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
9-25-2007 

# B i sk up sk i 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 : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 06-1887

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

" B i sk upski v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 323. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/323P 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. 06- 1887

____________ D A R IU S Z B IS K U P S K I, P eti ti o n er,

v. A TTO RN EY G EN ER A L O F TH E U N I TED STA TES,

R e sp o n d e n t.

____________ O n R evi ew of a D eci s i on of the B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( A gencyN o. A 73- 081- 356) I m m i gr at i on J udge: A l bert o J
. R i efkohl

A r gued: J une 19, 2007

B efore: M cK E E , F ISH E R , and C H A G A R E S , C i rcui tJudg es.

____________ ( Fi l ed: Sept ember25, 2007)

T hom as E
. M os el ey , E s q. , A r gued O ne G at ew ayC ent er , Sui t e 2600 N ew ark, N J 07102 A t t orneyforPet i t i oner2 J ames E. G r i m es , E s q. , A r gued W i l l i am C

. M i ni ck, E s q. U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof J us t i ce O ffi ce of I m m i gr at i on L i t i gat i on, C i vi l D i vi s i on P. O

. B ox. 878 B en Fr ankl i n St at i on W as hi ngt on, D C 20044 A t t orneyforR es pondent

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

C H A G A R E S , C irc u it J udge. T h is c a se p re se n ts a n iss u e o f f irst im p re ss io n in th is C irc u it a n d re q u ire s u s to in terp re t th e m e a n in g o f “ a c ti o n s tak e n ” in s ect i on 321( c) of the I l l egal I m m i gr at i on R eform and Im m igr ant R es po n s i b i l i tyActo f

1 9 9 6 ( I I RI RA ) , Pu b

. L. No. 1 0 4

- 2 0 8 , 1 10 St at
. 3009- 546. Forthe r eas ons expr es s ed bel ow , w e hol d tha t “ac t i ons t aken” r efe r s t o or der s and deci s i ons of an i m m i gr at i on ju d g e (IJ ) or th e B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls (B IA ) w h ich a p p ly th e “ a g g ra v a ted f

e lo n y ” d e f

in iti o n s in 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 1 (a )(4 3 ) to d eterm ine th e a v ail ab il ityo f h ard sh ip reli ef

. B ec au se th e B IA ’s fi nal order den i ed p et i t i on er D ari usz B i skup ski rel i ef on this basi s, w e conc l ude thatthe or derw as an “a ct i on t aken” w i thi n the cont empl at i on of s ect i on 321( c)

. A s s uch, the expande d defi ni t i on in 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 3 ) f o r a g g ra v a ted f

e lo n ies a p p lied to B i s kups ki

. A ccor di ngl y , the pet i t i on forr evi ew w i l l be deni ed. I. In D e c e m b e r 1 9 8 8 , at a g e tw e n tyn in e , B isk u p sk i lef t h is n a tiv e P o lan d a n d e n ter e d th e U n ited S tate s. H is v isa a llo w e d h im to re m a in u n til Ju n e 2 0 , 1 9 8 9
. H o w e v e r, B isk u p sk i o v e rsta y e d h is vi s a. A s of J anuary 23, 1994, B i s kups ki w or ked as a tax i dri ver a n d d isp a tch e r fo r a co m p a n yin C lifto n , N e w Je rse y . D u rin g h is off hour s , he m oonl i ght ed as a chauf feur , m aki ng tr i ps t o the l ocal ai rp o r t s a n d o c c a s i o n a l l yt o p o i n t s b e y o n d s u c h a s W a s h i n gt on D
. C

. , Phi l adel phi a, and ar eas w i thi n N ew E ngl and. H e adve r t i s edO n M arc h 1 , 2 0 0 3 , C o n g re s s tr an sfe rred the IN S ’s 1 funct i ons t o the B ur eau of I m m i gr at i on and C us t om s E nfor cement ( I C E ) and the U

. S. C us t om s and Imm i gr at i on Ser vi ce ( U SC I S) of the U n it ed S tat es D ep artm en t of H o m elan d S ec u ri ty(D H S ). H om el and Secur i tyA ctof 2002, Pub. L
. N o. 107- 296, §§ 441, 451 & 47 1 , 1 1 6 S t a t
. 2 1 3 5 , 2 1 9 2 , 2 1 9 5

- 9 7 & 2 2 0 5 ( c o d i f i e d a t6 U. S

. C. §§ 251, 271 & 291) ; s ee a l s o Z heng v. G onzal es , 422 F. 3d 98, 103 n .2 (3 d C ir

. 2 0 0 5 ) (c itin g K n a p ik v . A s h c ro f t, 3 8 4 F .3 d 8 4 , 8 6 n .2 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ))

. 3 h i s s e r v i c e s a l m o s te x c l u s i v e l y w i th i n th e l o c a l P o l i s h c o m m u n i ty. A f ter re tu rn in g h o m e f

ro m w o rk o n o r ab o u t Ja n u a ry2 2 , h is then- gi r l fr i end t old Bi s kups ki s he had r ece i ved a c al l t o pi ck up s ever al Pol i s h peopl e i n ups t at e N ew Y or k and br i ng them t o N ew J er s ey . B i s kup sk i a nd hi s gi r l fr i end depa r t ed, thei rdes t i nat i on bei ng a gas - stat i on/r es t aur antcal l ed the B ear ’ s D en on R out e 37, w h ic h i s i n the mi ddl e of the A kw es as ne I ndi an R es ervat i on bor der i ng C anada i n ups t at e N ew Y or k. T hey arr i ved s hor t l yaft er m id n ig h t o n J a n u a ry 2 3 a n d m e t th e in te n d e d p a s s e n g e rs . A ppr oxi m at el yel even mi l es i nt o the ret u rn tr i p, B i s kups ki e n c o u n ter e d a ro u tin e D riv in g W h ile In to x ica ted ro a d b lo c k . S tate p o lice sto p p e d B isk u p sk i, an d , af ter q u e stio n in g h im a n d h is pas s enger s , the pol i ce s ur m i s ed thatB i sk u p s ki w as tr ans por t i ng i l l egal al i ens . A l though B i s kups ki m ai nt ai ned t hathe di d notknow hi s pas s enger s had i l l egal l yent er ed the U ni t ed St at es , B i s k u ps ki w as arr es t ed and char ged w i th ai di ng and abett i ng al i en s m uggl i ng, a m i s demeanor vi ol at i on of 8 U

