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 Third C irc uit 11-17-2006 

# Curi 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 . 05-2563

F o llow thi s and a ddit ion al works at : http://digit alc ommon s .l a w . vill anova . e du/thirdc ircuit_2006

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 by 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 ill 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 2006 D e c i sion s by an authori z e d a dmini s trat or of V ill 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 . vill anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Curi v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 183. http://di git alc ommon s .l a

w . vill anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2006/183NOT 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. 05- 2563 A R M A N D O C U R I,

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 B I A N o. A 75- 457- 978 ( U . S. I m m i gr at i on J udge: H onor abl e Esmer al da C abr er a) Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

N ovember8, 2006 B e f o re : S C IR IC A , C hi ef

Judge , M c K E E a n d S T A P L E T O N , C i r cui tJudges ( Fi l ed : N ovember17, 2006) OPI NI ON O F THE COURT S C IR IC A , C hi ef

Judge . A rm ando C ur i s eeks r evi ew of the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ’ fi nal or derof re m o v a l d a te d A p ri l 1 4 , 2 0 0 5 . W e h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n to re v ie w th e o rd e r u n d e r 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (a ). W e w ill d e n yth e p e titio n f o r r e v ie w .2 I. C ur i i s a Peruvi an ci t i zen c onferr ed condi t i onal perm anentr es i dents t atus on N ovember24, 1997, bas ed on hi s m arr i age t o a U ni t ed St at es ci t i zen. O n N ovember24, 1 9 9 9 , C u ri’s c o n d iti o n a l p e rm a n e n t re sid e n t sta tu s w a s te rm in a ted b e c a u se h e f a iled to es t abl i s h hi s m arr i age w as ent er ed i nt o i n good fai th. O n M ar ch 7, 2000, the I m m i gr at i on and N atur al i zat i on Servi ce i s s ued a not i ce t o appea r , char gi ng C ur i w i th r emoval for h a v in g h is p e rm a n e n t r e s id e n t s ta tu s te rm in a te d . C u ri ap p li ed fo r reli ef

fro m rem o v al i n the f

o rm o f c an ce ll ati o n o f re m o v al, o r, al t ernat i vel y , vol unt arydepartur e. O n A ugus t17, 2001, an I m m i gr at i on J udge deni ed C u ri ’s ap p li ca ti o n fo r ca n ce ll ati o n o f re m o v al an d g ran ted C u ri ’s m o ti o n fo r vo lun tary d e p a rtu re . T h e g ra n t o f v o lu n tar yd e p a rtu re re q u ire d C u ri to p o st a b o n d o f $ 2 0 0 0 a n d to d ep art on o r be fo re S ep tem b er 1 7 , 2 0 0 1 , w ith an alt ern ate o rde r of rem o v al t o P eru . C u ri di d notappea l the I J ’ s deci s i on. O n N ovember15, 2001, C ur i s ubm i t t ed a mot i on t o r eopen hi s r emoval pr ocee di ngs bas ed on new evi dence . A s econd I J gr ant ed the mot i on t o r eopen on J anuary30, 2002. B utaft era mer i t s hear i ng and a mot i on fr om the I N S, the I J vaca t ed the J anuary30, 2002 deci s i on, fi ndi ng C ur i s t atut or i l yi nel i gi bl e forcanc el l at i on of rem o v al. T h e IJ rein stat ed the A u g u st 17 , 2 0 0 1 o rde r. C ur i appea l ed t o the B I A . T he B I A found C ur i had over s t ay ed hi s gr antof vol unt arydepartur e af

t erhavi ng r ece i ved appr opr i at e w arni ngs . A ccor di ngl y , C ur i w as3

statu tori lyineligible f

o r ca n ce ll ati o n o f re m o v al un d er 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 2 9 c(d ). T h e B IA d ism iss e d th e a p p e a l. I I . W e mustuphol d the B I A ’ s fac tual fi ndi ngs i f theyar e “s upport ed byr eas onabl e, s ubs t ant i al , and pr obat i ve evi dence on the r ecor d cons i der ed as a w hol e. ” I N S v. E l i as - Zacar i as , 5 0 2 U. S . 4 7 8 , 4 8 1 ( 1 9 9 2 ) . We r e v i e w th e BI A’ s c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w de novo , w ith a p p ro p ria te d e f e re n c e to th e a g e n c y ’s in terp re tatio n o f th e u n d e rly in g sta tu te in a c c o rd a n c e w ith a d m in is tr a tiv e la w p ri n c ip le s . W a n gv . A sh c ro

ft , 368 F. 3d 347, 349 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( ci t i ng C hevr on U. S. A . I nc. v. N atur alR es . D ef

. C ounci l , I nc. , 467 U . S. 837, 8 4 4 (19 8 4 )). U n d er § 1 2 5 2 (a)(2)(B )(i i) , w e g en era ll ylack juri sd ict ion to rev iew d iscreti o n ary d e c isio n s to d e n yc a n c e llatio n o f re m o v a l u n d e r § 1 2 2 9 b . B u t w e re tain ju risd ictio n to cons i der“cons t i tut i onal cl ai m s orques t i ons of l aw ” notw i ths t andi ng the j ur i s di ct i onal lim its o f § 1 2 5 2 (a )(2 )(B )(ii). § 1 2 5 2 (a )(2 )(D ); Mendez - R eye s v. A t t ’ y G en . , 428 F. 3d 187, 1 8 9 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). III . A fai l ur e t o vol unt ar i l ydepartthe U ni t ed St at es w i thi n the s t atut oryper i od m akes an ali en inel i gibl e for cance l l at i on of rem ov al un der § 12 29 b fo r a per i od of ten y ears : [I ] f an a l i en i s perm i t t ed t o departvol unt ar i l yunderthi s s ect i on and vol unt ar i l yfai l s t o departthe U ni t ed St at es w i thi n the t i m e per i od s peci fi ed, the al i en . . . s hal l be i nel i gi bl e, fora per i od of 10 y ear s , t o r eci eve a ny f u rt h e r r e lie f

