2007 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 6-1-2007 

# J o seph 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 . 05-3260

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_2007

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 2007 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
" J os ep h v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1017. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/1017T he H onor abl e A . W al l ace T as hi m a, Seni orC i r cui tJ udge forthe U ni t ed St at es * C our tof A ppeal s forthe N i nth C i r cui t , s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. NOT 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- 3260

____________ YVE L J OS E P H, 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

____________ C onvert ed t o a Pet i t i on forR evi ew of a Fi nal O r derof the I m m i gr at i on J udge Pur s uantt o the R eal I D A ctof 2005 ( Fi l e N o. A 26- 029- 544) I m m i gr at i on J udge: H onor abl e C har l es M . H oneym an

____________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL . A . R . 34. 1( a)

M ay25, 2007 Be f o r e : CH AGAR E S , HAR DI M AN a n d T AS HI M A, C i r cui tJudges . * ( Fi l ed: J une 1, 2007 )

____________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________2

H A R D IM A N , C i r cui tJudge . Y vel J os eph fi l ed a pr o s e pet i t i on forw r i tof habe as corpus i n the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe M i ddl e D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a, al l egi ng thatthe I m m i gr at i on J udge ( I J ) err ed i n deny i ng hi s m ot i on t o r eopen a s event een y ear - ol d pr ocee di ng that resu lt ed in an o rde r of

ex clus ion an d d ep o rt ati o n ag ains t him . P u rsua n t t o the R ea l I D A ctof 2005, Pub. L . N o. 109- 13, D i v. B , § 106( c) , 119 St at . 231, 311 ( 2005) , the D i s tr i ct C our ttr ans ferr ed the pet i t i on t o t hi s C our t , and w e w i l l tr eati tas a t i m el y - fi l ed pet i t i on f o r r e v ie w . See 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (a )(5 ); Si lva- R engi f o v. A t t or ney G ener al , 473 F. 3d 58, 62 ( 3d C i r . 2007) . T he G overnm entar gues thatthe pet i t i on forr evi ew s houl d be di s m i s s ed bec aus e J os eph fa i l ed t o exhaus thi s admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es . W e agr ee. I. J os eph, a nat i ve and c i t i zen of H ai t i , ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es on A pr i l 6, 1983, b u t w as d en ied a d m issi o n b ec au se h e d id n o t po sses s a v ali d v isa o r oth er e n try d o c u m e n t. B ystip u latio n , h is e x c lu sio n p ro c e e d in g s w e re c o n tin u e d to a llo w h im to f ile a n a p p l i c a t i o n f

o rp o l i t i c a l a s y l u m. T hr ee y ear s l at er , on M ar ch 6, 1987, the O ffi ce of the I J i n Phi l adel phi a s ent J os eph a “ N ot i ce of

R es chedul ed I ndi vi dual C al endarH ear i ng i n I m m i gr at i on P ro c e e d in g s ,” w h ic h s ta te d th a t h is e x c lu s io n h e a ri n g w a s re s c h e d u le d f o r A p ri l 7 , 1 9 8 7 . A ccor di ng t o J os eph, he neve rr ece i ved the not i ce.O n A pr i l 1, 1997, r emoval pr ocee di ngs r epl ace d excl us i on pr ocee di ngs as the 1 s ol e and e xcl us i ve pr ocedur e fordet erm i ni ng w hetheran al i en maybe admi t t ed or e x c lu d e d /r e m o v e d , w ith o n e e x c e p tio n n o t a p p lic a b le h e re . See 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 2 9 a(a )(3). 3 W hen J os eph di d notappea rforthe hea r i ng on A pr i l 7, 1987, the I J found that Jo sep h h ad n o ca u se f

