FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT JAN 25, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N os . 06- 11669, 06- 12958 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ A ge nc y N o. A 71- 525- 385 B E R G P L A N C H E R H Y A C I N T H E , P e titio n e r , v ersu s U .S . A T T O RN E Y G E N E R A L , R e s p o n d e n t.

________________________ P e t i t i ons f

orR e vi e w of

aD e c i s i on of

the B o a r d o f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls

_________________________ ( Jan u ar y 25, 2007) B efo re B IR C H , H U L L an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: B er g P l ancher H ya ci nthe, a c i t i ze n and nat i ve of H ai t i , pet i t i on s f or re vi ew o f a n o rd erb y th e B o ar d o f I m m ig ra ti o n A p p ea ls (“B IA ”) th at d en ied H ya cin th e’sIn full, § 1 2 2 7 (a )( 2 )(A)(ii) provides that an alien is depor table if “ at any

time after 1 admi ssion [ he] is convicted of two or more crimes involving moral turpitude, not a rising out of

a singleschemeof criminal mis conduct, reg ardle ss of whether conf ined there for a

nd reg ardle ss of whether the convictions were in a singletrial.” 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a) (2)(A)(ii).

2 appeal of the i m m i grat i on j ud ge’ s ( “ IJ ’ s” ) f i nal order of re m ov al . H ya ci nthe fi l ed as e c ond pe t i t i on f

orr e vi e w of

the B I A ’ s or de rde ny i ng hi s m ot i on f or r e c o n s id e r a tio n . A f

te rr e v ie w , w e d e n y th e p e titio n s . I . Ba c k g r o und A . A u gu s t 13, 2004 N ot i c e t o A p p e ar I n 2 0 0 0 , H y a c in th e e n te r e d th e U n ite d S ta te s a s ala w f u l p e rm a n e n t r e s id e n t. O n A ugus t27, 2003, i n the U ni t e d S t a t e s D i s tr i c tC our tf orthe N or the rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da , H y a c i nthe pl e d gui l ty t o thr e e c ount s of “ B a nk F r aud, ” e a c h i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U . S . C . § 1344. A c c or di ng t o the j udgm e nt , the ba nk f r aud of f e ns e i n C ount O ne of H y a c i nthe ’ s i ndi c tm e nt“ c onc l ude d” on J ul y 5, 1996; the ba nk f r aud o f f e n s e in C o u n t T w o “c o n c lu d e d ” o n M a y 1 5 , 1 9 9 7 ; a n d th e b a n kf r au d o f f e n s e in C ountT hr e e “ c onc l ude d” on J une 18, 1997. O n A ug ust13 , 20 04 , the D epartm entof H om el and S ec uri ty ( “ D H S ”) i ss ued aN o tic e to A p p e a r , c h a r g in g H y a c in th e w ith r e m o v ab ility u n d e r8 U .S .C . § 12 27 (a )( 2)(A )( i i ), as an al i en w ho com m i tt ed tw o o r m ore c ri m es i nv ol vi ng m oral tu rp itu d e th a t d id n o t a r is e o u t o f as in g le s c h e m e o f

c r im in a l m is c o n d u c t. 1 B. A ug us t 3 1 , 2 0 0 4 he a r i ng3

O n A ug ust31 , 20 04 , H ya ci nthe, re pres ent ed by att orney L andy, appeare d be f or e the I J . A ttha tt i m e , thr ough M r . L a ndy , H y a c i nthe a dm i tt e d the a l l e ga t i ons i n the N ot i c e t o A ppe a r , i nc l udi ng tha the ha d be e n c onvi c t e d of thr e e c ount s of bank fr aud, and con ce ded rem ov abi l i ty. A tM r. L andy’ s r equest , the IJexpl ai ned t o H y a c i nthe tha thi s ba nk f r aud c onvi c t i ons di d nota r i s e outof as i ngl e s c he m e of c r i m i na l m i s c onduc tbe c aus e the y w e r e “ s e pa r a t e i nc i de nt s , ” a nd w hi l e H y a c i nthe

