NO T RE CO MM EN DE D FO R FU LL -T EXTPU BL IC A TI ON Fi le N ame: 08a0108n .06 Fi led : F ebr uar

y 20, 2008 06- 4538 UNITED STA

TES COURT OF A PPE A LS FO R TH E SI XTH C IR CU IT
NICHOLAS ANT ONIO GRAHAM, Pet itione r, v. MI CH AEL M UK

ASEY , At to rn e y G eneral of the United St ate s, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON PET IT ION FOR REVIEW OF A FINAL ORDER OF THE BUREA U OF IM MI GRATION APP EALS

Before: MERRITT , DAUGHTREY, and MOORE, Circuit Jud ges. PE R CUR IA M. P e t i t i o n e r N i c h o l a s A n t o n i o G ra h a m i s a c i t i z e n o f J a ma i c a w ho entered th e U nit ed States as a v is it or , ov ersta y ed his v is a, an d w as subs eq uentl y co nv ic ted in federal co urt on tw o c ounts of cons piracy to commi t mai l fraud. H e now peti ti ons for re v iew of the fin al admini strati v e order of re mov al based on his status as an ali en c onv ic ted of an ag g ra v ated felony , und er 8 U .S.C . § 1227( a) (2 )( A) (i ii ). G ra ham co ntends thatthe expedite d rem oval procedu re t o w hich he was subjecte d, pu rsuan t to 8 U.S.C. § 122 8(b),
v iolate d bo th his du e proce ss and his equal protect ion rights. W e f in d no m erit to the se cont enti ons and, therefore, deny the peti ti on for re v iew

. FACTUA L A ND PROCEDUR A L BACKGROUND06- 4538

G rah am v. M

uka sey

- 2
- Graham i s a nati v e and ci ti z en o f J a maic a w ho ent ered th e U nit ed St ates on a temporar

y v is it or ’s v is a in March 1988 and remaine d in this co untr y w it hout ev er

obta ini ng law ful per manent resi dence

. In J uly 2004, Gra h a m p le a d e d g uil ty i n the U nit ed St ates Dis t ri c t C o u rt fo r the East ern District of New Y ork to tw o cou nts of

consp iracy

to com mit mail fraud. Se v eral other co unts w ere di smi ss ed upon m o ti o n o f t he U nit ed St ates

. In addi ti on to a pr is on s entenc e of 41 mont hs, Graham w as ordered to pay rest it uti on to tal ing $878,23 5, t o be dis tr ibu ted a mong three v ic ti ms. W hile G ra h a m wa s in c a rc e ra t e d , I m m ig ra t ion an d Custo ms En f orcem entplaced him in ex pedi ted remov al proceed ing s t hat a re appl ic abl e to ali ens w ho are not per manent l eg al re si dents and w ho commi t cer tai n c ri mes. See 8 U .S.C . § 1228( b)

. On N ov ember 8, 2006, Graha m was s e rve d i n p e rso n w ith an of f icial notice of

inten t to rem ove based on his conviction for an “aggravated f elon y ,” pursua nt to 8 U.S.C. § 12 27(a )(2)(A)( iii)

. “Agg rav ate d felon y ” is def ined in 8 U.S.C. § 110 1(a)(43), in pertin entp art, as an of fense that “i nv olv es fraud or decei t in w hic h the l oss to the v ic ti m or v ic ti ms ex ceeds $10, 000.” Con spi ra cy

to commi t s uch an offense al so q ual ifies as an a g g ra v ate d felony

. See 8 U. S.C . §§ 1101( a) (4 3) (M )( i) , ( a) (4 3) (U ). The noti ce infor med G ra h am of his procedu ra l rig hts, including the rig ht to be represen ted by coun sel at his own exp e n s e . It a lso indicat ed th at Grah am had a rig ht to conte st remo v al “w ith sup portin g evidence, ” request an oppo rt uni ty

to re v iew

the g ov er nme n t’ s e v ide nce, admi t dep ortabi li ty , des ig nate the coun try to w hich he w ould be rem oved, an d ap ply for w ithho lding of remo v al on ce rt ain groun ds listed in the not ice. Finally , the notice informe d Graha m th at an y w ritten resp onse06- 4538