. S. C

. § 1324( a) ( 2) ( A )

. H e pl eade d gu i l ty and , on January 31 , 19 94 , he w as sent enced t o thirty d ay s’ im p ri s o n m e n t a n d a $ 2 5 0 f in e . O n January25, 1994, the I m m i gr at i on and N atur al i zat i on Ser vi ce ( I N S) place d B i s kups ki i n deport at i on pr ocee di ngs by 1 s e r v i n g h i m wi th a n Or d e r t o S h o w C a u s e ( OTS C)

. I n th e OTS C, the g o v ern m en t al lege d that B isku p sk i w as d ep o rt a b le u n d er 8 U
. S. C

. § 1251( a) ( 1) ( B ) ( r emai ni ng i n the U ni t ed St at es l ongerthan perm it ted), 8 U
. S. C

. § 1251( a) ( 1) ( C ) ( i ) ( fai l i ng t o m ai nt ai n or compl yw i th the condi t i ons of noni m m i gr ant s t atus under w hi ch he w a s ad m i t t ed), and 8 U
. S

. C

. § 1 25 1(a) (1) (E)( i ) ( kn ow i ng ly a ss istin g , aid in g , o r a b e tti n g a n o th e r a lien to e n ter ill e g a lly , w ith inSect i on 1251 of T i t l e 8 of the U ni t ed St at es C o d e w as 2 r e d e s i g n a t e d a s § 1 2 2 7 b y th e p a s s a g e o f I I RI RA i n 1 9 9 6
. I I RI RA , P u b

. L
. N o . 1 0 4 -20 8 , § 3 0 5 , 1 1 0 S tat
. 3 0 0 9 -54 6 , 3 0 0 9 -59 8 (19 9 6 ). B i s kups ki ’ s ca se w as tr ans ferr ed fr om B os t on, 3 M a s s a c h u s e tts to N e w a rk , N e w J e rs e yo n F e b ru a ry 2 8 , 1 9 9 6
. U ni t ed N at i ons C onvent ion A gai ns tT or tur e and O ther 4 C ruel , I nhum an or D egr adi ng T r eatm entorPuni s hm ent , D ec. 10, 1984, 1465 U
. N
. T
. S. 85, i m pl ement ed i n the U ni t ed St at es bythe For ei gn A ffa i r s R eform and R es tructur i ng A ct of 1998, Pub. L
. N o. 1 0 5-277 , § 224 2, 11 2 St at
. 26 81 -761, 26 81 -822 ( cod i fi ed at 8 4 fi ve y ear s of hi s entr y into the U ni t ed St at es )

. T he governm ent 2 s ubs equent l yw i thdr ew the al l egat i on thatB i s k u p s ki w as d e p o rta b le u n d e r 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 1 (a )(1 )(E )(i), b e c a u se th e e v e n ts s uppor t i ng hi s convi ct i on occur red m or e than fi ve y ear s aft er B is k u p s k i’ s 1 9 8 8 a d m is s io n in to th e U n ite d S ta te s . A tan i m m i g rati o n hear i ng i n N ew ark, N ew J er s eyon D ec e mbe r 1 9 , 1 9 9 6 , th e I J f o u n d th a t th e g o v e rn me nt had 3 es t abl i s hed B i s kups ki ’ s pr i orconvi ct i on bycl earan d convi nci ng evi dence

. T he I J acc ept ed B i s kups ki ’ s appl i cat i on fors us pens i on o f d e p o r t a t i o n , b u tq u e r i e d , i n l i g h t o f th e p a s s a g e o f

I I RI RA , w hetherB i s kups ki ’ s convi ct i on foral i en s m uggl i ng w oul d r ender h i m s t atut or i l yi nel i gi bl e fors us pens i on of deport at i on. T he IJ h e a rd tes tim o n y f

ro m B isk u p sk i a n d h is w itn e ss e s in su p p o rt o f h is a p p lica tio n f

o r re lief. H o w e v e r, th e h e a r in g w a s c o n tin u e d to perm i tthe part i es t o addr es s the l egal i s s ue of e li g ibil ityfor s us pens i on. Forr eas ons thatar e notcl ear , B i s kups ki ’ s cas e w as n o t re c o n v e n e d u n til Ju ly2 5 , 2 0 0 0 . T h e p ro c e e d in g s w e re a g a in c o n tin u e d u n til th e f

in a l h e a ri n g o n A u g u s t 1 1 , 2 0 0 3
. O n A pr i l 20, 2005, the I J i s s ued a w ri t t en dec i s i on, su p erc ed ing a p ri o r ora l dec isi o n . T h e IJ ru le d th at B isku p sk i’ s convi ct i on foral i en s m uggl i ng r ender ed hi m i nel i gi bl e for suspensi on of d epo rt at i on and den i ed thatapp l i cat i on . T he IJ al so deni ed B i s kups ki ’ s appl i cat i ons foras y l um , w it hhol di ng of d ep o rt ati o n an d p rotec ti o n u n d er the C o n v en ti o n A g ains t T o rtu re (C A T ). B is k u p s k i a p p e a le d th e IJ ’s d e c is io n to th e B IA

.

4U
. S

. C

. § 1 2 3 1 ).

O n appea l t o the B I A , B i s kups ki did n o t rai s e any 5 chal l enges t o t he deni al of hi s appl i cat i ons for as y l um , w i thhol di ng of deport at ion o r prot ect i on underC A T and, l i kew i s e, does not ra is e a n ys u c h c h a lle n g e s to th is C o u rt
. 5 O n M ar ch 7, 2006, the B I A di s m i s s ed the appe al , rul i ng that B i s kups ki ’s prior c o n v ict ion u n d er 8 U
. S

. C

. § 1 3 2 4 (a)(2)( A ) barr ed el i gi bi l i tyforr el i ef und er f or m ers ect i on 244 of the of the Im m igrati o n an d N ati o n ali tyA ct (IN A ), 8 U
. S

. C

. § 1 2 5 4 (19 9 3 ). 5 U n d erform ers ect i on 244, an al i en qual i fi es fordi s cr et i onary s us pens i on of deport at i on by demonstr at i ng both phy s i cal pr es ence i n the U ni t ed S t at es for a cont i nuous per i od of notl es s than s even y ear s i m m edi at el ypr ece di ng the dat e of a ppl i cat i on fors uch r el i ef an d g o o d m o ra l ch ara cter. 8 U
. S