o r fa il ing to ap p ea r, d ism issed h is ap p li ca ti o n fo r asy lum fo r fa il u re t o p r o s e c u t e , a n d o r d e r e d th a th e b e “ e x c l u d e d a n d d e p o r t e d f r o m th e Un i t e d S t a t e s . ” On 1 M ay28, 1987, the I m m i gr at i on and N atur al i zat i on Ser vi ce ( I N S) enfor ced the I J ’ s O r der i n a “N ot i ce t o A l i en O r der ed Excl uded byI m m i gr at i on J udge, ” w hi ch s t at ed thatJ os eph w as t o r eportt o t he U ni t ed St at es C our thous e i n Phi l adel phi a on J une 17, 1987 for depor t at i on. T he I N S se ntthi s not i ce t o the s ame addr es s thatthe O ffi ce of the I J had se n t th e h e a rin g n o tice , an d Jo se p h a g a in c laim s th a t h e n e v e r re c e iv e d it. A ft erJ os eph s ubm i t t ed t o t he I N S an A ppl i cat i on forE m pl oym entA uthor i zat i on in N o v em b er 1 9 9 2 , o n A p ri l 26 , 1 9 9 3 , the IN S sen t Jose p h v ia ce rt ifi ed m ail w ith return r ece i ptr eques t ed a not i ce thathe r eportfordeport at i on on J une 21, 1993. O therthan s t at i ng that“[t ] he r ecor d appea r s nott o i ncl ude anys i gned r eturn r ece i pt , ” J os eph does notcl ai m thathe di d notr ece i ve thi s N ot i ce. J os eph nei therr eport ed fordeport at i on on the d at e speci fi ed n or fi l ed a m oti on t o reope n h i s i n abs ent i a exclusi on proceed i ng s. A nothert en y ear s l at er , on A ugus t22, 2003, the I N S i s s ued a W arr antof R emoval / D eport at i on, w hi ch s t at ed thatJ os eph “i s s ubj ectt o r emoval / deport at i on fr om the U ni t ed St at es , bas ed upon a f i nal or derby[an I J ] i n excl us i on, deport at i on, orr emoval p ro c e e d in g s.” Jo se p h w a s ta k e n in to c u sto d yo n F e b ru a ry6 , 2 0 0 4 . A f ter h is a rre st,4

J os eph l earned – ac cor di ng t o hi m forthe fi r s tt i m e – thathe had be en or der ed exc l uded and deport ed i n abs ent i a on A pr i l 7, 1987 forfai l i ng t o att end the s chedul ed hea r i ng w i thoutj us tcaus e. W hil e i n cu st od y , Joseph f i l ed fo ur docu m ents pro se : ( 1) a mot i on r eques t i ng as y l um t o t he O ffi ce of

the I J on M ar ch 22, 2004; ( 2) a mot i on t o r eopen depor t at i on/r emoval pr ocee di ngs and t o r econs i derdeni al of appl i cat i on foras y l um t o t he O ffi ce of the I J on J une 17, 2004; ( 3) a pet i t i on foremer gencys t ayof deport at i on t o the D istric t C o u rt o n Ju ly7 , 2 0 0 4 ; an d (4 ) a n e m e rg e n c yp e tit io n f o r w rit o f

h a b e a s c o rp u s to th e Di s tr i c tCo u r to n S e p t e mb e r2 7 , 2 0 0 4 . Al l f o u rd o c u me n t s c o n t a i n b a s i c a l l yth e s a me gr ound forr el i ef, namel y , thathe neve rr ece i ved not i ce of the A pr i l 7, 1987 hear i ng pr i or t o the I J’ s ordert o ex cl ud e and dep ort , w hich con st i tutes a viol at i on of d ue p rocess . O n O ct ober1, 2004, the I J deni ed J os eph’ s cons ol i dat ed mot i ons r eques t i ng as y l um and t o r eopen, fi ndi ng thatJ os eph had not i ce of the A pr i l 7, 1987 excl us i on h e a rin g a n d th a t h e f