G rah am v. M

uka sey

- 3
- h a d t o b e re c e ive d b y t h e I m m ig ra t io n a n d Na t u ra li za t io n S e rvi c e wit h in 1 0 c a le n d a r d a ys f rom th e da te of

person al serv ice on Grah am and that , f o r good cau se, Grah am could re q uestan e xtens ion of ti me i n w hic h to file a res ponse w it hin thatsa me 10- day per iod

. The noti ce inc lud ed a chec k- off lis t setti ng out thes e options but, inst ead of se lecti ng one or more of thos e opt ion s, Graham s impl y refused to si g n the noti ce w hen i t w as ser v ed on him o n N o vem b er

8, 2006. A w eek lat er , he apparentl y obta ine d c ounse l, w ho cont act ed th e IN S by

l etter date d N ov ember

17, 2006, re q uest ing an extens ion of ti me and ex pla ini ng thathe h ad j ustbeen re tai ned and had not y et recei v ed c opi es of the not ic e or other rele v ant d ocument s. Cou nsel al so re que st ed an oppor tuni ty to re v iew

the g ov er nment’ s e v ide nce. The I NS recei v e d t h is le tter o n N ov ember 20, 2006, the d ay Graham’s w ri tten re spons e w as due i f s ent by mail

. But Graham’s attor ney had c all ed th e INS in the mea ntim e an d, alth ough th ere is some disput e ab outthe con ten t of this conversation , imm igration of f icials w ere clearly lef

t w ith the im p re s sion th at Grah am ’s atto rney i nte nde d to defend against rem oval on th e ground th at Grah am ’s convi ctions d id not q ual ify

as ag g ra v ated feloni es. By l etter date d N ov ember

20, the same d ay

the w ri tten request for an extensio n w as received, the INS dep ortat ion of f icer in charge of

Graham ’s cas e deni ed th e extens ion , d ire ct ing co unsel to the s tatut or y defini ti on of “ ag g ra v ated felony ” in § 1101( a) (4 3) and ex pla ini ng that “ [t] he l oss to the v ic ti ms i n thi s c ase is a mat ter of pub lic record and is w ell ov er ten th ousa nd d olla rs . ” A ls o on Nov em ber 20 , the INS is sued a final admi nis trati v e remov al order

.06- 4538

G rah am v. M

uka sey

- 4
- Graha m f iled a time ly

n otice of

a ppe al pet itioning for re v iew o f t he rem oval order, arg uin g thatv ar iou s a spec ts of the ex pedi ted p ro ceedi ng vi ola ted his due pro ces s r ig hts and t hat t he At tor ney

Gene ra l’ s u nfetter e d d isc reti on to pl ace him in eit her ex pedi ted o r g eneral re mov al proceed ing s v iol ated his r ig ht t o eq ual protec ti on. DI SC US SION
Beca use the p eti ti oner w as ordered to be remov ed from t he U nit ed St ates pursuant to 8 U.S. C. § 122 7(a)(2)(A)(ii i) following his conviction for an aggrav ate d felon y , w e are forecl osed from rev iew of t he final order of remov al under 8 U. S.C

. § 1252( a) (2 )( C) , ex cept to t he extent that“cons ti tuti onal clai ms or q uest ion s of law ” are rais ed i n a c hal len g e to the final order

. 8 U. S.C

. § 1252( a) (2 )( D)