. C

. § 1 2 5 4 (a)(1) (1 9 9 3 ). H ow ever , an al i en “w ho atanyt i m e has been con v ict ed of a n ag g rav ated fe lon y(as d ef ined in su b sec ti o n (a)(43 ) of this section )” c a n n o td e mo n s tr a t e th e r e q u i s i t e g o o d mo r a l c h a r a c t e r . 8 U. S

. C. § 1101( f) ( 8)

. H er e, the B I A found t hat B i s kups ki ’ s convi ct i on w as fo r an ag g rav ated fe lon yas d ef ined b y8 U
. S

. C

. § 1 1 0 1 (a)(43 )(N ). T her efor e, B i s kups ki coul d nots how the good m or al char act er nece s s aryt o be el i gi bl e fors us pens i on of deport at i on. T hi s pet i t i on f o r r e v ie w f

o llo w e d

. II
. B i s kups ki pl eade d gui l tyt o 8 U
. S. C

. § 1324( a) ( 2) , w hi ch sta tes in p e rtin e n t p a rt:

A n yp e rso n w h o , k n o w in g o r in r eckl ess di s r egar d of the fa ctthatan al i en has notr ece ived pri oroffi ci al a u th o r i z a t i o n t o c o me t o , e n t e r , or re sid e in th e U n ited S tate s, b rin g s to oratt emp t s t o br i ng t o the U ni t ed St at es i n anym annerw hat s oever , s uch6 al i en, r egar dl es s of any offi ci al act i on w hi ch mayl at er be t aken w i th r es pect to s u c h a lien sh a ll, f

o r e a c h a lien in re sp e c t to w h o m a v io latio n o f th is p ara g rap h o cc u rs-- (A ) be f in e d in a c c o rd a n c e w it h T itl e 18 orim pr i s oned notm or e than one y e a r, o r b o th [ .] T hi s s t atut e has been i nt erpr et ed t o i ncl ude tr ans por t i ng i l l egal al i ens fr om one pl ace t o anotherw i thi n the U ni t ed St at es . See, e. g. , G avi l an- C uat e v. Y ett er , 276 F. 3d 418, 419 n. 1 ( 8th C i r . 2002) (c itin g M a tte r o f

R u iz -R o m e ro , 2 2 I & N D e c . 4 8 6 (B IA 1 9 9 9 ))

. W h e n C o n g re ss a d d e d th e “ a g g ra v a ted f e lo n y ” p ro v isio n to the I N A , Pub. L
. N o. 82- 414, 66 St at
. 163 ( 1952) (c odi fi ed as amended at 8 U
. S. C

. §§ 1101- 1537) w i th the ena ctm entof the A nt i

- D rug A b u se A ctof 1988, Pub L

. N o. 100- 690, § 7347, 102 St at
. 4181, 4471 ( 1988) , the s t atut ory defi ni t i on o f “ ag gr avat ed fe lon y ” in 8 U
. S

. C

. § 1 1 0 1 (a)(43 ) did n o t i n clud e o ff en ses u n d er 8 U
. S. C

. § 1324( a) ( 1) ( A ) or( 2)

. I n 1994, w hen the I N S com m ence d deport at i on pr ocee di ngs agai ns tB i s kups ki , hi s cr i m e of convi ct i on w a s s t i l l n o ta m o n g th o s e c o n s t i t u t i n g a n “ a g g r a v a t e d f e l o n y” w ith in th e m e a n in g o f

th e IN A

. It w as not unt i l 1996 thatC ongr es s enac t ed l egi s l at i on m aki ng cert ai n chang es s i gni fi cantt o B i s kups ki ’ s s i tuat i on. Speci fi cal l y , C ongr es s enac t ed th e A nt i t err or i s m and Effec t i ve D eath Penal tyA ctof 1996 ( A E D PA ) , i n w hi ch i tamended the d e f in iti o n o f “ a g g ra v a ted f

e lo n y ” in 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 1 (a )(4 3 )(N ) to i ncl ude “an offe ns e des cr i bed i n par agr aph ( 1) ( A ) or( 2) of s ect i on 274( a) [codi fi ed at8 U
. S

. C

. § 1324( a) ] ( r el at i ng t o al i en s m u g g lin g ) f

o r w h ic h th e te rm o f im p ri s o n m e n t is a t le a s t 5 y e a rs .” A E D PA , Pub. L
. N o. 104- 132, § 440(e)(3) , 110 St at
. 1214, 1278 (1 9 9 6 ). Shor t l yt her eaf

t er , C ongr ess e nact ed I I R I R A , fur ther am en d ing § 1 1 0 1 (a )( 4 3 )( N ) b ys tr ik in g th e m in im u m fiv e-y ea r t ermB yth e sa m e a m e n d m e n t, C o n g re ss c re a ted a n e x c e p tio n in 6 th e c a s e o f

a f irst o f f e n se w h e re th e a lien a f f irm a tiv e ly dem on strat ed thathe o r s he “co m m i t t ed the offe nse fo r the p urpose of assi sti n g , abett i ng, orai di ng onl ythe al i en’ s s pous e, chi l d or p a re n t . .
. . ” IIR IR A , § 3 2 1 (a )(8 ), 1 1 0 S tat. a t 3 0 0 9 -6 2 8 . T h is e x c e p tio n d o e s n o t a p p ly to B is k u p s k i. W e r ej ectB i s kups ki ’ s ar gum ent that the I J i n B os t on m ade 7 a rul i ng thathe w as el i gi bl e fors us pens i on r el i ef. T he I J ’ s pas s i ng obs ervat i on thatB i s kups ki m i ghtbe el i gi bl e fors us pens i on of deport at i on w as notan “a ct i on t aken” w i thin the m eani ng of s e c tio n 3 2 1
. 7 of i m pr i s onm entr equi r ement
. I I R I R A , § 321( a) ( 8) , 1 1 0 S ta t
. at 6 3009- 628 ( 1996)

. C ongr es s expr es s l ym andat ed thatthe cha nges m ade t o the t erm “aggr avat ed fe l ony ” i n 8 U
. S. C

. § 11 01( a) ( 43) “appl i e[d] r egar dl es s of w hetherthe convi ct i on w as ent er ed bef or e, on , or after th e d a te o f

e n a c tm e n t o f

th is p a ra g ra p h .” II R IR A , § 321( b) , 110 St at
. at3009- 628 ( emphasi s added)

