2008 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 Thir d C ir c uit 12-24-2008 

# Ka wa s v . Atty Ge n U SA P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-2245

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y 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 Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll 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 2008 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " K a was v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 42. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/42NOT 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. 08- 2245

___________ A BD EL K A RE EM A D N A N K A W A S, Pet i t i oner v. ATTO RN EY G ENER AL O F THE UN I TED STATES

____________________________________ 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 ( A gencyN o. A 79- 130- 693) I m m i gr at i on J udge: H onor abl e A l an V om acka

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

D ece m ber17, 2008 R E N D E L L , FU E N T E S and N Y G A A R D , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed: D ece m ber24, 2008)

___________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

___________ P E R C UR I AM A bdel K ar eem A dnan K aw as pet i t i ons forr evi ew of a f i nal or derof r emoval i s s u e d b yth e Bo a r d o f

I mm i g r a t i o n Ap p e a l s ( “ BI A” ) . F o rth e r e a s o n s th a tf o l l o w, we w ill d e n yth e p e titio n f

o r r e v ie w .

### 2 I. K aw as , a nat i ve and c i t i zen of J or dan, ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es i n 1989 as a noni m m i gr antvi s i t or . I n A pr i l 2003, he w as s erved w i th a not i ce t o appea rchar gi ng hi m as r emovabl e pur s uantt o I N A § 237( a) ( 1) ( B ) . I n r es pons e, K aw as s oughtcanc el l at i on of re m o v a l u n d e r I N A § 2 4 0 A (b ) a n d a w a iv e r o f in a d m is s ib ility u n d e r § 2 1 2 (h ). A rem o v al he aring w as sc h ed u led to take p lace o n M arc h 3 , 2 0 0 4 b ef o re Im m igrati o n Ju d g e (“ IJ”) A lan V o m ac k a in N ew ark . K aw as, ho w ev er, fail ed to ap p ea r. A s a r es ul t , I J V om acka i s s ued an or deri n abs ent i a r emovi ng hi m t o J or dan. T he U ni t ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rtfo r th e S o u thern D istri ct of N ew Y o rk su b seq u en tl yv ac ated the IJ’s or der , and the mat t erw as r emanded. U pon r emand, the I J found thatK aw as w as not e lig ib le f o r r e lie f u n d e r e ith e r § 2 4 0 A (b ) o r § 2 1 2 (h ). K a w a s th e n su b m itt e d a m o tio n to re o p e n a rg u in g th a t h e w a s e lig ib le to a d ju st h is s t atus t o thatof a l aw ful perm anentr es i dentunderI N A § 245 on the gr ound thathi s w i fe w as the bene fi ci aryof an a ppr oved empl oym ent - bas ed vi s a pet i t i on. B yor derent er ed N ovember22, 2005, the I J deni ed the mot i on t o r eopen. K aw as appea l ed. M eanw hi l e, K a w a s w a s ta k e n in to c u s to d yb yth e D e p a rt m e n t o f H o m e la n d S e c u ri ty. U pon r evi ew of the I J ’ s or derdeny i ng the mot i on t o r eopen, the B I A found that K aw as w as e n ti tl ed to a h ea ri n g o n h is cl aim fo r w aive r of inad m issi b il ityu n d er § 2 1 2 (h), and, byor derent er ed M ar ch 3, 2006, r emanded the mat t erback t o the I J . I tappea r s t hat IJ V o m ac k a the n co n d u cted sev era l evid en ti aryh ea ri n g s to tak e testi m o n yfro m K aw as’sA l though t he B I A ’ s M ar ch 3, 2006 r emand or derdi r ect ed the I J t o hol d a hea r i ng on 1 K aw as ’ s appl i cat i on fora w ai verunder§ 212( h) onl y , i tappea r s thatthe I J r econs i der ed a ll th re e o f

K a w a s ’s a p p lic a tio n s . A tthi s hear i ng, K aw as ’ s att orneyi nform ed I J V om acka thatK aw as ’ s w i fe w oul d not 2 be pr ovi di ng anyaddi t i onal t es t i m onybeca us e s he w as uncomfort abl e w i th the I J ’ s “t one” a t th e p ri o r h e a ri n g . 