. The g ov er nment c ontends thatw e l ack j ur is dicti on to rev iew the order

of re mov al in thi s cas e bec ause Graham di d notch all eng e the order at the ag ency lev el. Al ter nati v ely , the g ov er nment arg ues that Graham has w aiv ed hi s r ig ht to chal len g e the leg al basi s of t he order of re mov al by

fail ing to cont estthe leg ali ty of the order before thi s cour

t. Bey ond t hose arg uments , t he g ov er nment al so cont ends that the const itution al claims have no me rit. W e conclu de tha t the re is at least som e evidence in the record to supp ort the f irst and seco nd of these conten ti ons and a sol id leg al basi s t o suppo rtthe thi rd

. It is cl ear , for ex ample, thatw hen g iv en the o p por tuni ty to ra is e a d efense to remo v al w hen the not ice of inten t w as serv ed persona lly on the petitione r, Graha m not on ly re fused to si g n the form butal so faile d to ind ic ate o n the l is t of optio n s th a t he had an y06- 4538

G rah am v. M

uka sey

- 5 - opp osition to remo v al. App aren tly the on ly object ion raised a tt h e a gency level by his at t o r n e y c o n c e r n e d G r a h a m’ s s t a t u s a s a n “ a g g ra v a t e d fe l o n ” u n d e r t h e i mm ig ra ti on sta tute. I n thi s c our

t, the o bje cti on c oncer ns the p ro ces s byw hic h the petiti oner ’s remov al
w as sec ur ed rather

than to the v ali dity

of the o rd er

i tse lf.
As to th e proce dural due proces s a ppeal rais ed here, i t i s c lea r that “[ e]v en i f an a lie n en te rs t h e Un it e d St a te s ill e gal ly, h e or s h e ‘m a y be exp e lle d on ly af te r pr o ce e d in gs conformin g to t ra dition al stan dard s of fairness en com passe d in due process of law .’” W a rn er v. As hcr

oft , 3 8 1 F.3 d 53 4 , 5 3 8 (6t h Cir. 20 0 4 ) (qu o ti n g S h a u g h n e s s y v. United S ta te s e x . r

el. Mezei , 345 U .S. 206, 212 ( 1953) ). G ra ham co ntends thathi s e x pedi ted dep ortat ion vi olate d the tradit io n a l s tan dard s of fairness guaran tee d by the due process cl ause in va ri ous w ay s, suc h as: in fail ing to address the re asons gi v en for his req uestfor an e xten sion be fore de nying it; in failing to a llow e x am inatio n of

the governmen t’s ev iden ce before i ss uin g the final order ; and in fail ing to prov ide hi m w it h the oppor tuni ty to re but t hat evidence in a h earing before an imm igration judge. Inste ad, h e c o n t e n d s, the re w as a “rush to judgm ent ” and his “rig ht to coun sel [w as] sw eptund er the rug.”
How ever, in order to prevail on a proced ural due process cha llenge, Graha m m ust als o s how

preju dic e. Indeed, w e need not a ddress the meri ts of a cl aim if there i s n o demonst ra ti on of preju dic e. See id. at 539 & n. 1. Mo re ov er , to est abl ish t h e requ is it e pr eju dic e, he mustsh ow thatthe due proces s v iol ati ons led to a s ubst anti all y di ff erent outc ome from t hat wh ich w oul d hav e oc cur re d i n the abs ence of those v iol ati ons. See06- 4538

G rah am v. M

uka sey

- 6
- Gar za- Mo re no v

. G onzale s , 489 F. 3d 239, 241- 242 ( 6th C ir . 200 7) ( ali en mus t s how that the abse nce of

t he due p rocess v iolation “would have chan ged the outco me of the case .”). Here, the onl y cl aim of preju dic e came v er y lat e in the proces s – in the peti ti oner ’s f ina l re ply br ief i n thi s c our

t, in w hic h he ass erted t hat “ the record of conv ic ti on does not esta blish the requisite amo unto f lo ss t o the victim” o f