“ ha d the c ha nc e t o c ha nge [ hi s ] m i nd a ta ny t i m e a nd s t op, ” he “ di d not , ” a nd in s te a d “c o m m itte d aw h o le s e p a r a te o f f e n s e .” T h e I J s ta te d th a t “[ a ] s in g le sch em e i s . . . o n e i n w h i ch yo u co m m i to n e o ffen se l i k e i f yo u g o i n an d yo u p ass a b ad ch ec k . T h er e’s f

o rg er y f o r w riti n g so m eb o d y’s n am e o n it. . . . T h er e’s gr a nd the f

tw he n y ou r e c e i ve the m one y . T ha t ’ s one s c he m e . ” H y a c i nthe r e s p o n d e d th a t h e u n d e r s to o d . A l so atthe A ug ust31 , 20 04 hear i ng , M r. L andy st at ed thatH ya ci nthe w as

“ of the opi ni on tha tthe s e c r i m e s don’ ta r i s e outof as i ngl e s c he m e . ” M r . L a ndy expl ai ned h i s bel i ef

thati f H ya ci nthe’ s c ri m es di d ari se ou tof a s i ng l e s chem e, H y a c in th e w o u ld b e r e m o v ab le in a n y e v e n t u n d e r8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 7 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( A ) ( iii) f orha vi ng c om m i tt e d a n a ggr a va t e d f e l ony ( a s oppos e d t o § 1227( a ) ( 2) ( A ) ( i i ) f or tw o o r m ore c ri m es of m oral turpi tud e notar i si ng ou tof a s i ng l e s chem e) . M r. L andy expl ai ned thati f H ya ci nthe w er e r em ov abl e und er§ 1 22 7(a) (2)( A )( i i i ), that

“ w oul d notbe good, ” be c aus e the n “ [ h] e w oul dn’ tha ve apol i t i c a l a s y l umHyacinthe had filed an a pplication for political asy lum in June 2004. 2 The IJadvised Hyacinthe that he was “not eligible f or a bo n d ” un d er 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), 3 which provides that an alien who is removable pur suant to § 1227(a) (2)(A)(ii) ma y not be re lease d on bond unless the alien’ s relea se is a nec essar y part of a witness protec tion plan. See 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) ; 18 U.S.C. § 3521. 4 appl i c a t i on. ” T he A ugus t31, 2004 he a r i ng c onc l ude d w i th the I J s e tt i ng

2 H y a c i nthe ’ s a s y l um appl i c a t i on f orahe ar i ng a nd de ny i ng H y a c i nthe abond. 3 C . O c t o be r 2 6 , 2 0 0 4 he a r i ng O n O c to b e r2 6 , 2 0 0 4 , H y a c in th e , r e p r e s e n te d b y M r . L a n d y , ap p e a r e d a g a in b efo re th e IJ. H yaci n th e, th ro u g h M r. L an d y, st at ed th ath e w i sh ed t o “ st an d b y” h i s “ p rev i o u s ad m i ssi o n s, co n cessi o n s, an d ack n o w l ed g m en t s” m ad e atth e A u g u st 3 1 , 2 0 0 4 h e a r in g . T h e I J a s k e d H y a c in th e if h e w a s “g o in g to g o f

o rw a r d ” w ith h is a s y lu m ap p lic a tio n . H y a c in th e , th r o u g h M r . L a n d y , r e s p o n d e d th a t h e w is h e d to

“ w i thd ra w [H ya ci nthe’ s] appl i ca t i on for a sy l um and . . . re qu es tvo l un t ary d e p a r tu r e a s r e lie f

f r o m r e m o v a l.” T h e I J s tated th at b ef

o re h e c o u ldac ce p t th e w ith d ra w al o f H ya cin th e’s a s y l um appl i c a t i on, he ha d t o m a ke s ur e tha tthe de c i s i on w a s “ vol unt a r i l y [ a nd] in te llig e n tly m a d e ” b y H y a c in th e . T h e I J p o s e d s e v e r a l q u e s tio n s d ir e c tly to H yaci n th e, ask i n g , i n t er al i a, w h eth er h e h adan o p p o rtu n i ty t o d i scu ss h i s case w i th M r. L andy; w hether hi s dec i si on w as vo l un t ary; w hether hi s dec i si on w as uni nf l ue nc e d by pr om i s e s , thr e a t s , orothe ri m pr opr i e t i e s ; w he the rhe unde r s t oodOn October 27, 2004, Hyacinthe f iled a complaint ag ainst Mr. L andy with the police. 4 5 thathe w as w i thd ra w i ng hi s app l i ca t i on w i th p re j ud i ce ; and w hether he w as