. C ongr es s di ct at ed that “[t ] he amendm ent s m ade by thi s s ect i on s hal l appl yt o act i ons taken on or aft er the d at e of the enac t m ent of this A ct , reg a rd less of w hen the convi ct i on occurr ed. ” I I R I R A , § 321( c) , 110 St at
. at 3 0 0 9 -62 8 (em p h asis ad d ed ). T h e ter m “ a c tio n s ta k e n ” is n o t d e f in e d a n yw h e re in II RI RA

. Bi s ku ps ki a r gu e s tha tthe t e r m r e l a t e s t o s uc h “ a c t i on s” as the i ni t i at i on of deport at i on pr ocee di ngs agai ns thi m i n 1994 or the subm i s s i on of hi s appl i cat i on for s us pens i on of deport at i on on Au g u s t1 6 , 1 9 9 6
. Be c a u s e th e s e “ a c t i o n s ” o c c u rr e d p r e - I I RI RA , 7 B i s kups ki cont ends that the pre

- I I R I R A defi ni t i ons of aggr avat ed fel onys houl d appl y , w hi ch di d not encompas s the cr i m e forw hi ch he w as convi ct ed. A tthe other end of the t empora l s pectrum , the governm en tar gues that“ac t i ons t aken” m eans fi nal or der s and deci s i ons of the I J orthe B I A i n adj udi cat i ng B i s k u p sk i’ s cas e. T he governm entas s ert s thatbecau se the B I A i s s ued i t s fi nal deci s i on on M ar ch 7, 2006, the I I R I R A am endment s t o the d e f in iti o n o f a g g ra v a ted f

el on ya p p lyto re n d e r B isk u p sk i in e lig ib le fors us pens i on r el i ef.W e fi nd no m eri t t o B i skup ski ’s w ai ver and l aw of the case 8 ar gum ent s . B i s kups ki w ithdr ew hi s ar gum entthatthe pr es ent aggr avat ed fel ony defi ni t i on does not i ncl ude ai di ng and abe t t i ng o ffen ses. L et t er from T ho m as E
. M osel ey , E sq. t o M a rc ia W aldro n , C lerk o f th e C o u rt(A p ri l 25 , 2 0 0 7 ). 8 III
. W e l ack j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew fi nal or der s of r emoval a g a in s t a n a lie n re m o v a b le a s a n a g g ra v a te d f e lo n . 8 U .S

. C . § 1 2 5 2 (a)(2)(C ); D rak es v . Z im sk i, 2 4 0 F
. 3 d 2 4 6 , 2 4 7 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 1 ). W e n o n e th e le s s r e ta in ju ri s d ic tio n to re v ie w q u e s tio n s o f la w , 8 U
. S. C

. § 1252( a) ( 2) ( D ) , and w e have j ur i s di ct i on t o det erm i ne our juri sd ict io n , U n it ed S tat es v . R u iz, 5 3 6 U
. S

. 6 2 2 , 6 2 8 (20 0 2 ). W h ethe r a statute h as re tr o ac ti v e a p p li ca ti o n an d issue s o f statuto ry co n stru cti o n are q u esti o n s o f law o v er w h ich w e e x erc ise p lena ry rev iew

. S ee P ark v . A tt o rne yG en era l, 4 7 2 F
. 3 d 6 6 , 7 0 -71 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 6 ). A. B efore turni ng t o the i ssue of retroact i vity , w e w i l l add res s B i sk u p s ki ’ s ar gum entthathi s convi ct i on fora fe der al m i s demeanorw as a cr i m e i ns uffi ci ent l ys er i ous t o be cons i d e r ed an “aggr avat ed fe l ony ” i n thi s cont ext
. See Pet

. R eply B r . at13. 8 A ccor di ng t o B i s kups ki , the w or d “fe l ony ” h as one de fi ni ng char act er i s t i c, namel y an off ens e s ubj ectt o a s ent ence of one y ear o r m o re, see U n it ed S tat es v . G rah am , 1 6 9 F
. 3 d 7 8 7 , 7 9 2 (3d C ir

. 1999) ( “[U ] nderfede r al l aw , a fel onyi s defi ned as a cr i m e thathas a m a x im u m ter m o f

m o re th a n o n e y e a r.”) , w h ich sh o u ld b e h e ld to i nh ere i n every agg ravat ed fel on yprovis i on i n § 11 01 (a) (43) unl ess C o n g r e s s e v i n c e s a c o n tr a ryi n t e n t
. Bi s k u p s k i a r g u e s t hat Co n g r e s s ’ s r e mo v a l o f th e f i v e - y e a r s e n t e n c e r e q u i r e me n tf r o m § 1101( a) ( 43) ( N ) by I I R I R A demonstr at es i t s i nt ent t o “fa l l [] back .

. . on th e gener al r equi r ementthatan ‘ aggr avat ed fe l ony ’ be a f e lo n y .” P e t. R e p ly B r. a t 1 5
. B i s kups ki poi nt s t o L opez v. G onzal es , ___ U
. S. ___, 127 S. C t. 6 25 ( 2006) , forthe pr opos i t i on thati nt erpr et i ngB i s kups ki lam poons the governm ent ’ s ar gum entby 9 quot i ng a pas s age fr om a w el l

- know n L ew i s C arr ol l w or k: “‘ W hen I u se a w o rd ,’ H u m p ty D u m p ty s a id , in r a th e r a sc o rn f u l to n e , ‘it m ea n s just w h at I ch o o se i t to m ea n

– n eith er m o re no r l e s s. ’” T h ro u g h th e L o o k in g G las s, in T h e C o m p lete W o rk s o f L e w is C arro ll 1 9 6 (19 3 9 ).