### 3 fami l y . A tone s uch hea r i ng on J une 16, 2006, K aw as ’ s w i fe a ppar ent l yr evea l ed that

1 s he had ne veractual l yw or ked forthe es t abl i s hm entthathad bee n the bas i s forherl abor ce rt ifi ca ti o n in the U n it ed S tat es, w h ich, as n o ted a b o v e, w as th e b asis fo r K aw as’s appl i cat i on foradj us t m entof s t atus . A tthatt i m e, the I J adj ourned the hea r i ng s o that K aw as ’ s att orneycoul d pr ovi de pr oof of i ncome forthe fa m i l yas w el l as s ever al other s uppor t i ng document s . W hen the s ubs equenthear i ng t ook pl ace , K aw as w as notpr es ent becau se the st at e of N ew Jer seyhad t aken him i nto cust od yon cri m i nal charges. A s a r es ul t , on A ugus t4, 2006, the I J “admi ni s tr at i vel ycl os ed” the r emoval cas e unt i l K aw as co u ld ap p ea r. 2 Fourm onths l at er , on D ece m ber4, 2006, K aw as ’ s att orneycont act ed the im m igrati o n co u rtin M an h att an an d req u ested that the c ase b e re o p en ed . K aw as’s att orneyr eport ed t o the courtthatK aw as had bee n convi ct ed on the N ew J er s eycr i m i nal c h a rg e s a n d w a s w ill in g to a c c e p t re m o v a l at th a t ti m e . A n IJ in M a n h a ttan a ttem p ted to con cl ud e t he m att er, bu tK aw as then repudiat ed h i s w i l l i ng ness t o b e rem ov ed. A s a re s u lt, th e m a tte r w a s tr a n s f e rr e d b a c k to IJ V o m a c k a to b e f u lly re s o lv e d o n th e m e ri ts . O n O ct ober12, 2007, I J V om acka deni ed K aw as ’ s appl i cat i ons forcanc el l at i on ofT he D i s tr i ctC our tpr oper l yr et ai ned j ur i s di ct i on overcl ai m s r ai s ed i n the pet i t i on t hat 3 p e rt a in e d to K a w a s ’s d e te n tio n . 

### 4 re m o v a l u n d e r § 2 4 0 A (b ), ad ju stm e n t o f

sta tu s u n d e r § 2 4 5 , an d w a iv e r o f in a d m iss ib ili ty under§ 212( h) . T he I J al s o r evi ew ed K aw as ’ s compl ai nt s aboutvar i ous otheras pect s of the re m o v al pro ce ed ing s, an d fo u n d them to b e w ith o u t m erit . B yo rde r en tered F eb rua ry 2 0 , 2 0 0 8 , th e B IA d is m is s e d K a w a s ’s a p p e a l f ro m th e IJ ’s d e c is io n . O n M ar ch 20, 2008, K aw as fi l ed i n the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe D i s tr i ct o f N e w Je rse ya d o c u m e n t en tit led “ M o tio n f o r N o tice o f

E n tryo f E q u itab le E sto p p e ls/a n d o r C o n stitu tio n a l E sto p p e ls C laim .” (C iv . N o . 0 8 -1 4 5 8 .) B e c a u se th is m o ti o n ch all en g ed the B IA ’s F eb rua ry2 0 , 2 0 0 8 o rde r of rem o v al, the D istri ct C o u rt tr ans ferr ed the mat t ert o t hi s C our t . See 8 U . S. C . § 1252( a) ( 5) . W e w i l l cons true 3 K a w a s ’s m o tio n a s a p e titio n f o r r e v ie w . II. K aw as ’ s pr i m aryar gum enton appea l i s thathe w as deni ed due pr oces s beca us e he and hi s fami l yw er e notgi ven an opportuni tyt o t es t i fyt o the har ds hi p theyw oul d fac e s houl d he be r emoved t o J or dan. A l though i tappea r s thatK aw as w as abl e t o pr es ent tes tim o n ya n d w itn e ss e s d u rin g a t lea st o n e h e a rin g in Ju n e 2 0 0 6 , h e n o w a rg u e s th a t h is fami l yw as deni ed an opportuni tyt o t es t i fyi n s uppor tof hi s appl i cat i on fora w ai verof i nadmi s s i bi l i tyunder§ 212( h) . See 8 U . S. C . § 1182( h) ( pr ovi di ng thatthe A t t orney G e n e ra l m a y , in h is d isc re tio n , w a iv e in a d m iss ib ili tyu n d e r se c tio n 2 1 2 (a )(2 )(A )(i)(I) if