“ sa t i sf i ed w i th the re pres ent at i on gi ven” by M r. L andy. H ya ci nthe re spon ded a f f irm a tiv e ly to e a c h q u e s tio n . T h e I J a ls o e x p la in e d to H y a c in th e th a t a w i thdr a w a l w i th pr e

j udi c e m e a nttha the c oul d not“ r e a s s e r t ” hi s c l a i m a nd tha the

“ w ou l d h ave t o d epartthe U ni t ed S t at es . ” H ya ci nthe al so agre ed thathe w as subj ec t i ng hi m se l f t o a “ fi nal order. ” H ya ci nthe express ed hi s und er st andi ng thati f he “ w ant ed t o con t es tanythi ng that happ ened” i n frontof the IJ , he w ou l d n othave that“ op po rtun i ty. ” T he IJthen e nt e r e d hi s f

i na l r e m ova l or de r , w hi c h gr a nt e d H y a c i nthe ’ s “ s ol e f orm of [ r e q u e s te d ] r e lie f

”

— 1 2 0 d a y s to v o lu n ta r ily d e p a r t. D . H y a ci n th e’s p ro se a p p ea lto th e B IA O n N ove m be r23, 2004, H y a c i nthe f i l e d apr o s e not i c e of

appe a l w i th the B I A , i n w hi c h he c ont e nde d tha the ha d a c qui r e d “ ne w e vi de nc e ” tha tM r . L a ndy w a s “in e f

f e c tiv e , m a lic io u s , a n d [ p e rh ap s ] e v e n . . . p s y c h o lo g ic a lly u n f it to prac t i ce l aw . ” T here af t er , H ya ci nthe fi l ed a pro se “ M ot i on t o Inv al i dat e W ai ver 4 of A ppe a l ” w i th the B I A , a s w e l l a s am e r i t s appe a l br i e f a r gui ng tha thi s due pr oc e s s r i ght s ha d be e n vi ol a t e d. T he e s s e nc e of H y a c i nthe ’ s f

i l i ngs be f

or e the B I A w a s tha tM r . L a ndy c ons pi r e d w i th the I J t o tr i c k H y a c i nthe i nt o w i thdr a w i ng hi s a s y l um appl i c a t i on, a nd tha tH y a c i nthe ’ s unde r l y i ng ba nk f r aud c onvi c t i onsWhen th e B IA issue s a de c isi on , we review only that de c isi on , “ e xcept to t hee xtent th at it 5 expre s s l y ad o p t s the IJ ’s opinion.” Al Najjar v. Ashcrof

t, 257 F.3d 1262, 1284 (11th Cir. 2001). “Insofar as the [BIA] adopts the IJ ’s re asoning , we will review the IJ ’s dec ision as w ell.” Id. Other 6 w e r e p a r t o f

as in g le s c h e m e , m a k in g d e p o r ta tio n u n d e r§ 1 2 2 7 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( A ) ( ii) in ap p r o p r ia te . O n F e brua ry 15, 2006, the B I A a dopt e d a nd a f f i rm e d the I J ’ s de c i s i on, di sm i ss ed H ya ci nthe’ s app ea l , and reautho ri ze d v ol un t ary departure. T he B IA o b s e rv e d th a t H y a c in th e h a d w ith d r a w n “a ll ap p lic a tio n s f o rr e lie f a n d w a iv e d h is r i ghtt o appe a l the I m m i gr a t i on J udge ’ s de c i s i on i n e xc ha nge f ora n a gr e e d upon l e ngthy pe r i od f

orvol unt a ry de pa r tur e . ” T he B I A a ddr e s s e d H y a c i nthe ’ s c l a i m of i neff ec t i ve as si st ance of coun se l , and con cl ud ed thatH ya ci nthe fa i l ed t o sat i sf y “a n y o f th e r e q u ir e m e n ts o f

M a tte ro f

L o z a d a ,” 1 9 I . & N . D e c . 6 3 7 ( B I A 1 9 8 8 ) . E . M ot i on f

or R e c on s i d e r at i on of

B I A ’ s F e b r u ar y 15, 2006 d e c i s i on H y a c i nthe s ubs e que nt l y obt a i ne d ne w c ouns e l a nd f i l e d am ot i on f

