2010 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 5-20-2010 

# Ro dolphe N og

b ou 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 . 09-2816

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_2010

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 2010 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 " Rodo lp he N o g

bou v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1302. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1302NOT 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. 09- 2816 RO DOL P HE NOGB OU,

Pet i t i oner v . ATTO RN EY G ENER AL O F THE UN I TED STATES

O n P eti ti o n fo r R ev iew o f a n O rde r o f th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls A gencyN o. A 093 005 698 I m m i gr at i on J udge: W al t erA . D ur l i ng Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ay10, 2010 B efor e: B A R R Y , A M B R O and C O W E N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed M ay20, 2010)

OP I NI ON P E R C UR I AM R odol phe N ogbou pet i t i ons forr evi ew of an or derof the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) di s m i s s i ng hi s appea l fr om an I m m i gr at i on J udge’ s ( “I J ”) fi nal or derofS e e I mm i g r a t i o n Re f o r m a n d Co n tr o l Ac to f 1 9 8 7 ( “ I RC A” ) , 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 5 5 a [ I NA 1 § 245a] . I R C A “al l ow [ed] undocument ed al i ens w ho ha[d] r es i ded cont i nuous l yi n the U n ited S tate s s in c e Ja n u a ry1 , 1 9 8 2 , to a p p lyto th e IN S f o r le g a l re sid e n t sta tu s, d e sp ite the us ual barr i erof nothavi ng ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es l egal l y . ” A rr eol a- A r el l ano v. I.N .S ., 2 2 3 F .3 d 6 5 3 , 6 5 5 (7 C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). th O n A u g u st 7 , 2 0 0 9 , this C o u rt d e n ied N o g b o u ’s m o tio n f o r a sta yo f

re m o v a l. 2 2 r e mo v a l . 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. N ogbou i s a nat i ve and c i t i zen of C ôt e d’ I voi r e. H e ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es atan unknow n t i m e and pl ace . H e appl i ed foradj us t m entof s t atus underl egal i zat i on l aw s , but th e a p p lica tio n w a s d e n ied in 2 0 0 5 . H e w a s c h a rg e d w ith re m o v a b ili typ u rsu a n t to 1 I m m i gr at i on and N at i onal i tyA ct§ 212( a) ( 6) ( A ) ( i ) [8 U . S. C . § 1182( a) ( 6) ( A ) ( i ) ] forbei ng pr es enti n t he U ni t ed St at es w i thouthavi ng been a dm i t t ed orpar ol ed. H e t es t i fi ed thathe had bee n admi t t ed, A . R . 211, 213; but“coul d nots ayw hen he e nt er ed and how he had obt ai ned l egal s t atus . ” A . R . 1 ( B I A deci s i on) . N ogbou di d notappl yforanyr el i ef, but s oughta cont i nuance t o aw ai tthe conc l us i on of an a ppeal i n a cr i m i nal cas e foras s aul t i ng a f e d e ra l o f f ic e r, a n d to a w a it th e o u tc o m e o f c iv il c a s e s h e h a d f

ile d . A .R . 2 1 7 , 2 2 1 . T h e IJ d e n ied th e c o n tin u a n c e , n o tin g th a t h e w a s n o t b e in g re m o v e d o n th e b a sis o f h is cr i m i nal convi ct i on. T he B I A di s m i s s ed the appe al . T he B I A found thatN ogbou had not m ethi s bur den of e s t abl i s hi ng thathe w as l egal l ypr es enti n the U ni t ed St at es , found that h e w as re m o v ab le, an d fo u n d a c o n ti n u an ce w as n o t w arran ted. N o g b o u , p roc ee d ing p ro s e , f i l e d a t i me l yp e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. 2 W e di s cern t he fol l ow i ng i s s ues i n N ogbou’ s br i ef: ( 1) the G overnm ent3

i m pr oper l yus ed fa ct s fr om hi s l egal i zat i on appl i cat i on t o char ge hi m w i th bei ng re m o v a b le; (2 ) h is c rim in a l co n v ictio n p e n d in g o n a p p e a l w a s im p ro p e rlyu se d a s a b a sis forthe r emoval or der ; ( 3) the B I A i m pr oper l yhel d thathe had the bur den of pr ovi ng admi s s i bi l i ty ; ( 4) N ogbou w as deni ed a f ai roppor tuni tyt o appea l beca us e the G overnm ents ubm i t t ed i nacc ur at e and de tr i m ent al document s t o the B I A butnevers erved th o se d o c u m e n ts o n N o g b o u ; (5 ) th e G o v e rn m e n t sh o u ld b e e sto p p e d f ro m re m o v in g h im bas ed on af