### 5

th e a lien ’s d e p a rtu re w o u ld c a u se “ e x tre m e h a rd sh ip ” to a U n ited S tate s c iti z e n th a t is h is s p o u s e , p a re n t o r c h ild ). T h is C o u rt h a s ju ri s d ic tio n o v e r K a w a s ’s d u e p ro c e s s c la im u n d e r 8 U .S .C . § 1252( a) ( 2) ( D ) . See Sukw anputr a v. G onzal es , 434 F. 3d 627, 634 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( hol di ng thatcons t i tut i onal cl ai m s r ai s ed i n a pet i t i on forr evi ew el ude the j ur i s di ct i on- s tr i ppi ng pr ovi s i ons of the I N A ) . D ue pr oces s i n thi s cont extr equi r es thatan al i en be pr ovi ded w ith a f u ll a n d f a irh e a ri n g a n d a re a s o n a b le o p p o rt u n ity to p re s e n t e v id e n c e . R om ani s hyn v. A t t orneyG ener al , 455 F. 3d 175, 185 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . T o pr evai l on a pr ocedur al due pr oces s chal l enge t o a dec i s i on bythe B I A , an al i en mustm ake a n i ni t i al s how i ng of s ubs t ant i al pr ej udi ce. See B onhom etr e v. G onzal es , 414 F. 3d 442, 448 ( 3d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). T h u s, in o rd e r f o r K a w a s to p re v a il h e re , h e m u st m a k e a stro n g sh o w in g th a t, if IJ V o m a c k a h a d tak e n a d d iti o n a l tes tim o n yf ro m K a w a s’s w if

e a n d c h ild re n , h e lik e ly w oul d have f

ound “extr eme har ds hi p” and gr ant ed K aw as ’ s appl i cat i on fora w ai verof in a d m is s ib ility u n d e r § 2 1 2 (h ). K a w a s d o e s n o t, ho w e v e r, in d ica te h o w h is w if e ’s o r c h ild re n ’s te stim o n yw o u ld have de m ons tr at ed s uch har ds hi p. I ndeed, K aw as does notgi ve anyi ndi cat i on w hat s oeverof the s ubj ectof the hypothet i cal t es t i m ony . T her efor e, even a s s um i ng that the I J err ed i n rul i ng on the appl i cat i on w i thoutt aki ng addi t i onal t es t i m ony , K aw as has fai l ed t o s how thathe w as pr ej udi ced bythatdeci s i on. Forthi s r eas on, K aw as i s notT o th e e x t e n tth a tK a w a s a r g u e s th a th e h i m s e l f w a s d e n i e d a n o p p o r tu n i ty t o t e s t i f y, 4 her e t oo he fa i l s t o i dent i fyanyr es ul t i ng pr ej udi ce. I n addi t i on, t o the ext entthat K a w a s’s d u e p ro c e ss c laim in c lu d e s a n a lleg a tio n th a t IJ V o m a c k a w a s b ias e d a n d u n f a ir dur i ng the pr ocee di ngs , w e agr ee w i th the B I A thatthe r ecor d does notr evea l any m isco n d u ct. S ee W an g v . A tt o rne yG en era l, 4 2 3 F . 3 d 2 6 0 , 2 6 8 -69 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ); A b d u lr a h m a n v . A s h c ro f t, 3 3 0 F .3 d 5 8 7 , 5 9 6 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ).



