N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
RENE ALB ER TO HER

RERAC ASTANOLA, AKA R e ne Albe rto He rre ra , Pe titione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 12-72798 Age n c y No. A030-562-653
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Argue d and Subm i tte d Nove m

be r 20, 2015 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : M . SM ITH a

nd N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s a nd SC HEINDLIN, ** Se nior Distric t Judge
. R e ne Albe rto He rre ra -C a sta nola , native and c itiz e n of M e x ic o, pe titions for
re vie w of the de c ision by the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls (“ B IA” ) dism i ssing



# FIL ED MAR 15 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The Honora

ble Shira Ann Sc he i ndlin, Se nior Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of Ne w York, sitting by

de s igna tion.his a

ppe a l from

an im m igrat ion judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) de c ision finding him re m ova ble
. 1 He rre ra -C a sta

nola a sse rts tha

t the IJ a nd the B IA e rre d in de te rm ining tha t (1) the y la c ke d a uthority to a pply the doc trine of e quita

ble e stoppe l, a

nd (2) the doc trine of
re s judic ata

should not be a

pplie d in the se re m ova l proc e e dings. W e hav e jurisdic tion to re v ie w fina l orde rs of re m ova l a n d que stions of la

w unde r 8 U.S.C
. § 1252. W e de ny the pe tition for re v ie w. 1. Only

Artic le III c o urts ha

ve the a uthority to a pply the doc trine of e quita

ble
e stoppe l a ga inst thegove rnm e n t. Se e C hang v . Unite d State

s , 327 F.3d 911, 924 (9th C ir. 2003) (noting tha t e q uita ble re l ie f “ lie [s] outsidethe sc ope and jurisdic tion of the[IJs] and the B IA” ). Thus, ne ithe r the IJ nor the B IA ha d the
a uthority to a pply the doc trine of e quita ble e stoppe l. Se e id
. 2. Apply ing de novo re vie w, we c onc lude tha t the doc trine of re s judic ata is not
a ppropria te in this c a se . Se e C

lark v . Be ar Ste arns & C

o. Inc
. , 966 F.2d 1318, 1320 (9th C ir. 1992). He rre ra -C a sta nola argue s tha

t the De pa

rtm e nt of Hom e la

n d Se c urity (“ D HS” ) is prohibite d unde r the doc trine of re s judic ata from pursuing this re m ova l a c tion be c a

use (A) the M ay 2004 distric t c ourt orde r pre c lude d DHS from a sse rting he is a

n a lie n, a n d (B ) the re insta

te m e n t of the c ha

rge s a ga inst

1 He rre ra -C a sta

nola doe s not c ha lle nge the B IA’ s c onc lusion tha t he is re m ova ble ba se d on his a ggravate d fe lony c onvic tions. Thus, tha

t issueis wa ive d. Martine z -Se rrano v . IN

S , 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th C ir. 1996).

2Pe titione r viola te d our holding in Brav o-Pe droza v
. Gonzale s , 475 F.3d 1358 (9th C ir. 2007). W e disa gre e . A. Eve n though the

e le m e nts of re s judic ata are m e t in this ac tion, the re are e xc e ptions to the

a pplic at ion of this gen e ra l rule
. Se e Unite d State s v . Me z a-Soria , 935 F.2d 166, 169 (9th C ir. 1991). TheR e s tate m e nt (Se c ond) of Judgm e nts provide s tha

t “ re litiga tion of [a n ] issue in a

subse que nt a c tion be twe e n the p artie s is not pre c lude d” whe n “ [t] he re is a c le a r a nd c onvinc ing ne e d for a

ne w de te rm i nation of theissue . . . be c a use of the pote n tia l a dve rse im pa c t of the de te rm i nation on the

public inte re st . . . .”R e sta te m e n t (Se c ond) of Judgm e nts § 28(5)(a ) (1982). In this c a se , we c onc lude tha t a pply ing the distric t c ourt’ s M ay 2004 de c ision—

that the gove rnm e nt wa s e stoppe d from arguing tha

t He rre ra -C a sta

nola
wa s a n a lie n— in this re m ova l a c tion would be c o ntra ry to the inte n t of C ongre ss. He rre ra -C a sta

nola ha s a le ngthy c rim ina l history

for whic h

he wa s le ga lly

re m ove d from the Unite d State s in August 1999. Ne ve rthe le ss, he late r re e n te re d the Unite d Stat e s without be ing a dm itte d or pa role d a nd, a fte r the distric t c ourt’ s M ay 2004 de c ision, hewa s c onvic te d a nd se nte nc e d on two se

p ara te c rim e s. W e c annot c ondone He rre ra -C a sta

nola ’ s re c e nt a

nd re pe ate d c rim ina l c onduc t. In light of the s e c irc um sta

nc e s, we c onc lude tha

t the gove rnm e nt m isc onduc t found by the 3distric t c o urt doe s not outwe igh C ongre ss’ s m andate to re m ove a l ie ns with se rious

c rim ina l historie s. Se e

, e .g. , R e a l ID Ac t Pub. L. 109-13, § 106, 119 Sta t. 302, 310 (2005); Antiterrorism

and Effe c tive De ath Pe na lty Ac t of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104–132, §§ 423, 440, 442, 110 Sta t. 1214, 1272, 1276–80; Illega l Im m igration R e form and Im m igra nt R e sponsibility

Ac t of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104–208, § 321, 110 Sta t. 3009–627; se e also Pondoc He rnae z v . IN S , 244 F.3d 752, 757 (9th C ir. 2001) (noting tha

t in e na c t ing the Ille ga l Im m i gration R e form

and R e sponsibility Ac t, “ C ongre ss wa s obviously c onc e rne d with spe e ding up thede porta tion of
c rim ina l a lie ns” ). Apply ing re s judic ata in this c a se would frustra te C ongre ss’ s inte nt a nd c re ate an “ a dve rse im

pa c t of the de te rm ination on the public inte re st.” R e sta te m e nt (Se c ond) of Judgm e nts § 28(5)(a). The re fore , we de c line to a pply re s judic ata to the distric t c ourt’ s M ay 2004 de c ision in the

c onte xt of this re m ova l proc e e ding. B
. W e a l so re

je c t He rre ra -C a sta

n ola ’ s re s judic ata

c la i m unde r Brav o-Pe droza
. Brav o-Pe droza is distinguisha ble from this c a se . In tha

t c a se , DHS atte m

pte d to usec onvic tions a

va ila ble to it during the initia l proc e e dings (whic h fa ile d) to initia

te ne wre m ova l proc e e dings. 475 F.3d a t 1359-60. W e he ld that DHS wa s ba

rre d by re s judic ata

from “ initia ting a se c ond de porta

t ion c a se on the b a sis of a

c ha rge tha t [it] c ould ha

ve brought in the first c a se , whe n, due to a 4c ha

nge of la wtha t oc c urre d during thec o urse of the first c a se , [it] lost thefirst
c a se .” Id. at 1358. He re , the gove rnm e nt did not lose its first re m ova l proc e e ding. Nothing in Brav o -Pe droza sugge sts tha t re s judic ata

a pplie s to re insta

te m e n t of the
sam e c ha rge s following a

n initial (suc c e ssful) re m ova l
. 2 Thus, Brav o-Pe droza is ina p plic a ble he re . PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

2 Nor doe s Brav o-Pe d

roza sugge st tha

t DHS would ha

ve be e n pre c l ude d from bringing re m ova l proc e e dings ba se d on offe nse s c om m itte d afte r

the initia l re m ova l. 5