FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT M ay 29, 2007 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ 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 o. 06- 15543 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ B I A N o. A 70- 684- 331 P E D R O A R Z A N I , 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 on f orR e vi e w of

aD e c i s i on of

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

_________________________ ( M ay 29, 2007) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B A R K E T T an dH U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

P e dr o A r z a ni pe t i t i ons f orr e vi e w of

af i na l or de rof

the B oa r d of I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ( “ B I A ” ) di s m i s s i ng A r z a ni ’ s appe a l of the de c i s i on of

the I m m ig r a tio n Ju d g e ( “I J ” ) d e n y in g A r z a n i’s ap p lic a tio n f o rc a n c e lla tio n o f

r e m o v a l. A f t e rr e v i e w , w e a f

f i rm. I . B AC KG RO UN D O n M a r c h 1 5 , 1 9 8 8 , A r z a n i, an a tiv e a n dc itiz e n o f P e ru , w a s a d m itte din to the U ni t ed S t at es as a non i m m i grantvi si t or w i th autho ri za t i on t o st ayun t i l M ay 2 1 , 1 9 8 8 . I n 1 9 9 8 , th e I m m ig r a tio n a n dN a tu r a liz a tio n S e rv ic e s e rv e dA r z a n i w ith aN ot i c e t o A ppe a r , c ha r gi ng A r z a ni w i th be i ng s ubj e c tt o r e m ova l f orha vi ng o v e r s ta y e dh is v is a . A r z a ni c onc e de d r e m ovabi l i tya nd f i l e d a n appl i c a t i on f

orc a nc e l l a t i on of re m ov al . T he A tt orney G ener alhas the di sc re t i on t o cancelthe re m ov alof an al i en w ho dem on stra t es : (1) c on t i nu ou s physi ca l pres ence i n the U ni t ed S t at es for the t en ye ar s pre ce di ng the appl i ca t i on ; (2) goo d m oralchar ac t erdu ri ng thatt en-y ear peri od ; (3) thathe has notbeen conv i ct ed of a cr i m e i nv ol vi ng m oralturpi tud e or a c o n tr o lle ds u b s ta n c e o f

f e n s e ; a n d( 4 ) e x c e p tio n a l a n de x tr e m e lyu n u s u a l h a r d s h ip t o the a l i e n’ s s pous e , pa r e ntorc hi l d, w ho i s aU ni t e d S t a t e s c i t i z e n orl a w f ul perm anentre si dent . S ee 8 U . S . C . § 1 22 9b (b)( 1)(A )- (D ). A rz ani ’ s app l i ca t i on st at ed thathi s r em ov alw ou l d con st i tut e an except i on al a nd e xtr e m e l yunus ua l ha r ds hi p t o hi s pa r e nt s . A tt a c he d t o A r z a ni ’ s appl i c a t i on3

w e r e c r i m i na l r e c or ds f

r om the S t a t e of

F l or i da . T he s e r e c or ds i ndi c a t e d, a m ong o th e rth in g s , th a t A r z a n i h a dp le dg u iltyto g r a n dth e f t in th e th ir dd e g r e e o n Ju ly 28, 1998. T he gove rnm e ntf

i l e d am ot i on t o pr e t e rm i tA r z a ni ’ s appl i c a t i on f or cancel l at i on of re m ov al . T he go vernm entar gu ed thatA rz ani ’ s grand theft c o n v ic tio n w a s ac r im e o f m o r a l tu rp itu d e th a t m a d e A r z a n i s ta tu to r ilyin e lig ib le fo r th e r eq u es tedre li ef. A ftera h ea rin g , th e I J p re term ittedan dd en iedA rz an i’ s appl i c a t i on. I n hi s or a l de c i s i on, the I Jf ound tha t , e ve n i f

A r z a ni ’ s c onvi c t i on di d not prec l ud e hi m fr om ob t ai ni ng cancel l at i on of re m ov alas a m att erof st atut ory el i gi bi l i ty, A rz ani ’ s c on vi ct i on i nd i ca t ed thathe coul d n otshow go od m oral c ha r a c t e r . T he I Ja l s o f ound tha tA r z a ni ha d f

a i l e d t o c a rryhi s bur de n of pr oof w i th r e ga r d t o a“ qua l i f

y i ng r e l a t i ve , ” gi ve n tha thi s m othe rha d notappe a r e d a tthe h e a r in g to te s tif

y . F in a lly , th e I Jf

o u n dth a t A r z a n i h a df

a ile dto s u b m it h is fi ng erpri nt s, w hi ch w er e e spec i al l y i m po rt antgi ven A rz ani ’ s c ri m i nal re cord. S ee 8 C . F . R . § 103. 2( b) ( 13) , ( e ) ( e xpl a i ni ng that , i f ape t i t i one rf