a iled to p re se n t pr i m a f aci e e v id e n c e to su p p o rt g ra n tin g a sy lu m to hi m . T he I J ’ s or derw as att ache d t o a cove rl ett ers t at i ng thatthe or der“i s fi nal unl es s an appea l i s fi l ed w i th t he B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s [B I A ] w i thi n 30 cal endarday s of the dat e of the mai l i ng of thi s w r i t t en dec i s i on. ” J os eph di d notfi l e an appeal w i th theI ndeed, J os eph’ s ow n br i ef t i t l es the i ns t antappea l as “on pet i t i on forr evi ew 2 fr om the or derent er ed i n t he I m m i gr at i on C our t , D epart m entof J us t i ce, on O ct ober1, 2 0 0 4 ” (c ap it ali za ti o n alt ere d ). Iti s unclearw hythe D i stri ctC ou rtdid not hol d thatJoseph h ad fa i l ed to exh aust 3 h is a d m in istra tiv e re m e d ies , es p e c iallyw h e n th e G o v e rn m e n t ra ise d th e a rg u m e n t in its b ri ef in resp o n se to the h ab ea s p eti ti o n . T h e law o f th is C ir cu itw as c lear ev en b ef o re p a ss a g e o f

th e R e a l ID A c t th a t th e sta tu to rye x h a u stio n re q u ire m e n t “d o [ e s] in d e e d a p p ly t o pet i t i ons forhabea s corpus . ” D uval lv. E lw ood , 3 3 6 F . 3 d 2 2 8 , 2 3 1 n . 5 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). T he D i s tr i ctC our thad pr evi ous l yon J ul y8, 2004 deni ed J os eph’ s pet i t i on for 4 emer gencys t ay . T he or derdeny i ng thatpet i t i on cont ai ns an i nacc ur at e ave r m entm ade by Jo sep h that “h is m o ti o n to reo p en h is origina l dep o rt ati o n p roc ee d ing s is pe n d ing b ef o re the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s . ” The r ecor d evi dence i ncontr overt i bl ydemonstr at es th a t a s o f J u ly 8 , 2 0 0 4 , J o s e p h ’s m o tio n to re o p e n w a s p e n d in g b e f o re th e IJ , n o t th e B IA . I n f a c t , t o d a t e th e BI A h a s n o ta d j u d i c a t e d J o s e p h ’ s c l a i m.

5 B IA . O n N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 0 4 , the G o v e rn m e n t re m o v e d Jo se p h to H a iti , alth o u g h it d id 2 notfi l e a N ot i ce of

R emoval unt i l D ece m ber30, 2004. O n D ece m ber21, 2004, the D i s tr i ctC our tent er ed an or derenj oi ni ng the r emoval of J os eph dur i ng the pende ncyof the pr ocee di ngs i n s pi t e of the fa ctthatJ os eph had al r eadybeen r emoved t o H ai t i . T he D i s tr i ctC our tfound the I J ’ s deci s i on deny i ng Jo se p h ’s m o tio n to re o p e n “ c o n c lu so ry ” a n d d e c id e d to sc h e d u le a n e v id e n tiary he a rin g to det erm i ne w hetherhe had r ece i ved ac tual not i ce of the A pr i l 7, 1987 hear i ng. 3 B efor e the D i s tr i ctC our tcoul d adj udi cat e the mer i t s of J os eph’ s habea s pet i t i on, on M ay11, 2005, the R eal I D A ctbeca m e ef fec t i ve, thus di ves t i ng the D i s tr i ctC our tof juri sd ict ion o v er the p eti ti o n , w h ich th e D istri ct C o u rtp rop erlytr an sfe rred to this C o u rt on J une 17, 2005. 46 II. W e “ m a yre v iew a f

in a l o rd e r o f

re m o v a l o n lyif

. . . the a lien h a s e x h a u ste d a ll a d m in istra tiv e re m e d ies a v a ilab le to th e a lien a s o f rig h t.” 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (d )(1 ). T h is s ta tu to ry e x h a u s tio n re q u ir e m e n t is ju ri s d ic tio n a l, P opalv. G onz al es , 416 F. 3d 249, 252 ( 3d C i r . 2005) , and gene r al l yi ncl udes the fi l i ng of an a ppeal of a f i nal or derof r emoval o r e x c lu s io n to th e B IA . Y iv. M augans , 2 4 F .3 d 5 0 0 , 5 0 3 -0 4 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 4 ); see al so Medel l i n- R eye s v. G onz al es , 4 3 5 F .3 d 7 2 1 , 7 2 3 (7 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ) (p e r c u ria m ) (“ N o th in g in the R eal ID A ctor [§ 1 25 2] aut ho ri zes cou rt s of ap peals t o revi ew i m m i grat i on j ud ges’ d ec isi o n s. ”). A r emedyfr om the B I A i s “‘ avai l abl e as of r i ght ’ i f, atthe veryl eas t , ( 1) the al i en’ s cl ai m w as w i thi n t he j ur i s di ct i on of the B I A t o cons i derand i m pl i cat ed age ncy expert i s e, and ( 2) the age ncyw as capa bl e of gr ant i ng the r emedys oughtbythe al i en. ” B onhom etr e v. G onz al es , 4 1 4 F . 3 d 4 4 2 , 4 4 7 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). In B e ja r v . A sh c ro