9 m i s demeanorto m ean fel onyi s “j us tw hatthe Engl i s h l anguage t el l s us nott o expect , ” i d. at630, s o B i s kups ki ’ s m i s demeanor c o n v i c t i o n s h o u l d n o t b e h e l d t o c o n s t i tu t e a n a g g r a v a t e d f e l o n y. T h e g o v ern m en t r esp o n d s tha t w h ere C o n g ress d ef ines a term o f a rt l i ke “a ggr avat ed fe l ony ” t o m ean s om ethi ng part i cul ar, a s her e – al i en s m uggl i ng defi ned by8 U
. S. C

. § 1324(a)(2) – then al i en s m u g g l i n g i s a n a g g r a v a t e d f e l o n y, e v e n i f

t e c h n i c a l l y o n l y a m i s demeanor under fede r al l aw . C om par e 18 U
. S. C

. § 3559( a) ( 6) ( cl as s i fy i ng an off

ens e w i th a m axi m um t erm of i m pr i s onm entof on e y ear orl ess butm ore th a n six m on ths as a C l ass A m i s demeanor ) w i th 8 U

. S. C

. § 1324( a) ( 2) ( A ) ( pr ovi di ng a m ax im u m o f o n e y ea r i m p ri so n m en t)

. 9 O uranal y s i s begi ns w i th the s t atut ory t ext
. I f the t extof the s t atut e i s pl ai n and unambi guous , then our anal y s i s al s o ends ther e. H u g h e s A irc ra f

t C o . v . Ja c o b so n , 5 2 5 U .S

. 4 3 2 , 4 3 8 (1 9 9 9 ). T h is i s s o beca us e ourr ol e “i s t o gi ve effec t t o the w i l l of C ongr es s , and w her e i t s w i l l has been expr es s ed i n r eas onabl y pl ai n t erm s, ‘ that l anguage m us tor di nar i l ybe r egar ded as concl us i ve. ’” G r i ffi n v. O cea ni c C ontr act or s , I nc. , 458 U
. S. 564, 570 ( 1982) ( quot i ng Cons umer Pr od

. Sa fe tyCom m’ n v . G TE Sy l va ni a , I nc . , 44 7 U. S. 1 0 2 , 1 0 8 (19 8 0 )). I n this c as e, w e ar e ca l l ed upon t o anal y ze w hetherthe d e f i n i t i o n o f

“ a g g r a v a t e d f

e l o n y ” i n 8 U. S

. C. § 1 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 3 ) ( N) i ncl udes the fe der al m i s demeanorB i s kups k i c om m i tt ed. I f, as her e, “a s t atut e i ncl udes an expl i ci tdefi ni t i on, w e mustfol l ow that d e f in itio n , e v e n if

it v a ri e s f

ro m t h a t te rm ’s o rd in a ry m e a n in g .”10 St enber g v. C arhart , 530 U
. S. 914, 942 ( 2000) ; s ee a l s o M ees e v. Ke e n e , 4 8 1 U. S

. 4 6 5 , 4 8 4 ( 1 9 8 7 ) ( r e c o g n i z i n g “ th e r e s p e c twe n o rm a llyo w e to th e L e g isla tu re ’s p o w e r to d e f in e th e ter m s th a t it us es i n l egi s l at i on”) ; L aw so n v. Suw annee Frui t& S. S. C o. , 336 U
. S. 198, 201 ( 1949) ( “St atut orydefi ni t i ons contr ol the meani ng o f sta tu to ryw o rd s . . . .”). W h e re a d e f in iti o n in f

o rm s w h a t a part i culart erm “means , ” thatdefi ni t i on w i l l i ncl ude w hat ever expr es s m eani ngs fol l ow . See C ol autt i v. Fr ankl i n, 439 U
. S. 379, 3 9 2 n .1 0 ( 1 9 7 9 ) (“ A s a ru le, [ a ] d e f in iti o n w h ich d e c lar e s w h a t a t erm ‘m ea n s’ .

. . excl udes anym eani ng thati s nots t at ed. ”) (qu o ta tion m ark s an d cit ati o n o m itted) (alterati o n s in o ri g inal), overrul ed i n part o n o thergr ounds byW ebs t erv. R epr oduct i ve H e a lth S e rv s ., 4 9 2 U .S . 4 9 0 (1 9 8 9 ). B ypl aci ng the t erm “aggr avat ed fel ony ” i n quot at i ons fol l ow ed by“means ” C ongr es s m ade a bs ol ut el ycl earthat “aggr avat ed fe l ony ” i s a t erm of art defi ned bythe s ubs ect i ons that fol l ow . W e mustappl ythe def i ni t i on of thatt erm p rov i ded by C ongr es s . C ongr es s pl ai nl yan d u n ambi guous l yi ncl uded the offe ns es des cr i bed i n 8 U
. S. C

. § 1324( a) ( 1) ( A ) and (2) as p artof the d ef init ion o f “ ag g rav ated fe lon y ” in § 1 1 0 1 (a)(43 )( N ). A ccor di ngl y , w e r ej ectB i s kups ki ’ s ar gum entthatC ongr es s m eant t o “fa l l back” t o the t i m e- honor ed, one- y eardi s t i n cti on betw een fel oni es and mi s demeanor s . I t is n eit herourt as k norour pr er ogat i ve t o r ew r i t e the def i ni t ion thatC ongr es s pr ovi ded, e sp e c iallyc o n sid e rin g th e tra d iti o n a l d e f e re n c e w e a c c o rd to C ongr es s w hen i tl egi s l at es i n the ar ea of i m m i gr at i on. See E s c o b a r v . G o n z a le s , 4 1 7 F .3 d 3 6 3 , 3 6 8 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). O u r hol di ng t odayi s cons i s t entw i th o u r deci s i on i n U ni t ed St at es v. G r aham, s upr a, w hi ch appl i ed the § 1 1 0 1 ( a) ( 43) defi ni t i on of “agg ravat ed fe l on y ” as i nco rporat ed int o the sent encing g ui del i nes, see U
. S

. S

. G

. § 2 L 1
. 2(b)( 1)( B ), t o d et erm i ne incr eases t o b ase o ff en se lev els i n th e se n tenc ing co n text. In G rah am , the C o u rt c o n s i d e r e d “ w h e th e r a m i s d e m e a n o rc a n b e a n ‘ a g g r a v a t e d f e l o n y’ u n d e r a p ro v isio n o f f e d e ra l law e v e n if

it i s n o t, t e c h n ica lly s peaki ng, a fe l onyatall

. ” 169 F. 3d at788. W e ans w er ed that ques t i on i n the aff

i r m at i ve and det erm i ned that a m i s demeanor th e f t c o u ld b e a n a g g ra v a te d f e lo n yu n d e r 8 U .S .C . §O th e r c o u rts o f a p p e a ls h a v e f o llo w e d th is C o u rt’s le a d in 10 det erm i ni ng that cert ai n m i s demeanor s m ay cons t i tut e aggr avat ed f e lo n ie s u n d e r t h e d e f

in itio n s e t f

o rt h in § 1 1 0 1 (a )( 4 3 ). S e e , e .g ., U ni t ed St at es v. C or doza- E s tr ada, 385 F. 3d 56 ( 1s t C i r . 2004) ( per cur i am) ( m i s demeanoras s aul t ) ; U ni t ed St at es v. G onzal ezT am ariz, 3 1 0 F
. 3 d 1 1 6 8 (9th C ir