u n d e r t h is s e c tio n a n d s e c tio n [ ] 1 2 2 9 b . . . .C ur i al s o cont ends the B I A err ed i n aff i rm i ng the dec i s i on of the I J t o denyr el i ef 1 beca us e he l acke d the nec es s arycr i t er i a of good mora l char act er , cont i nuous phy s i cal (c o n tin u e d ...) 4 § 1 2 2 9 c (d )(1 ). A s th e IJ e x p lain e d to C u ri a t h is A u g u st 1 7 , 2 0 0 1 h e a rin g , h is f a ilu re to vol unt ar i l ydepartbySept ember17, 2001, w oul d pr ecl ude hi m fr om fi l i ng for c a n c e llatio n o f

re m o v a l u n d e r § 1 2 2 9 b . D e sp ite th is w a rn in g , C u ri f iled h is p e tit io n to r eopen hi s r eques tforcanc el l at i on of r emoval bas ed on new evi dence on N ovember15, 2001. A ppl y i ng § 1229c( d) ( 1) , the I J and the B I A hel d C ur i s t atut or i l yi nel i gi bl e for c a n c e llatio n o f

re m o v a l. D e sp ite th e c lea r la n g u a g e o f § 1 2 2 9 c (d )(1 ), C u ri c o n ten d s th e B IA a n d IJ e rre d in h o ld in g h im sta tu to rilyin e lig ib le f o r c a n c e llatio n o f

re m o v a l b e c a u se o f

h is f a ilu re to vol unt ar i l ydepart , ar gui ng hi s gr antof vol unt arydepartur e w as vaca t ed byhi s nonp a ym e n t o f

a d e p a rtu re b o n d . S e c tio n 1 2 2 9 c (d )(1 ) d o e s n o t re q u ire th a t an a lien p o st a d e p a rtu re b o n d to tr ig g e r t h e b a rr in g o f c a n c e lla tio n o f

re m o v a l u n d e r § 1 2 2 9 b . M o re o v e r, t h e p ro v is io n th a t r e q u ir e s p o s tin g o f a d e p a rtu re b o n d , 8 C .F .R . § 1240. 26( c) ( 3) , does notm ent i on § 1229c( d) ( 1) ' s barof ca ncel l at i on of r emoval . Sect i on 1240. 26( c) ( 3) m er el ypr ovi des thati f a vol unt arydepartur e bond “i s notpos t ed w i thi n 5 b u sin e ss d a y s, th e v o lu n tar yd e p a rtu re o rd e r sh a ll v a c a te a u to m a tica llya n d th e a ltern a te o rd e r o f re m o v a l w ill tak e e f

f e c t o n th e f

o llo w in g d a y .” § 1 2 4 0 .2 6 (c )(3 ). B yf a ili n g to fol l ow the pr ocedur es out l i ned bythe I J forvol unt aryr emoval , C ur i does notes cape the sta tu to ryb a r to g ra n tin g c a n c e llatio n o f re m o v a l. 1( . . . cont i nued) 1 pr es ence , and exc ept i onal and unus ual har ds hi p t o a qual i fy i ng r el at i ve. W e have no j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew the di s cr et i onaryfi ndi ngs of an I J w i th r egar d t o deni al s of di s cr et i onaryr el i ef unde r§ 1229( b) . § 1252 ( a) ( 2) ( B ) ( i ) . M or eover , even i f w e dec i ded thi s i s s ue i n C ur i ’ s favor , he w oul d s t i l l be s t atut or i l ybarr ed fr om s eeki ng canc el l at i on of rem o v al. § 1 2 2 9 c(d )(1). 5 C ur i furtheras s ert s hi s Fi fth A m endmentdue pr oces s r i ght s w er e vi ol at ed. T he Fi fth A m endmentpr ovi des al i ens w i th due pr oces s pr ot ect i ons dur i ng r emoval p ro c e e d in g s . See, e. g. , X u Y o n gL u v . A sh c ro

ft , 259 F. 3d 127, 131 ( 3d C i r . 2001) . B ut C u ri ra ise s n o c o lo ra b le c laim th a t th e B IA ’s d e c isio n f a ils to g iv e h im a f

u ll an d f a ir r evi ew of the mer i t s of hi s appl i cat i on forcanc el l at i on of r emoval . T o advanc e a s ucce s s ful due pr oces s cl ai m , C ur i m us ts how the B I A abus ed i t s di s cr et i on w hi ch ca us ed h im p re ju d ic e . See, e. g. , P o n c e -L e iva v . A sh c ro ft , 3 3 1 F .3 d 3 6 9 , 3 7 4

– 7 7 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). C u ri h as n o t sat isfied th is st an d ard . M o reo v er, w e h av e p rev iou slyh eld th e B IA ’s s tr e a m lin in g re g u la tio n s d o n o t v io la te d u e p ro c e s s . D ia v . A sh c ro ft , 353 F. 3d 228, 238 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( en banc ) . A ccor di ngl y , w e fi nd no vi ol at i on of C ur i ’ s Fi fth A m endment d u e p ro c e s s ri g h ts . I V. F o rth e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , we wi l l d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.