o v er $ 10, 000 a nd, therefore, th at his conv ic ti ons do notq ual ify as ag g ra v ated feloni es. This arg ument is compl etel y unsup por ted by “t he re cord of c onv ic ti on.” It is tr ue th at the n oti ce of inte nt ser

v ed on Graham does not i ndi cat e on it s face that the l oss es re sul ti ng from hi s mai l fraud offenses total ed more than $10,000. How ev er , the cert ified co py of the jud g ment of co nv ic ti on ent er ed again st h im i ncl udes an order of re sti tuti on to three sepa rate victims that to tals $8 78, 235 . Moreover, his reliance on the Ninth Circuit’s deci si on i n Cha ng v

. I .N.S. , 307 F.3d 1185 (9th Ci r. 2002), to suppor t hi s c ontent ion that the me re reci tati on of the amount o f res ti tuti on i s i nsuffici ent to es tabl is h l oss es ov er $10,000 i s w hol ly

mis pla ced, bec ause Ch ang ’s situ ati on i s fact ual ly di sti ng uis habl e from Graha m’s.
In Cha ng , t he pet it ion er had ex ecut ed an ag re ement w it h the go vern ment t hat perm itted him to plead g uilty to on e cou nt of ban k f raud in re turn for the governme nt’s dis mis sal of the remaini ng 13 c ounts i n the i ndi ctment

. See Cha ng , 307 F. 3d at1187- 88. The pl ea ag re ement prov ide d tha t “ [t] he defendant and t he U nit ed St ates ag re e tha t t he off ense in Cou nt S ev en to w hic h the defendant is pl eadi ng gu ilt y in volve s a l oss to the06- 4538

G rah am v. M

uka sey

- 7 - v ictim of $60 5.3 0.” Id. at 118 7. As part of the ple a ba rg ain, h owev er, the defend antalso ag re ed to pay re sti tuti on in ex ces s of t he spec ificl oss ca used by the condu ct to w hic h he ple d g uil ty , s peci fical ly $32, 628.67. S ee id. at 1187- 88. Thereafter , t he IN S i nit iat ed
re mov a l p ro c e e d i n g s a g a i n s t C h a n g , w h o w a s a n a t i v e o f S o u t h K o r e a , a rg u i n g t h at he
w a s r e mo v a b l e a s a n a l i e n c o n v i c t e d o f a n a g g ra v a t e d fe l o n y . See id. at 1188. The immi g ra ti on j udg e and in tur n the BIA re li ed upon facts i n hi s p re -s entenc e repor t t o find that Ch ang ’s conductcaused a l oss of ov er $10, 000. See id. The N int h C ircui t rev ersed, h o l d i n g t h a tt o i g n o r e t h e l i mi t i n g l a n g u a g e i n t h e p l e a a g r e e me n t w o u l d e ffe c t i v e l y n u l l i fy the req ui r em en t i n th e i mmi g r at i on s ta tu te t ha t th e $1 0, 00 0 l os s b e ti ed t o th e alien’s conv ic ti on. See id. at 1191.
In s o hol din g , t he Cha ng co urt di sti ng uis hed Khal ayleh v. I .N.S. , 287 F .3d 9 78 ( 10th Ci r. 2002) , a cas e i n w hic h the peti ti oner had ple aded g uil ty

to one count of pass ing a bad chec k i n the amount of $9,308, but t he IN S none thel ess us ed lo ss e s f ro m othe r bad chec ks to all eg e that more than $10,000 in l oss es had oc cur re d. See Cha ng , 307 F. 3d at 1191. The Tenth Ci rc uitaff ir med, ex pla ini ng thatthe countto w hic h the peti ti oner had ple aded g uil ty

di d notal leg e a d is crete fraud but , rather , a sc heme to defraud that encompas se d a number of ch eck s a nd, t herefore, that the l oss ti ed to the countof conv ic ti on w as the l oss from t he ent ire s cheme. See Khala yleh , 287 F .3d a t 980

. The Cha ng co urt al so ex pla ine d tha t it was co n cerned about the “ sandb ag g ing of . .