### 6 e n t i t l e d t o r e l i e f

o n h i s d u e p r o c e s s c l a i m. 4 N e x t, K a w a s a rg u e s th a t IJ V o m a c k a v io late d h is S ix th A m e n d m e n t rig h t to c o u n s e l b ya l l o wi n g o n e o f h i s a t t o rn e y s t o wi th d r a w r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i n M a r c h 2 0 0 7 . As th e B IA e x p lain e d , h o w e v e r, th e S ix th A m e n d m e n t rig h t to c o u n se l d o e s n o t atta c h in i m m i gr at i on pr ocee di ngs . X u Y ong L u v. A s hcr oft , 259 F. 3d 127, 131 ( 3d C i r . 2001) (cit ing IN S v . L o p ez -M en d o za , 4 6 8 U . S . 1 0 3 2 , 1 0 3 8 (19 8 4 )). T h ere fo re, K aw as’s c o n stitu tio n a l rig h ts w e re n o t im p lica ted b yth e IJ’ s d e c isio n a llo w in g c o u n se l to w ith d ra w . K a w a s a ls o c o m p la in s o f s e v e ra l o th e r a s p e c ts o f th e u n d e rl y in g p ro c e e d in g s . A l though hi s ar gum ent s ar e r atherdi ffi cul tt o fol l ow , K aw as appea r s t o cl ai m that : ( 1) he w as i m pr oper l yr emoved on t he bas i s of hi s cr i m i nal convi ct i ons r atherthan on the over s t aychar ge al l eged i n t he N ot i ce t o A ppear ; ( 2) the I m m i gr at i on C our ti n N ew ark has ig n o re d h is th re e re c e n t re q u e sts f o r a “ Jo se p h h e a rin g ” ; an d (3 ) th e B IA im p ro p e rly r efus ed t o cons i derthe new evi dence thathe s ubm i t t ed i n s uppor tof hi s admi ni s tr at i ve a p p e a l. F irst, w ith re sp e c t to K a w a s’s a rg u m e n t ab o u t th e b a sis o f h is re m o v a l, w e n o te that , contr aryt o K aw as ’ s cont ent i on, the I J bas ed the r emoval or deron the over s t ayA m o n g K a w a s’s o th e r c o m p lain ts a b o u t h is d e ten tio n , h e re p e a ted lyc laim s th a t h is 5 det ent i on i s i l l egal beca us e he ha d been r el eas ed on bai l i n M ay2003. K aw as ’ s ar gum ent appea r s t o be that , beca us e he w as r el eas ed atthatt i m e, i tw as i l l egal forhi m t o have be en l at err e- det ai ned on the gr ound thathe had be en convi ct ed of tw o cr i m es i nvol vi ng m or al turpi tude. See I N A § 236( c) ( 1) ( B ) , 8 U . S. C . § 1226( c) ( 1) ( B ) . T o the ext entthatK aw as i s ar gui ng thatthe I J ’ s 2003 bond or ders houl d have s om e s or tof pr ecl us i ve ef fec ton a s ubs equentcus t odyor der , thi s ar gum enti s cl ear l yw i thoutm er i t . T o the ext entthat K a w a s m e a n s to c h a llen g e h is d e ten tio n u n d e r § 2 3 6 (c ), w e f in d th a t th is a rg u m e n t is m o o t g iv e n th a t h e is c u rr e n tly b e in g d e ta in e d p u rs u a n t to a f in a l o rd e r o f

re m o v a l. 

### 7 char ge s t at ed i n the N ot i ce t o A ppear . A s forK aw as ’ s compl ai ntthatthe I m m i gr at i on C o u rt h a s f

a iled to re sp o n d to c e rta in lette rs th a t h e su b m itt e d a f ter th e d o c k e tin g o f

th is a p p e a l, th o se lette rs a re n o t p ro p e rlyb e f o re th is C o u rt. F in a lly , the B IA ’s r e f u sa l to r evi ew new evi dence s ubm i t t ed i n s uppor tof the admi ni s tr at i ve appe al w as pr oper . See 8 C. F . R. § 1 0 0 3 . 1 ( d ) ( 3 ) ( I V) ( “ E x c e p tf o rt a k i n g a d mi n i s tr a t i v e n o t i c e o f c o mm o n l yk n o wn fac t s s uch as curr entevent s orthe cont ent s of off i ci al document s , the B oar d w i l l not en g ag e in f

ac tfi n d ing in the co u rse o f d ec iding ap p ea ls. ”) K aw as’s rem ainin g arg u m en ts ch all en g e the leng th o f h is de tention . T h is C o u rt does not , how ever , have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew thes e cl ai m s , as theyar e partof the habe as pe t i t i on tha tw a s fi l e d i n the D i s tr i c tof N e w J e r s e y . Se e Zad vy da s v. D a vi s , 53 3 U. S.

5 678, 688 ( 2001) ( hol di ng thathabea s pr ocee di ngs ar e the forum fors t atut oryand c o n s titu tio n a l c h a lle n g e s to p o s t- re m o v a l- p e ri o d d e te n tio n ). III . F o r t h e re a s o n s s e t f

o rt h a b o v e , w e w ill d e n yth e p e titio n f o r r e v ie w .