or r e c o n s id e r a tio n o f

th e B I A ’s F e b ru a ry 1 5 d e c is io n , w h ic h th e B I A d e n ie d o n A p r il 2 4 , 2 0 0 6 . T h e B I A s ta te d th a t, d e s p ite H y a c in th e ’s a lle g a tio n s to th e c o n tr a ry , it had “ addres se d al l of [H ya ci nthe’ s] cl ai m s” i n i t s f i rs tdeci si on . T he B IA ob se rved tha tH y a c i nthe ’ s m ot i on f orr e c ons i de r a t i on s t i l l f a i l e d t o m e e tthe L oz a da re qu i re m ent s. T he B IA agai n n ot ed thatH ya ci nthe had “ w i thd ra w n al l other cl ai m s” b efo re th e IJ. H yaci n th e t i m el y fi l ed p et i t i o n s fo r rev i ew o f b o th B IA d eci si o n s. 5than its L ozada analysis, the BIA adopted theIJ ’s final order. Ac cordingly , we rev i ew the IJ ’s

decision and review theBIA’s analysis as to Hyacinthe’ s ineffe ctive assistanc e claim. To the extent that the IJ ’s or B IA’s dec ision wa s based on a leg al deter mination, our review is de novo. D-Muhumed v. U .S. Att ’y Gen., 388 F .3d 814, 817 (11th Cir. 2004); Mohammed v. Ashcrof t, 261 F.3d 1244, 1247-48 ( 11th Cir. 2001). Factual determinations arereviewed under the substantial evidencetest, and we“must aff irm the [ I J ’s o r BIA’s] decision if it is ‘supported by rea sonable, substantial, and probative evidence on therec ord consider ed as a whole.’”Al Najjar , 257 F.3d at 1283-84 (citation omitted). 7 II . E xh au st i on an d ap p ealw ai ver T h e g o v er n m en t co n ten d s th at w e lac kju risd icti o n o v erall o f H ya cin th e’s c l a i m s , e xc e pthi s i ne f

f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of

c ouns e l c l a i m , be c aus e H y a c i nthe e x p lic itly ab a n d o n e d a ll c la im s in h is h e a r in g b e f o r e th e I J an d th e r e b y f

a ile d to ex h au sth i s ad m i n i strat i v e rem ed i es b efo re th e IJ. I n o r d e rto e x h au s t a d m in is tr a tiv e r e m e d ie s , ap e titio n e rm u s t r a is e th e c la im before both the IJand the B IA , un l es s there i s aval i d “ excuse or except i on . ” S ee A m ay a- A rtun du aga v. U . S . A tt ’ y G en. , 46 3 F . 3d 12 47 , 12 51 (11th C i r. 20 06 ); se e al so G al i nd o-D el V al l e v. U . S . A tt ’ y G en. , 21 3 F . 3d 59 4, 59 9 (11 th C i r. 20 00 ), s u p e r s e d e d o n o th e rg r o u n d s b y s ta tu te a s s ta te d in B a lo g u n v . U .S . A tt’y G e n ., 425 F . 3d 1356, 1359 ( 11th C i r . 2005) , c e rt . de ni e d, 533 U . S . 949, 126 S . C t . 1920 ( 2 0 0 6 ) . B e c au s e H y a c in th e ab a n d o n e d h is c la im s b e f o r e th e I J , H y a c in th e f

a ile d to ex h au sth i s ad m i n i strat i v e rem ed i es, an d w e l ack j u ri sd i ct i o n o v er h i s cl ai m s, e x c e p t f o rh is c la im o f

in e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f

c o u n s e l. S e e 8 U .S .C . § 1252( d) ( 1) ; s e e a l s o A m a y a - A r tundua ga , 463 F . 3d a t1250. Fu r th e rmo r e , H y a c i n th e ’ s ap p e a l w a i v e rb e f o r e th e I J b a rr e d h i s c l a i ms8

before the B IA , m aki ng them un exhaust ed before thi s C ou rtfor thi s a dd i t i on al r e a s on. A s the gove rnm e nta r gue s , the B I A pr ope r l y c onc l ude d tha tH y a c i nthe w a iv e d h is r ig h t to ap p e a l h is r e m o v a l o r d e rin e x c h a n g e f o r1 2 0 d a y s to vo l un t ar i l y depart . U nd erB IA prec edent , a val i d app ea l w ai ver before the IJt akes a w a y the B I A ’ s j ur i s di c t i on. S e e I n r e R odr i gue z - D i a z , 22 I . & N . D e c . 1320, 1322 ( B I A 2000) ; M a tt e rof S hi h, 20 I . & N . D e c . 697, 699 ( B I A 1993) ; s e e a l s o 8 C . F . R . § 1003. 1( d) ( 2) ( i ) ( G ) . “ W he ne ve rthe r i ghtt o appe a l i s w a i ve d, the de c i s i on of the [ I J ] be c om e s f