. noncitiz en crimin al def end ant s,” i. e. , that “[ u]nw it ti ng ali en defendants mig ht choos e to pl ead g uil ty to onl y a mi nor ch arg e ( one t hat c lea rl y w oul dn’ t count as an ag g ra v ated felony )

. .06- 4538

G rah am v. M

uka sey

- 8
- . [bu t] the INS co uld later rely o n informa tion relating to a m ore seriou s charge and ef fect the def end ant ’s removal ev en th ough th e de fend antw ould have tho ught justif iably tha t his agreem entw ith the g overnme nt to plead g uilty to on ly a mino r charge fo reclosed a ny such ef forts by the INS.” Cha ng , 307 F .3d a t 119 2 & n.3.
Grah a m h a s n o t even alleged, let alo ne p rov ided docu me nta tion, thathe w as a par ty to a pl ea agreement that li mite d the loss caused by his conv ic ti ons to l ess than the re sti tuti on amountor

thatthe g ov er nment i s o ther w is e att empti ng to “s andbag ” him w it h re mov al despi te a pr ior agreement to the contrar y . W it hout suc h l imi ti ng l ang uag e or any other su bst anti ated cl aim by

Graham tha t t he l oss es to hi s v ic ti ms w ere l ess than $10, 000,
w e are l eft to c oncl ude t hat t he rest it uti on ordered i n the se ntenc ing orde r was ei ther spec ific all y ti ed to the count s of c onv ic ti on or , as i n Khal ayleh , w as the agg regate of loss from a “ p l a n o r s c h e me ” a l l e g e d i n t h e c o u n t s o f c o n v i c t i o n , b o t h o f w h i c h charg ed a cons piracy . Cha ng

i s n ot c ontroll ing , and w e are s ati sfied that the re co rd es tabl is hes los ses to Graham’s vi cti ms w ell abov e the $10, 000 mi nimum for pur poses of findi ng that h e wa s c o n vic t e d o f

a n a ggr a va t e d fe lo n y u n d e r 8 U. S

. C. § 1 1 0 1 (a )( 4 3 ). Co n s e qu e n t ly, Graham has fa ile d to demonst ra te t he req uis it e preju dic e nec ess ar y to sus tai n hi s d ue proces s c lai m. Nor do w e find any

mer itto the p eti ti oner ’s cl aim that his r ig ht t o eq ual protec ti on w as v iolate d by the ex ped ited rem oval process used in his case. Pursua nt to the sta tuto ry schem e for remo v al of

non -pe rm a n entresidentaliens con v icted o f agg rav ate d felon ies,06- 4538

G rah am v. M

uka sey

- 9
- the Attor ney

Gene ra l has the d is creti on to pl ace the a li en in ex pedi ted p ro ceedi ng s, as Graham w as, or

i n g eneral re mov al proceed ing s. See 8 U .S.C . § 1228( b) ( ex pedi ted) ; 8 U. S. C. § 1 2 2 9 a (gen e ra l). As t h e t e rm in o lo gy su gges ts , e xpe d it e d rem o val p ro ce e d in gs ar e c onduc ted more q uic kl y and w it h l ess formal procedu re than g eneral re mov al proceed ing s, and al ien s p lac ed in ex pedi ted p ro ceedi ng s a re not eli g ibl e for cer tai n ty pes of dis creti onar

y reli ef avai la ble to thos e pl aced in g eneral proceed ing s. See FloresLedez m a v . G onzale s , 415 F .3d 3 75, 3 79 ( 5th C ir . 200 5) ( explai nin g the differenc es bet w een the two procedu res).
T he p etition er argues thatt he Atto rney Gen eral’s “unfette red discretio n to cho ose betw een ex pedi ted remov al procedu re . . . and t he g eneral re mov al procedu re . . . to eff ect uate the remov al of an al ien w ho i s n ot a lawful per manent resi dent” v iol ates the eq ual protec ti o n c o m p o nent of the F ifth A mendment’ s d ue proces s c lau se becau se the gov ernm enthas provided no stand ards gov erning the ex ercise of this discretion . How ever, the p eti ti oner

