T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T K EN N ETH M I CH A EL M Y ERS, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 07- 72858 A ge nc yN o. A 030- 772- 080 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls A r gue d and S ubm i tt e d O c t obe r4, 2010

P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: P R E G E R S O N , D . W . N E L S O N an dIK U T A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. T he B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ s ( “ B IA ”) deni alof K enneth M i chae l M ye rs ’ s ( “ M ye rs ”) re qu es tt o t erm i nat e hi s r em ov alproceedi ng s w as no tan error, b e c au s e th e A p r il 2 6 , 2 0 0 4 le tte rf r o m th e D e p artm e n t o f

H o m e lan dS e c u r ity ( “ D H S” ) d i dn o tc o n s t i tu t e a n a f f i rma t i v e c o mmu n i c a t i o n th a tM y e r s h a dp r i ma



# FI LED OC T 08 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

f a c i e e l i gi bi l i tyt o na tur a l i z e . I nde e d, D H S l a c ke d the pow e rt o i s s ue s uc h a c o m m u n ic a tio n b e c au s e M y e r s w a s th e n in r e m o v a l p r o c e e d in g s . 8 U .S .C . § 1 4 2 9 . C on traryt o M ye rs ’ s a ss ert i on s, the re gu l at i on s gov erni ng t erm i nat i on of re m ov al do no tcr eat e aC at ch-22 si tuat i on for a l i ens s ee ki ng t o n atural i ze w hi l e i n rem ov al pr oc e e di ngs ; r athe r , a n a l i e n m us tobt a i n the r e qui s i t e “ a f f i rm a t i ve c o mmu n i c a t i o n ” f

r o m th e D H S “

p r io rto , and o ut si de, the [r em ov al ] proceedi ng s. ” H erna ndezde A nder

son v. G on zales , 4 9 7 F .3 d9 2 7 , 9 3 4 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ) . M y e r s di d notde m ons tr a t e r e l i anc e on the now - r e pe a l e d § 212( c ) of the Im m i grat i on and N at i on al i ty A ct , 8 U . S . C . § 1 18 2(c) , w hen h e r ej ec t ed a pl ea agre em entand el ec t ed a j ury tri al , and there fore he i s notno w ent i t l ed t o § 21 2(c) r e lie f . See IN S v. St . C yr , 5 3 3 U .S . 2 8 9 , 3 2 5

– 2 6 ( 2 0 0 1 ) ; A rm enda ri z-Mon toya v. So n c h ik , 29 1 F . 3d 11 16 , 11 21 –2 2 (9th C i r. 20 02 ). F or the sam e r ea son, M ye rs f a i l e dt o d e mo n s tr a t e r e l i an c e o n th e p r i o rv e r s i o n o f § 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 1 3 ) , 8 U . S. C. § 1 10 1(a) (13), and there fore he w as no tent i t l ed t o avo i d b ei ng deem ed in a d m is s ib le up o n h is r e e n tryin to th e c o u n try . See Cam i ns v. G on zales , 500 F . 3d 87 2, 88 4– 85 (9th C i r. 20 07 ). B e c aus e M y e r s w a s i na dm i s s i bl e and the r e f or e s t a tut or i l yi ne l i gi bl e f or § 212( c ) r e l i e f

, he c annote s t abl i s h pr e j udi c e s t e m m i ng f

r om the I J ’ s de ni a l of3

M y e r s ’ s r e que s tt o s ubm i te vi de nc e r e gar di ng the e qui t i e s of hi s c a s e ; thus , hi s due p r o c e s s r ig h ts w e r e n o t v io la te d . See Ibarra-Flores v. G on zales , 439 F . 3d 614, 6 2 0

– 2 1 (9 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). F in ally, b ec au se th er e is ara ti o n al b as is fo r C o n g re ss ’s d i st i n ct i o n b etw een al i en s w h o so u g h t§ 2 1 2 (c) reli ef p ri o r t o i t s rep eal an dth o se w h o d ids o a f

te r , M y e r s c an n o t d e m o n s tr a te a n e q u a l p r o te c tio n v io la tio n . See de M a r tin ezv . A s h c r o

ft , 37 4 F . 3d 75 9, 76 4 (9th C i r. 20 04 ). P E T I T I ON DE NI E D.