a i l s t o appe a rf

or fi ng erpri nt i ng , the pet i t i on for an i m m i grat i on benefi tw i l l be deem ed abando ned a nd w i l l be de ni e d) . T he I Jor de r e d A r z a ni r e m ove d t o P e ru. A rz ani appeal ed t o the B IA , ar gu i ng thathe had d em on stra t ed go od m oral c h a r a c te rd e s p ite h is g r a n dth e f t c o n v ic tio n . T h e B I A d is m is s e dA r z a n i’s ap p e a l,4

concl ud i ng thatA rz ani had fai l ed t o d em on stra t e goo d m oralchar ac t er . In a d d itio n , th e B I A f

o u n dth a t A r z a n i h a d“f a ile dto p u t f

o rth a n yc o g e n t a r g u m e n t to c h a lle n g e th e I m m ig r a tio n Ju d g e ’s f in d in g th a t n o e x c e p tio n a l a n de x tr e m e ly u n u s u a l h a r d s h ip to aq u a lif y in g r e la tiv e h a s b e e n s h o w n , n o rh a s [ A r z a n i] c h a lle n g e dth e f

in d in g th a t h e f

a ile dto s u b m it th e r e q u ir e df in g e rp r in t c a r d s to pr ope r l yf

i l e hi s c l a i m . ” T hus , the B I A uphe l d the de ni a l of A r z a ni ’ s appl i c a t i on fo r th ese ad d i t i o n al reaso n s. Ar z a n i f i l e dth i s p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. I I . DI S CUS S I ON O n app ea l , A rz ani ar gu es thatthe B IA erre d i n aff i rm i ng the IJ ’ s f

i nd i ng that he l a c ke d good m or a l c ha r a c t e r . H ow e ve r , e ve n a s s um i ng a r gue ndo tha tA r z a ni c o u ldp r e v a il o n th is a r g u m e n t, h e w o u ldn o t b e e n title dto r e lie f . T o be e l i gi bl e f

orc a nc e l l a t i on of

r e m ova l , A r z a ni ha d t o s a t i s f ya l l the re q u irem en ts o f 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 9 b (b )( 1 ). T h e B IA an dth e I J d en iedA rz an i’ s ap p lic a tio n f

o rc a n c e lla tio n o f

r e m o v a l n o t o n lyb e c au s e h e f a ile dto d e m o n s tr a te go od m oralchar ac t er , bu tal so because he f ai l ed t o (1) dem on stra t e thathi s m other w o u lds u f

f e ra n e x c e p tio n a l a n de x tr e m e lyu n u s u a l h a r d s h ip if h e w a s r e m o v e d , a n d( 2 ) c o m p lyw ith th e r e q u ir e m e n t to p r o v id e c u rr e n t f in g e rp r in ts . I n h is p e titio n f

o rr e v ie w , A r z a n i d o e s n o t c h a lle n g e th e s e in d e p e n d e n t, d is c r e tio n a ryb a s e s f

o rd e n y in g h is ap p lic a tio n f o rc a n c e lla tio n o f

r e m o v a l.5

F urtherm ore, even i f A rz ani had chal l enged them , w e w ou l d n othave had j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e v i e w th e s e d i s c r e t i o n a ryd e c i s i o n s . Se e 8 U . S. C. § 1 2 5 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( B) ( pr e c l udi ng j udi c i a l r e vi e w of c e rt a i n di s c r e t i ona ryde ni a l s of r e l i e f ) ; M a rt i ne z v. U .S . A tt’yG e n ., 4 4 6 F .3 d1 2 1 9 , 1 2 2 2 - 2 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) ( c o n c lu d in g th a t, b o th b e f o r e a n da f

te re n a c tm e n t o f

th e R e a l I D A c t, th is C o u rt la c k s ju r is d ic tio n to rev i ew th e B IA ’ s p u rel y d i scret i o n ary d et erm i n at i o n th atan al i en fai l edt o sat i sfy § 12 29 b(b)(1)(D )’ s “ exce pt i on aland extre m el y unu sualhardshi p” re qu i re m ent ). T o the ext entA rz ani ’ s argum entra i se s aprocedural du e proces s c l ai m base d o n th e I J ’s a lle g e df

a ilu r e to c o n s id e re v id e n c e a n ds ta te w h a t e v id e n c e s up p o rts h is d e te rm in a tio n , w e d o n o t a d d r e s s it b e c au s e A r z a n i f a ile dto e x h au s t h is adm i ni stra t i ve re m edi es by ra i si ng thi s due proces s i ss ue before the B IA , w hi ch c oul d ha ve pr ovi de d ar e m e dy . S e e A m a y a - A rtundua gav. U . S . A tt ’ yG e n. , 463 F . 3d 12 47 , 12 51 (11th C i r. 20 06 ). P E T I T I ON DE NI E D.