. 2 0 0 2 ) (m isde m ea n o r ba tt ery ); U ni t ed St at es v. Saenz- M endoza , 287 F. 3d 1011 ( 10th C i r . 2002) ( m i s demeanorchi l d abus e) ; U ni t ed St at es v. U r i as-E scobar , 281 F. 3d 165 ( 5th C i r . 2002) ( m i s demeanoras s aul t ) ; G uerr er o- Per ez v. I N S, 242 F. 3d 727 ( 7th C i r . 2001) ( m i s demeanors exual abus e of a m ino r); U n it ed S tat es v . C h ri stop h er, 23 9 F
. 3 d 1 1 9 1 (11 th C ir

. 2001) ( m i s demeanor theft offe ns e) ; U ni t ed St at es v. Pachec o, 225 F
. 3 d 1 4 8 (2 d C ir

. 2 0 0 0 ) (m isde m ea n o r do m esti c a ssau lt , thef t) ; W i r eko v. R eno, 211 F. 3d 833 ( 4th C i r . 2000 ) ( m i s demeanor s e x u a l b a tte ry). 11 1 1 0 1 (a)(43 )(G ). 10 I n s um , w e hol d thatB i s kups ki ’ s m i s demeanorconvi ct i on f o r a id in g a n d a b e ttin g a lie n s m u g g lin g u n d e r 8 U .S .C . § 1 32 4(a) (2) con st i tutes an “ag gravat ed fe l on y , ” as that t erm is d e f in e d in 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 1 (a )( 4 3 )( N ). B. W e tu rn n o w to th e iss u e o f re tr o a c tiv itya n d th e d isp u te o v e r th e me a n i n g o f

“ a c t i o n s t a k e n ” i n s e c t i o n 3 2 1 ( c ) o f I I RI RA

. T h e f irst q u e stio n in d e ter m in in g w h e th e r a c iv il statu te appl i es r etr oact i vel y i s w hether C ongr es s has expr esslypr ovi ded fo rr e tr oa c t i ve a pp l i c a t i on . Lan dg r a f v. U SI Fi l m Pr od s . , 51 1 U. S. 244, 280 ( 1994)

. Sect i on 321( b) of I I R I R A i s a cl earexpr es s i on of C o n g re ss ’s in ten t to a p p ly th e d e f in iti o n o f “ a g g ra v a ted f

e lo n y ” in § 1101( a) ( 43) ( N ) r etr oact i vel y . See I N S v. St

. C yr , 533 U
. S. 289, 318- 19 ( 2001) ; acc or d G arr i do- M or at o v. G onzal es , 485 F. 3d 319, 323 ( 5th C i r . 2007) ; M ohamm ed v. A s hcr oft , 261 F. 3d 1244, 1250 ( 11th C i r . 2 0 0 1 ). J us tas cl ear l y , s ect i on 321( c) l i m i t s the appl i cabi l i tyof the new defi ni t i ons of aggr av a t e d fel onyt o “ac t i ons t aken” on or aft er Sept ember 30, 1996. T he focus of s ect i on 321( c)12 i s pr os pect i ve, notr etr os pect i ve. B i s kups ki ar gues on appea l that a lth o u g h th e d e f

in iti o n o f

“ a g g ra v a ted f

e lo n y ” m a ya p p ly r etr oact i vel yt o hi s 1994 convi ct i on, the cruci al i s s ue i s w hetherthe l anguage “ac t i ons t aken” i n s ect i on 321( c) s houl d be i nt erpr et ed w i th a l ook backw ar ds t o pr ecl ude the appl i cat i on o f th e changes e f f e c t e d b y I I RI RA t o c a s e s , l i k e h i s , th a tc o mm e n c e d p r e - I I RI RA

. A l though w e have noty etaddr es s ed t h e m eani ng of the phr as e “a ct i ons t aken, ” seve r al of ours i s t erci r cui t s have e xami ned the i ssu e. I ndeed, an ar gum ents i m i l art o B i s kups ki ’ s w as r ai s ed i n V al derr ama- Fonse ca v. I N S, 116 F. 3d 853 ( 9th C i r . 1997)

. T he C our tof A ppeal s fo rthe N i nth C i r cui tdes cr i bed the i s s ue as f o llo w s: [W ] hi l e i ti s cl ear thati tdoes n’ tm att er

w hen the convi ct i on occurr ed i f the II R IR A “ a g g ra v a te d f e l o n y” amendm en t s appl y , i ti s notcl earthat thos e amend m ent s appl y . I ti s cl ear enough thattheyappl yt o “ac t i ons t aken” aft erSe p t ember30, 1996, but n e i th e rth e t e x tn o rth e l e g i s l a t i ve h isto ryd e f

in e s th e “ a c tio n s” th a t, i f “t aken , ” tr i ggerthe appl i cabi l i tyof I I R I R A § 321. I d. at856. I n V al derram a-F o ns eca , the al i en w as convi ct ed of bur gl aryi n 1 9 8 5
. I d. at854. T he I N S i ni t i at ed deport at i on p roc ee d ing s in O ctob er 1 9 8 9
. Id. at 85 5
. In 1 9 9 2 , the IJ det erm i ned t h atV al derr ama w as deport abl e forhavi ng been convi ct ed of a cr i m e of mora l turpi tude and de ni ed hi s r eques tfor d isc re tio n a ryre lief

f ro m d e p o rta tio n . Id . V a ld e rra m a a p p e a led to the B I A , w hi ch af

fi r m ed the I J ’ s deci s i on i n J une 1995. I d. P rio r to o ra l ar g u m e n t, A E D P A a n d IIR IR A to o k e f f e c t, barr i ng j ud i ci al revi ew of f i nal or ders of dep ort at i on ag ai nst aggr avat ed fe l ons . T he ques t i on befor e the courto f ap p eal s w as w h ethe r th e IIR IR A “a g g ra v a ted fe lon y ” a m en d m en ts w ere appl i cabl e t o V al derr ama’ s ca se. T he ans w erturned, as i tdoes her e , o n th e me a n i n g o f th e p h r a s e “ a c t i o n s t a k e n ” i n s e c t i on 3 2 1 (c ).13 T h e V a ld e rra m a -F o n se c a c o u rt e x a m in e d th re e p o ss ib le m eani ngs of “a ct i ons t aken” thatcoul d pot ent i al ly tr iggerthe a p p lica b ili tyo f

se c tio n 3 2 1 : One i s t o s a yth a t“ a c t i o n s t a ken” r efe r s t o order s and dec i s i ons i s s ued agai ns tan a li en bythe A t t orney G ener al act i ng thr ough the B I A or I m m i gr at i on J udge. T hi s m akes l ogi cal and pra ct i cal s ens e, as “ac t i ons tak e n ” is e a s il y u n d e r s to o d to encompas s thi ngs done byan age ncy to a n a lien

