of j ur i s di ct i on. R es pondent ’ s B r i ef a t12. B utFi guer eoSanchez as ks t hi s C our tt o “conduc ta cons t i tut i onal i nqui r y ” i nt o t he s t atut es governi ng hi s r emoval , ar gui ng t hat“the s t atut es ar e i m perm i s s i bl yuncons t i tut i onal w hen they ren d er a n yali en rem o v ab le w ith o u t con side rati o n o f c ase s su ch as th e ins tant o n e, w h ere the pet i t i onerw as a w ar d of the s t at e f[ r o] m m i norage i nt o adul t hood. ” Pet i t i oner ’ s B r i ef a t 4 -5 . H e a lso a rg u e s th a t d e p o rta tio n “ w o u ld re su lt i n d o u b le p u n ish m e n t” f o r h is cr i m e. I d. at4. P lea d in g s f

ro m p ro se lit ig a n ts, su c h a s F ig u e re o -S a n c h e z , m u st b e lib e ra lly cons trued. See, e. g. , D l uhos v. St r as ber g, 321 F. 3d 365, 369 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . A l t hough h is b rie f is n o t ar tf

u llyd ra f ted , itis p lain th a t F ig u e re o -S a n c h e z is a ttem p tin g to p re se n t a cons t i tut i onal cl ai m r egar di ng hi s or derof r emoval . T o t he ext entthathe i s cl ai m i ng t hat hi s r i ghtt o equal pr ot ect i on has been vi ol at ed bec aus e the s t atut e governi ng hi s r emoval does notr ecogni ze a n exce pt i on fori ndi vi dual s i n hi s ci r cumst ance s , hi s cl ai m i s w i t hout m e rit. T o p ro v e a n e q u a l p ro tec tio n v io latio n , o n e m u st f irst d e m o n stra te “ d isp a ra te tr e a tm e n t o f

d if f e re n t g ro u p s .” D e S o u s a v . R e n o , 1 9 0 F .3 d 1 7 5 , 1 8 4 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). F ig u e re o -S a n c h e z h a s n o t id e n tif ie d a n yg ro u p s b e in g tr e a te d d if f e re n tly u n d e r t h e s ta tu te .5

O n the contr ary , hi s ar gum enti s t hatthe uni form tr eatm entof cr i m i nal al i ens underthe s t atut e i s uncons t i tut i onal i ns ofaras i ndi vi dual s w i t h hi s t or i es l i ke hi s ow n s houl d be e x c e p te d f

ro m d e p o rt a tio n . A c c o rd in g ly, w e p e rc e iv e n o v io la tio n o f e q u a l p ro te c tio n . T o the ext entt hatFi guer eo- Sanchez i s cl ai m i ng a vi ol at i on of doubl e j eopar dybyar gui ng thathe i s bei ng puni s hed tw i ce f orhi s cr i m i nal offe ns e, hi s cl ai m l acks m er i tbeca us e a d e p o rta tio n p ro c e e d in g is a p u re lyc iv il ac tio n a n d th e “ p u rp o se o f d e p o rta tio n is n o t to p u n ish p ast tran sg ression s. ” S ee IN S v . L o p ez -M en d o za , 4 6 8 U . S . 1 0 3 2 , 1 0 3 8 -39 (19 8 4 ). Fi guer eo- Sanchez al s o cl ai m s thathe di d notknow i ngl yw ai ve hi s r i ghtt o appea l fr om t he I J ’ s deci s i on. U ndert he ci r cumst ance s , w e nee d notdeci de w hetherthat pr es ent s a ques t i on of l aw ; t her e i s no m eani ngful r el i ef a vai l abl e t o Fi guer eo- Sanchez even i f hi s w ai verw er e i nval i d. I f w e w er e t o det erm i ne thatthe B I A err ed i n hol di ng thatthe w ai verw as know i ng and i nt el l i gent , the r el i ef w e w oul d or derw oul d be a r emand t o the B I A t o cons i dert he appe al . B utFi guer eo- Sanchez di d notappl yforanyform of re lief d u rin g h is im m ig ra tio n p ro c e e d in g s a n d , as th e B IA c o rre c tlyn o ted in its a ltern a te hol di ng on t he mer i t s , he di d notes t abl i s h hi s el i gi bi l i t yforanyr el i ef. Ac c o r d i n g l y , 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.