ft , 324 F. 3d 127 ( 3d C i r . 2003) , w e r eaf fi r m ed ourhol di ng thatthe fa i l ur e t o fi l e a t i m el yappea l to th e B IA o f

a n IJ’ s d e c isio n d e n y in g a n a lien ’s m o tio n to re o p e n c o n stitu tes a f a ilu re to e x h a u s t. I

d. at132 ( ci t i ng Ba k

v . I NS , 6 8 2 F . 2 d 4 4 1 , 4 4 2 -43 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 2 ) (pe r cu ri am )). I n the i ns t antcas e, J os eph’ s cl ai m hi nges ent i r el yon a r evi ew of the I J ’ s fac tual d e te rm in a tio n , viz. , w hetherJ os eph r ece i ved not i ce of hi s A pr i l 7, 1987 excl us i on h ea ri n g . T h e B IA is i n a p arti cu larl yap p rop ri ate p o sit ion to rev iew the f ac tual rec o rd b e f o re w e d o . See B on ho m etre , 414 F. 3d a t 4 4 8 ; s ee al s o P adi l la v. G onz al es , 470 F. 3d7

1209, 1213 ( 7th C i r . 2006) ( ci t i ng G onz al es v. Thom as , 5 4 7 U .S . 1 8 3 , ----, 1 2 6 S . C t. 1613, 1615 ( 2006) ( percur i am)) . T her e i s al s o no ques t i on thatthe B I A i s capa bl e of g ra n tin g th e re m e d yJ o s e p h s e e k s , viz. , r eopeni ng hi s excl us i on pr ocee di ngs , i ncl udi ng re m a n d in g f

o r a n e w h e a ri n g b e f

o re th e IJ . See B on ho m etre , 414 F. 3d at448. B utJ os eph d id n o t f ile a n a p p e a l to th e B IA o f th e IJ ’s o rd e r d e n y in g h is m o tio n to re o p e n . A ccor di ngl y , the B I A has neverhad the opportuni tyt o r evi ew w hetherJ os eph di d r ece i ve n o tice o f h is A p ril 7 , 1 9 8 7 h e a rin g . Jo se p h d o e s n o t ad d re ss th e e x h a u stio n iss u e a t all, let a lo n e p ro v id e a ju stif ica tio n a ttem p tin g to e x c u se h is f a ilu re to e x h a u st. T he fa ctthatthe i ns t antpet i t i on forr evi ew w as “conve r t ed” f r om a habe as pet i t i on d o e s n o t a lte r o u r c o n c lu s io n . A s w e h a v e a lr e a d yo b s e rv e d , s ee n o te 3 , supra , even befor e pas s age of

the R eal I D A ct , the s t atut oryexhaus t i on r equi r ementappl i ed t o habea s p e titio n s s e e k in g re v ie w o f o rd e rs o f

re m o v a l o r o f

e x c lu s io n . D u v a ll , 336 F. 3d at231 n. 5. B eca us e the R eal I D A ctconvert s al l s uch habe as pet i t i ons i nt o pet i t i ons forr evi ew under8 U . S. C . § 1252( a) ( 5) , the exha us t i on r equi r ementcont ai ned i n § 1252( d) ( 1) ap p li es a ll the m o re u n am b igu o u sly . W e the ref o re h av e n o juri sd ict ion o v er Jo sep h ’s pet i t i on forr evi ew and i tm us tbe di s m i s s ed.