. . . . A n o th e r p o ss ib ili tyis that“ac t i on s t aken” r efe r s t o s t eps by the al i en, s uch as appl y i ng for di s cr et i onaryr el i ef orpet i t i oni n g for re v ie w o f th e B IA ' s d e c is io n . . . . A thi r d pos s i bi l i ty i s the I N S' s pr efe rr ed cons truct that “ac t i ons t aken” m eans a n ya c tio n b ya n yo n e , inc lu d in g th is cou r t
. W h i l e th e s u g g e s t i o n i s not u n t e n a b l e , a s c o u r t s d o a c t , i ts e e ms i m pl aus i b le; i tw oul d m ean thatour j u r i s d i c t i o n wo u l d d e p e n d o n wh e n we gotar o u nd t o hear i ng a part i cul ar pet i t i on and t o t aki ng the ac t i on that w oul d be an “ act i on t aken” w i thi n the m ea n ing o f § 3 2 1 (c). Id . a t 8 5 6
. U lti m a tely , the C o u rt o f A p p e a ls f

o r th e N in th C irc u it ap p li ed the f

ir st de fin it ion – that the p h rase “a cti o n s tak en ” re fe rs t o or der s and dec i s i on s o f the I J and B I A

. B eca us e the dec i s i ons of the I J and the B I A pr e- dat ed Sept ember30, 1996, the ef fec t i ve d ate o f IIR IR A , the co u rt co n clud ed that “the g atew ay to IIR IR A ’s aggr avat ed fel ony amendm ent s ha[d] not been opened. ” I d. at857; s ee a l s o X i ong v. I N S, 173 F. 3d 601, 607 ( 7th C i r . 1999) ( appl y i ng the s am e d ef

init ion o f “ ac ti o n s tak en ” a n d h o lding that “the B IA ’s di s m i s s al of X i ong’ s appea l on A ugus t21, 1999 w as an acti on14 take n that tr igg ere d th e n ew d ef init ion o f ‘a g g rav ated fe lon y ’”); C ho eum v. I N S, 12 9 F. 3d 29 , 37 ( 1s tCi r . 19 97 ) ( “ The fi r st defi ni t i on i s the s tr onges t and m os t s ens i bl e: that ‘ act i o n s tak en’ ref ers to a cti o n s an d d ec isi o n s o f th e A tt o rne yG en era l. ”). In G arrido -M o rato v
. G o n za les, 4 8 5 F
. 3 d 3 1 9 (5 th C ir

. 2007) , th e I NS c o mm ence d deport at i on pr ocee di ngs i n M ar ch 1996 agai ns tG arr i do- M or at o, a nat i ve M exi can w ho ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es i n 1986, char gi ng herw i th over s t ay i ng her72- hourvi s i t or vi s a. I d. at320- 21. T he fol l ow i ng event s t oo k pl ace pr i ort o the enac t m entof I I R I R A : G arr i do- M or at o pl ed gui l tyt o one countof h arb o ri n g ali en s; a j u d g m en t o f co n v ict ion w as en tered ag ains t her; a n d s h e wa s s e n t e n c e d t o th r e e y e a r s o f p r o b a t i o n . I d

. a t3 2 1
. On Sept ember10, 1996, s he appl i ed fo r sus pens i on of deport at i on unders ect i on 244 of the I N A

. I d. A s i n B is kups ki ’ s cas e, her act i ons of pl eadi ng gui l tyand fi l i ng forr el i ef f r om deport at i on p re d a te d th e e n a c tm e n t o f II R IR A o n S e p te m b e r 3 0 , 1 9 9 6
. T he crux of G arr i do -M orat o’s ar gu m ent, l i ke B i skup ski ’s , w a s w h e th e r se c tio n 3 2 1 (c ) o f IIR IR A a p p lied to b a r h e r e lig ib ili ty fors us pens i on of deport at i on orw hetherappl i cat i on of s ect i on 321 w a s im p e rm iss ib ly re tro a c tiv e . S e e id

. a t 3 2 3 (“ T h e m o st f a v o ra b le ar gum entt o be made i s that§ 321( c) i s the ef fec t i ve dat e pr ovi s i on f o r th e e n tire se c tio n : § 3 2 1 (c ) state s to w h a t an d w h e n th e sta tu te i t s el f ( not m er el y i t s defi ni t i ons ) i s t o be appl i ed; the s t atut e i s t o be appl i ed t o ( 1) ‘ act i ons ’ that ar e ‘t aken’ ( 2) on and aft er the dat e of enac t m ent
. ”)

. A ft err evi ew i ng the pos s i bl e meani ng s of “a ct i ons t aken, ” the C our tof A ppeal s fo r th e F i fth C i r cui tappl i ed the defi ni t i on es pous ed i n V al derr ama- Fonse ca, s peci fi cal l yr ej ect i ng G arr i do- M or at o’ s pos i t i on that“ac t i ons t aken” r efe r s t o the ac t i ons s he t oo k in pl eadi ng gui l tyand appl y i ng forhar ds hi p r el i ef. T he c o u rt sta ted , in p e rtin e n t p a rt:

A l though “ac t i ons t aken” m aybe m or e i ncl us i ve, w e ful l yagr ee thatthe t erm i ncl udes act i ons and deci s i ons of the A t t orneyG ener al act i ng thr ough an i m m i gr at i on j udge or the B I A