i na l a nd m a y be i m pl e m e nt e d i m m e di a t e l y . . . . B y w a i vi ng appeal , an al i en re l i nq ui shes the op po rtun i ty t o o bt ai n revi ew of the [I J’ s] rul i ng . ” R od ri gu ez -D i az , 22 I. & N . D ec . at13 22 . T he B IA w i l l up ho l d app ea l w ai vers that ar e kno w i ng l y and i nt el l i gent l y m ade. S ee i d. ; se e a l so U ni t ed S t at es v. M endo za L o p ez , 4 8 1 U .S . 8 2 8 , 8 4 0 , 1 0 7 S . C t. 2 1 4 8 , 2 1 5 6 (1 9 8 7 ) ( in d icatin g th at alien ’s w a i ve rof

appe a l of

ade por t a t i on or de ri s i nva l i d unl e s s i ti s “ c ons i de r e d [ a nd] i nt el l i gent ”) . H e r e , th e B I A ’s d e te rm in a tio n th a t H y a c in th e w a iv e d h is r ig h t to ap p e a l h is re m ov al order i s s up po rt ed by the re cord. F or exam pl e, the IJspec i fi ca l l y a sked H yaci n th e i f h e u n d erst o o d th ath e w o u l d n o th av e th e “ o p p o rtu n i ty” t o co n t est anythi ng thathapp ened before the IJ . T he IJal so as ked H ya ci nthe and h i s c ou nsel i f the y w e r e pr e pa r e d t o a c c e ptthe de c i s i on a s “ f i na l . ” H y a c i nthe i ndi c a t e d tha the u n d er sto o d . H ya cin th e a lso ag re ed , w ith h is atto rn ey , th at h e w o u ldac ce p t th e I J’sThe B IA’s proc edureg enerally require s an alien challenging the validity of an appeal waiver 6 to f ilea motion with t heIJ. Shih , 2 0 I . &N. De c . at 69 9. Although Hya c int hefi le d a motion to invalidate his appe al waiver bef ore theBIA, he did not file the require d motion bef ore the IJ . 9 o r d e ra s f

in a l. A c c o r d in g to th e B I A , “[ a ]s k in g th e p a r tie s w h e th e rth e y a c c e p t a d eci si o n as ‘ fi n al ’ i s a sh o rth an d ex p ressi o n co m m o n l y u sed ” b y IJs, an d “ [t ] h o se w ho unde r s t a nd the m e a ni ng of thi s s hor tha nd e xpr e s s i on, s uc h a s a l i e ns r e p r e s e n te d b y a tto rn e y s . . . m a y e f f e c tiv e ly w a iv e ap p e a l in r e s p o n s e to th is s i m pl e que s t i on. ” R odr i gue z - D i a z , 22 I . & N . D e c . a t1322. 6 M o r e o v e r , w e a g r e e w ith th e B I A th a t H y a c in th e c a n n o t a v o id h is f a ilu r e to exhaustor i nv al i dat e hi s app ea l w ai ver throu gh hi s c l ai m thatM r. L andy prov i ded hi m i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of

c ouns e l , be c aus e H y a c i nthe f a i l e d t o c om pl y w i th the p r o c e d u r a l r e q u ir e m e n ts f o ra s s e r tin g ac la im o f

in e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e . A pe t i t i one ra tt e m pt i ng t o “ ‘ r e ope n orr e c ons i de rba s e d upon ac l a i m of i ne f f e c t i ve a s s is ta n c e o f

c o u n s e l’” m u s t a t le a s t “s u b s ta n tia lly ” c o m p ly w ith th e r e q u ir e m e n ts of L oz a da . S e e D a ka ne v. U . S . A tt ’ y G e n. , 399 F . 3d 1269, 1274 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( quot i ng L oz a da , 19 I . & N . D e c . a t639) ; s e e a l s o G ba y av. U . S . A tt ’ y G e n. , 342 F . 3d 12 19 , 12 22 (11th C i r. 20 03 ). L ozada re qu i re s thata pet i t i on er : (1) provi de an a f f i da vi tde t a i l i ng the a gr e e m e nte nt e r e d i nt o w i th c ouns e l a nd a ny r e pr e s e nt a t i ons c ouns e l di d ordi d notm a ke r e ga r di ng the a gr e e m e nt ; ( 2) i nf orm c ouns e l of