fi r m at i ve mi s conductbygovernm entoffi ci al s ; ( 6) he w as deni ed pr ocedur al due pr oces s ; ( 7) he w as deni ed s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s ; ( 8) hi s r i ghtt o equal pr ot ect i on w as vi ol at ed; and ( 9) the I J i m pr oper l ydeni ed hi m the r i ghtt o s t ayunt i l hi s cr i m i nal and ci vi l cas es w er e conc l uded. N ogbou as ks the C our tt o di s m i s s the r emoval or derand granthis app l i cat i on for adjustm ent of st atus un der the legal i zat i on l aw s. W e fi r s tcons i derthe bas i s of the fi ndi ng thatN ogbou i s r emovabl e: hi s i l l egal en tryw ith o u t i n sp ec ti o n . T h e Im m igrati o n R ef o rm an d C o n tr o l A ct of 1 9 8 7 (“IR C A ”), i ncl uded a pr ovi s i on pr event i ng the G overnm entfr om us i ng i nform at i on pr ovi ded i n a l egal i zat i on appl i cat i on “foranypurpos es otherthan pr oces s i ng thatappl i cat i on, enfor ci ng penal t i es forfal s e s t at ement s i n the appl i cat i on, orful fi l l i ng r eport i ng r equi r ement s t o C ongr es s . ” A r r eol a- A r el l ano, 223 F. 3d at655; 8 U . S. C . § 1255a( c) ( 5) [I N A § 245a( c) ( 5) ] . H ow ever , ther e i s no i ndi cat i on thatthe G overnm entus ed i nform at i on fr om N ogbou’ s l egal i zat i on appl i cat i on i n deci di ng t o comm ence r emoval pr ocee di ngs agai ns thi m . I tappea r s thatN ogbou came t o the G overnm ent ’ s att ent i onN ogbou’ s cl ai m thathe w as found r emovabl e on the bas i s of hi s cr i m i nal convi ct i on 3 i s bel i ed bythe r ecor d. A . R . 225 ( N ot i ce t o A ppear ) ; A . R . 206- 07 ( I J ’ s deci s i on) ; A . R . 2- 3 (B IA ’s de cisi o n ). H ow ever , w e maynotr evi ew the deni al of N ogbou’ s l egal i zat i on appl i cat i on, 4 b e c a u se h e d id n o t ap p e a l th e d e n ial o f h is a p p lica tio n to th e A d m in istra tiv e A p p e a ls U ni t , as pr ovi ded bys t atut e. See 8 U . S. C . § 1255a( f) ( 3) [I N A § 245a( f) ( 3) ] ( pr ovi di ng fors i ngl e l evel admi ni s tr at i ve r evi ew of deni al of appl i cat i on foradj us t m entunder l egal i zat i on l aw ) ; s ee a l s o 8 U . S. C . § 1105a( c) ( 1996) ( courtm aynotr evi ew or derof depor t at i on unl es s al i en has exhaus t ed admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es ) ; 8 U . S. C . § 1252( d) ( 1) (sam e). 4 beca us e of the cr i m i nal char ges agai ns thi m . I R C A does notpr eventthe G overnm ent f ro m c h e c k in g a le g a liz a tio n f ile to s e e if

th e a p p lic a tio n h a s b e e n g ra n te d o r d e n ie d . A rr e o la -A re lla n o , 2 2 3 F .3 d a t 6 5 6 . H e re , b e c a u se N o g b o u ’s a p p lica tio n h a d b e e n d e n ied , the G o v e rn m e n t co u ld r emove hi m on t he bas i s of hi s i l l egal entry . N ogbou di d notm eethi s bur den of s how i ng 3 that h e h ad en tered the U n it ed S tat es leg all y . S ee 8 U . S . C . § 1 3 6 1 [IN A § 2 9 1 ]. F u rth er, the fa ctthatN ogbou had atone t i m e appl i ed forl egal i zat i on di d noti ns ul at e hi m fr om l at err emoval . I n fac t , I R C A cont empl at ed the r evi ew of the deni al of a l egal i zat i on a p p l i c a t i o n i n l a t e rd e p o r t a t i o n p r o c e e d i n g s . S e e 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 5 5 a ( f ) ( 4 ) ( A) [ I NA § 2 4 5 a(f )(4)(A )]; R en o v . C atho li c S o cial S erv ices, Inc., 5 0 9 U . S . 4 3 , 5 4 (19 9 3 ). 4 T h e re m a in d e r o f

N o g b o u ’s a rg u m e n ts a re e q u a llyw ith o u t m e rit. T h e d o c u m e n ts thatN ogbou al l eges w er e pr ovi ded ex pa r t e t o the B I A ( al though the G overnm ents t at es th e yw e re s e rv e d o n N o g b o u ) d id n o t f o rm th e b a s is o f

th e B IA ’s d e c is io n a g a in s t h im . N ogbou w as gi ven a f

ul l and fa i roppor tuni tyt o pr es enthi s cl ai m s , he w as notdeni ed the5

equal pr ot ect i on of the l aw , and he ha s notpr es ent ed anybas i s t o es t op the D epart m entof H om el and Secur i tyfr om r emovi ng hi m . L as t l y , the I J di d notabus e hi s di s cr et i on by deny i ng a cont i nuance t o al l ow N ogbou t o r emai n i n the U ni t ed St at es pendi ng the dis po si t i on of h i s unrel at ed cri m i nal appeal and civi l sui t s. 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.