. B ut i ti s a l s o c l e a rt o u s th a t“ a c t i o ns t a k e n ” a r e a c t i o n s t a k en underthe15 st atute. Indeed , “act i on s t aken ” m ust r efe r onl y t o s uch ac t i ons t aken unde r the s t atut e bec aus e § 321( c) i s an eff ect i ve dat e pr ovi s i on for§ 321 and i t thus onl y s peaks t o “ac t i ons ” that ar e “t aken” under that s ect i on, s uch as det er m i ni ng the m eani ng of “aggr avat ed fe l ony ” and thus the a v a ilab ili tyo f

d isc re tio n a ryh a rd sh ip r el i ef t o s uch fe l ons . I tdoes nots peak t o “a ct i ons ” thatar e nott aken pur s uantt o the s t atut e. I d. at3 2 4 ( q u o t a t i o n ma r k s a n d c i t a t i o n o mi t t e d )

. Th e I J d e ni ed G arr i do- M or at o’ s har ds hi p r el i ef i n M ar ch 1997. “[B]e caus e that r u l in g , i.e ., ‘a c tio n ta k e n ,’ o c c u rr e d a f te r S e p te m b e r 3 0 , 1 9 9 6 , § 321( c) compel l ed the I J t o ut i l i ze the r etr oact i ve def i ni t i on and fi nd G a rr id o ’s c o n v ic tio n to b e a n a g g ra v a te d f e lo n y .” Id

. In T ran v . G o n za les, 4 4 7 F
. 3 d 9 3 7 (6th C ir

. 2 0 0 6 ), the C o u rt of A ppeal s for the S i xth C i r cui t r eac hed a di ffe r enti nt erpr et at i on of s ect i on 321( c)

. T he Tra n courtr eas oned:

Sect i on 321( c) expl i ci t l yl i m i t s the appl i cat i on of t he re vi s ed defi ni t i on of “aggr avat ed fe l ony ” t o p r o c e e d i n gs i ni t i at ed aft erSept ember30, 1 9 96. Sect i on 321( c) i s a re s tr i ct i on on S ect i on 32 1(b). A s the ag encyi tse lf has h el d, even though § 321( b) es t abl i s hed thatthe r evi s ed def i ni t i on of an a g g r a vat ed fe l ony can enco m pass anycon vict i on rega rdl ess o f w h en ito cc u rred , “S ec ti o n 3 2 1 (c) .

. . l i m i t [s ] the defi ni t i on . . . bys t at i ng th a t th e a m e n d m e n ts w ill a p p lyo n lyto
‘ act i ons t aken’ aft er the dat e of the I I R I R A ’ s enac t m ent , Sept ember30, 1 9 9 6
. ” Ma t t e ro f

T ru o n g , 2 2 I
. & N

. D e c . 1 0 9 0 , 1 0 9 6 ( B I A 1 9 9 9 )

. We16 need notgo thr ough a l engthy sta tu to rya n a ly sis to c o n c lu d e th a t § 321(c) i s notr etr oact i ve s i nce the l anguage of the s ect i on s peaks for itse lf. S e c tio n 3 2 1 (c ) e x p licitlylim its t h e e x p a n d e d d efi n i t i on of “aggr avat ed fe lony ” t o pr os pect i ve deport at i o n p r o c e e d i n gs . T he pr obl em w it h T ra n ’s p o sitio n is th a t th is pr ocee di ng began i n D ece m ber2000, w el l af te r§ 321( c) ’ s t empora l l i m i t at i on. Id. at 94 1 (em p h asis ad d ed ) (alt era ti o n s in o ri g inal). B isku p sk i’ s d ep o rt ati o n p roc eedi ngs w ere i n it iat ed in Ja n u ary1 9 9 4 , w ell b ef o re the changes eff

ect ed byI I R I R A

. U nder s t andabl y , B i s kups ki r el i es h e a v ily o n T ra n . T he Tra n court es chew ed cr i t i cal anal y s i s of the meani ng of the phr as e “a ct i ons t aken, ” i ns t ead s ubs t i tut i ng i n i t s pl ace the p h ra se “ p ro c e e d in g s in iti a ted .” W e c a n f in d n o su p p o rt f

o r th is i nterpret at i on ei ther i n case l aw or st atu to ry tex t
. E ven the case ci t ed fors uppor t , M att erof Truong, s upr a, appl i ed the V al derr amaF o n se c a d e f

in iti o n o f “ a c tio n s tak e n .” A c c o rd in g ly , w e d e c lin e to f o llo w T ra n . W e adoptthe def

i ni t i on of “ac t i ons t aken” art i cul at ed bythe G arr i do- M or at o court
. Speci fi cal l y , the defi ni t i on of “a ggr avat ed f e lo n y ,” a s a m e n d e d b y A E D P A § 4 4 0 (e ) an d IIR IR A § 3 2 1 (a ), is appl i cabl e t o “ac t i ons t aken, ” w hi ch w e hol d t o m ean or der s or d e c i s i o n s o f

th e I J o rB I A w h i c h a p p l y th e “ a g g r a v a t e d f e l o n y” d ef init ion s an d thu s d eterm ine th e av ail ab il ity o f d iscreti o n ary har ds hi p r el i ef t o s uch fe l ons . T hi s defi n it ion of “a ct i ons t aken” m akes s ens e cons i der i ng that unt i l a fi nal agenc yor deri s i s s ued by ei theran I J orthe B I A , an al i en rem ains the s ubj ectof admi ni s tr at i ve adj udi cat i on “and has

. . . notes t abl i s hed anyr i ght t o t he bene fi t he i s s eeki ng t o obt ai n byhi s appl i cat i on. ” O r t i z v. I N S, 179 F. 3d 1148, 1156 ( 9th C i r . 1999) ( quot at i on m arks om i t t ed)

. I n the pr es entcas e, the B I A det erm i ned thatB i s kups ki w as i nel i gi bl e fors us pens i on of deport at i on as an aggr avat ed fe l on17 o n M a rc h 7 , 2 0 0 6 , w e ll af ter th e IIR IR A a m e n d m e n ts to o k e f f e c t. T h e B IA m u s t a p p ly th e la w e x is tin g a t th e tim e o f its re v ie w , id ., and w e concl ude that ther e w as no i m perm i s s i bl e r etr oact i ve ef fec t in d o in g s o . I V. B eca us e w e hol d thatB i s kups ki ’ s feder al m i s demeanor convi ct i on cons t i tut es an “aggr avat ed fe l ony ” w i thi n the meani ng of 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1101( a) ( 43) ( N ) and bec aus e w e conc l ude thatthe s t a tu t e i s n o ti mp e r mi s s i b l y r e tr o a c t i v e a s a p p l i e d t o Bi s k u p s k i , we w ill d e n yth e p e titio n f

o r r e v ie w .