the a l l e ga t i on of

i ne f f e c t i ve ne s s a nd pr ovi de c ouns e l a n oppor tuni ty t o r e s pond; a nd (3) e st abl i sh thata c om pl ai nthas bee n fi l ed w i th the approp ri at e di sc i pl i nary10

author i t i e s r e ga r di ng a ny e thi c a l orl e ga l vi ol a t i ons c om m i tt e d by c ouns e l , ori f no s u c h c o m p la in t h a s b e e n f ile d , e x p la in w h y . D a k a n e , 3 9 9 F .3 d a t 1 2 7 4 . I n hi s i ni t i a l appe a l t o the B I A , H y a c i nthe di d notc om pl y w i th a ny of the thr e e L oz a dar e qui r e m e nt s . I nde e d, e ve n H y a c i nthe ’ s m ot i on f orr e c ons i de r a t i on di d n otsubst ant i al l y c om pl y w i th the thi rd L ozada re qu i re m ent , because he f ai l ed to f ile ac o m p la in t ab o u t M r . L a n d y w ith th e ap p r o p r ia te s ta te b a rau th o r itie s . S e e G b a y a , 3 4 2 F .3 d a t 1 2 2 1 - 2 2 & n .2 ( o b s e rv in g th a t f ilin g o f ac o m p la in t w ith the approp ri at e s t at e bardi sc i pl i naryautho ri t i es m i gh tsa t i sf y the thi rd L oz a dar e qui r e m e nt ) . A c c or di ngl y , H y a c i nthe c a nnote s t abl i s h i ne f f e c t i ve as si st ance of coun se l or avoi d the exhaust i on re qu i re m entor i nv al i dat e hi s app ea l w a iv e rb y v ir tu e o f

h is in e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e c la im . III . H y aci n th e’ s r em ov al ord er A l t ern at i v el y, ev en i f H yaci n th e d i d n o tv al i d l y w ai v e h i s ap p eal ri g h t s, H y a c in th e ’s p e titio n s f

a il o n th e m e r its . U nd er8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2(a) (2)( C ), w e l ac k j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew a f i nal order of re m ov al i f the al i en i s deport abl e f or a c ri m i nal conv i ct i on un der § 1 2 2 7 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( A ) ( ii) . 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( C ) ; C a m a c h o - S a lin a s v . U .S . A tt’y G e n ., 4 6 0 F .3 d 1 3 4 3 , 1 3 4 6 - 4 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) . N e v e r th e le s s , b e c au s e ju d ic ia l r e v ie w is l i m i t ed by st atut ory c on di t i on s, w e r et ai n j uri sdi ct i on t o d et erm i ne w hether ju r is d ic tio n e x is ts . S o s a - M a r tin e z v . U .S . A tt’y G e n ., 4 2 0 F .3 d 1 3 3 8 , 1 3 4 0 ( 1 1 thWe lack jurisdiction over Hyacinthe’ s claim that the IJ denied him due proce ss in “failing 7 to adequately

consider” whether Hyacinthe was entitled to pre- trial bond. “No c ourt may set aside any action or de cision by the Attorney General . . . re g ardingthe detention or relea se of a ny alien or the grant, revocation, or denial of bond or parole .” 8 U.S.C. § 1226(e) . Acc ording ly , we c annot reach Hyacinthe’ s claims reg ardingthe IJ ’s denial of bond. 11 C i r. 2 0 0 5 ). A cco rd i n g l y, as t o H yaci n th e’ s fi n al rem o v al o rd er, w e m ay ad d ress w he the rH y a c i nthe i s “ ( 1) a n a l i e n; ( 2) w ho i s r e m ovabl e ; ( 3) ba s e d on ha vi ng c om m i tt e d adi s qua l i f

y i ng of f e ns e , ” i f s uc h m a tt e r s a r e i n di s put e . C a m a c hoS a l i na s , 460 F . 3d a t1346 ( quot a t i on m a rks a nd c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . I n a ddi t i on,

“ f ol l ow i ng the pa s s a ge of the R E A L I D A c tof

2005 a nd de s pi t e othe rpr ovi s i ons w hi ch ‘ l i m i t [] or el i m i nat e[ ] j ud i ci al re vi ew , ’ w e r et ai n j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew ‘c o n s titu tio n a l c la im s o rq u e s tio n s o f la w .’” I d . a t 1 3 4 7 ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) .