co ncede s, as he mus t, that becau se no s uspect c las s i s i nvolve d , rati onal basi s s cr uti ny appl ies to thi s cl aim. Of course, “[ r] ati onal basi s rev iew beg ins w it h a s trong p re s u m p t io n o f

c o n s t it u t io n a l va li d it y, ” a n d “ [ i] ti s P e t it io n e r’ s b u rd e n t o sh o w th a tt h e la w, a s -a p p lied, is arbitrary ; and not th e gov ernm ent ’s to estab lish rationa lity .” Ma la g o n de Fuen tes v. Gonz ale s , 462 F .3 d 498, 504 ( 5th C ir . 200 6) ( int er nal ci tati ons and q uotat ion mark s o mitt ed) . Moreov er , “ [u]nd er rati onal bas is rev iew , di ff erenti al treatment must be uphel d ag ain st eq ual protec ti on chal len g e if there is any re asona bly conc eiv abl e sta te of06- 4538

G rah am v. M

uka sey

- 10 - facts th at c o u ld p rov ide a ratio nal ba sis fo r the classif ication .” Id. ( Inter nal ci tati ons and quotat ion m arks om itted ).
Si g nific antl y , i n thi s c ase the p eti ti oner hi msel f of

fers a rati onal bas is for t he ex pedi ted p ro ces s, noti ng in hi s a ppel lat e br ief t hat “ the d eci si on s eeming ly depend s sol ely on h ow co nfident the I CE adj udi cat or i s t hat [ an] ‘ ag g ra v ated felony ’ has been comm it te d .” Ju st so. An adj udi cat or ’s as ses sment that a c ase is si mple as oppos ed to com plex is certainly a ration al basis up on which to ado pt exped ited p rocee dings in pr eferenc e to g eneral proceed ing s, espec ial ly w hen c onsi dered i n c onj unct ion w it h Con g re ss ’s pur pose in pass ing 8 U .S.C . § 1228( b) , i. e. , “to ex pedi te the remov al of cr imi nal ali ens” w ho are notl awful per manent res ide nts , along w it h the admi nis trati v e c onst ra int s of prov idi ng al l suc h al ien s w it h full hear ing s. See United States v. Her nandez -V er m udez , 356 F .3d 1 011, 1014 ( 9th C ir . 200 4) ( dis cus si ng the leg is lat iv e h ist or y of 8 U .S.C

. § 1228( b) ). Gi v en the utter ly straig htforw ard nature of the g ov er nment’ s c ase ag ain st the pet itione r, and th e o b vious ration ality of the de cision to pro ceed w ith expeditio n in his re mov al, w e find no v iol ati on of Graham’s r ig ht t o eq ual protec ti on on thi s record.
In f inding no intrinsic equal prot ection v iolation in th e expedite d rem oval procedu re aut horized by § 12 28(b ), w e join at least three of our sister circuits that h ave addresse d this same i ss ue i n c ircums tanc es v er y si mil ar to the ones now

before us and hav e reache d the same c oncl usi on. See United State s v. Calderon -Segu ra , ___ F. 3d ___, 2008 W L 8070506- 4538

G rah am v. M

uka sey

- 11 - (9 th Cir., J a n . 9, 2008) ; Gonz ale s v . Cher toff , 454 F .3d 8 13, 8 18 ( 8th C ir . 200 6) ; FloresL e de z ma , 415 F .3d a t 381 -8 2.
CO NC LU SION
For the rea sons se t outabo v e, w e DENY rev iew of the f inal orde r of

remo v al in this cas e.