7 H y a c i nthe ’ s m a i n m e r i t s a r gum e nti s tha thi s c onvi c t i ons a r e notqua l i f y i ng offe nses un der § 12 27 (a )( 2)(A )( i i ). S peci fi ca l l y, H ya ci nthe as se rt s thathi s three bank fr aud con vi ct i on s arose ou tof a s i ng l e s chem e of c ri m i nal m i sc on du ct , so that h e is n o t r e m o v ab le u n d e r§ 1 2 2 7 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( A ) ( ii) . W e d is a g r e e f o rs e v e r a l r e a s o n s . Fi r s t , th e BI A h a s d e t e rmi n e d th a ttw o o f f e n s e s a r e n o tp a r to f

as i n g l e s c h e me w he n the y a r e s e pa r a t e a nd di s t i nc tc r i m e s a nd ne i the rof f e ns e c aus e s ( or const i tut es ) the other. S ee M att erof A det i ba, 20 I. & N . D ec . 50 6, 50 6 (B IA 1 9 9 2 ) . A t le a s t f

iv e o th e rc ir c u its h a v e c o n c lu d e d th a t th e B I A ’s ap p r o a c h is r e a s onabl e . S e e , e . g. , A bde l qa da rv. G onz a l e s , 413 F . 3d 668, 675 ( 7th C i r . 2005) ( obs e rvi ng tha tthe B I A “ w oul d tr e a tas e r i e s of s e c ur i t i e s f

r auds by abr oke rw ho12

fi nd s anew ‘ m ark’ dai l y a s di st i nctoffe nses ra ther than aspect s of asi ng l e s chem e, be c aus e the br oke rc oul d s t op a f t e ra ny of

the f r auds , ” a nd c i t i ng pr e c e de ntf r om other c i rc ui t s) . H e r e , a s de t a i l e d i n the j udgm e nt , H y a c i nthe c om m i tt e d one ba nk f r aud of f e ns e tha t“ c onc l ude d” i n J ul y 1996 a nd tw o othe r s tha t“ c onc l ude d” i n M a y a nd J une 1997, r e s pe c t i ve l y . H y a c i nthe c oul d ha ve “ s t oppe d” a f t e rhi s J ul y 1996 f

r aud, b u th e d i d n o t , an d acco rd i n g l y, th e IJ’ s d et erm i n at i o n th atth e cri m es d i d n o tari se o u t o f as in g le s c h e m e w a s n o t u n r e a s o n ab le . S e e A b d e lq a d a r , 4 1 3 F .3 d a t 6 7 5 . S eco n d l y, atH yaci n th e’ s A u g u st3 1 , 2 0 0 4 ap p earan ce b efo re th e IJ, H ya ci nthe, throu gh coun se l , st at ed thathe w as “ of the op i ni on thatthese cr i m es do n’ tar i se ou tof a s i ng l e s chem e, ” bec ause “ i f they di dn ’ t , he’ d h ave a n a g g [ r a v a te d ] f

e lo n y ” th a t w o u ld r e n d e rh im r e m o v ab le u n d e r§ 1 2 2 7 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( a ) ( iii) . H y a c in th e c a n n o t n o w h a v e it b o th w a y s . H ya ci nthe’ s f

i nal m er i t s argum enti s that , for var i ou s r ea sons, he w as i m prop er l y deni ed a f

ul l and fai r hea ri ng un der the du e proces s c l ause . H ow ever , H ya ci nthe w as no tdeni ed du e proces s by the IJ , because H ya ci nthe i n fac tre ce i ved ah e a r in g a t w h ic h h e c h o s e to c o n c e d e th e a lle g a tio n s in th e N o tic e to A p p e a r . M or e ove r , de s pi t e H y a c i nthe ’ s c ont e nt i on t o the c ontr a ry , he w a s note nt i t l e d t o a ful l B IA op i ni on addres si ng every poi ntra i se d i n h i s app ea l fr om the IJ ’ s f i nal order. S ee L on ye m v. U . S . A tt ’ y G en. , 35 2 F . 3d 13 38 , 13 42 (11th C i r. 20 03 ) ( B IA13

is f r e e to a d o p t I J ’s o r d e ra n d to a f f irm w ith o u t o p in io n ) . F o r al l o f th e fo reg o i n g reaso n s, w e d en y H yaci n th e’ s p et i t i o n s. P E T I T I O N S D E N I E D .