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 11-21-2008 

# P ark 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 . 07-4146

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a nova . 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 a nd 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 l l a nova 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 a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a nova 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 l l a nova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" P ark v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 200. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/200NOT 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. 07- 4146

___________ S ANG KY U P AR K, Pet i t i oner

v . ATTO RN EY G ENER AL O F THE UN I TED STATES

____________________________________ O n 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 B I A N o. A 37- 883- 086 (U . S . Im m igrati o n Ju d g e: H o n o rab le A n d rew A rth u r)

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

O ct ober15, 2008 B efor e: SC I R I C A , C hi ef J udge, C H A G A R E S and A L D I SE R T , C i r cui tJ udges ( Fi l ed: N ovember21, 2008 )

___________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

___________ P E R C U R I A M. Sang K yu Par k pet i t i ons forr evi ew of a f i nal or derof r emoval of the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) . Fort he r eas ons t hatfol l ow , w e w i l l denyt he pet i t i on for r e v i e w.2

T he I m m i gr at i on and N atur al i zat i on Ser vi ce i s s ued a not i ce t o appea ral l egi ng t hat Par k i s a nat i ve and c i t i zen of K or ea w ho w as admi t t ed t o t he U ni t ed St at es i n M ay1983 a s a law f u l p e rm a n e n t re sid e n t. T h e n o tice to a p p e a r c h a rg e d th a t P a rk w a s s u b jec t to r emoval fr om t he U ni t ed St at es beca us e he ha d comm i t t ed an a ggr avat ed fe l ony , as defi ned i n 8 U . S. C . § 1101( a) ( 43) ( G ) . T he cha r ge w as bas ed on a 2001 c onvi ct i on i n t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he Sout hern D i s t r i ctof N ew Y or k forarm ed r obberyfor w h ic h P a rk re c e iv e d a 1 2 1 -m o n th p ri s o n s e n te n c e . A thi s i ni t i al hear i ng i n J anuary2007, Par k, t hr ough couns el , deni ed the al l egat i ons i n t he not i ce t o appea rand the cha r ge of r emovabi l i t y . Par k t es t i fi ed thathe had be en natur al i zed i n 1997 or1998. T he G overnm ent , how ever , pr oduced a J une 16, 1999, deci s i on r efl ect i ng t hatPar k had appl i ed fornatur al i zat i on, buthi s appl i cat i on w as d e n ied . T h e Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e (“ IJ” ) c o n tin u e d th e m a tter s o th a t th e G o v e rn m e n t co u ld fi l e i t s document s r egar di ng Par k’ s al i enage , and Park’ s couns el coul d r evi ew t he document s and as s es s Par k’ s cas e. Par k, w ho w as i ncar cer at ed i n fede r al pr i s on, appea r ed att hi s hear i ng and hi s l at erhear i ngs vi a vi deo conf er ence . A tt he nexthear i ng i n M ar ch 2007, Par k’ s at t or neyobj ect ed t o t he document s fi l ed byt he G overnm enton var i ous gr ounds , i ncl udi ng a l ack of fi ngerpr i ntevi dence l i nki ng Par k t o t he form s , and a l ack of a j udgm entof convi ct i on t hathad bee n cert i fi ed byt he i s s ui ng author i t y . Par k m oved t o t erm i nat e the r emoval pr ocee di ngs . T he I J cont i nued t he mat t ers o t hatt he G overnm entcoul d r es pond t o t he mot i on t o t erm i nat e and pr ovi de3

th e c o u rt a c e rtifie d c o p yo f th e c o n v ictio n re c o rd . B e f o re a d jo u rn in g , in o rd e r to lim it t he i s s ues befor e the court , t he I J as ked the G overnm entfort he or i gi nal fac e s heetfr om P ark ’s i m m igran t visa. T h e IJ n o ted th at th e f ac e sh ee t r ef

lected that S an g K yu P ark arr i ved on M ay22 , 19 83 , t hat Park’s nati on al i t yi s K orean, t hat hi s coun t ryof las t r es i dence w as K or ea, and thatt he or i gi nal fac e s heetm at ched the copyof the fa ce s heet t hatt he G overnm enthad fi l ed t o es t abl i s h al i enage . P ark h ad an o ther h ea ri n g in M ay2 0 0 7 . B ase d o n the o ri g inal fa ce sh ee t, P ark ’s ear l i ert es t i m onyt hathe i s Sang Par k, and the deni al of hi s natur al i zat i on appl i cat i on, t he I J concl uded thatt he G overnm enthad es t abl i s hed the al l egat i ons i n t he not i ce t o appea r r egar di ng al i enage . T he I J al s o s t at ed thati tappea r ed thatt he G overnm enthad es t abl i s hed Park’ s convi ct i on bas ed on a c opyof a j udgm entof convi ct i on, w hi ch an i m m i gr at i on offi cerhad att es t ed w as an authent i c copyof the ce r t i fi ed j udgm entof convi ct i on cont ai ned i n t he r ecor ds of the Feder al B ur eau of Pr i s ons . T he I J not ed that th e n o tic e to a p p e a r a p p e a re d to e rr o n e o u s ly ch a rg e P a rk w ith v io la tio n s o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 1951 and § 1952. T he convi ct i on documentr efl ect ed thatPar k w as convi ct ed of vi ol at i ng 18 U . S. C . § 1951 and § 2. T he I J cont i nued the mat t ert o al l ow t he G overnm ent t o corr ectt he not i ce t o appea r , and, bas ed on Park’ s obj ect i on t o t he ce r t i fi cat i on of the convi ct i on document , t o obt ai n anothercert i fi ed copyof the j udgm entof convi ct i on. T he fol l ow i ng m ont h, t he part i es appea r ed bef or e the I J , and Park’ s at t or ney m ai nt ai ned hi s obj ect i on t o t he convi ct i on document . T he I J rul ed thatt he documentA l t hough t he G overnm entdoes notchal l enge ourj ur i s di ct i on i n i t s br i ef, t he 1 G overnm enti ni t i al l yfi l ed a mot i on t o di s m i s s the pet i t i on forr evi ew on t hi s bas i s , w hi ch w as r efe r r ed t o us fordi s pos i t i on. 4 su b m itted b ythe G o v ern m en t com p li ed w ith the re g u lat ion s an d estab li sh ed P ark ’s convi ct i on. T he I J al s o rul ed thatt he G overnm enthad pr oven the otherfac tual al l egat i ons i n t he not i ce t o appea r , and thatPar k w as r emovabl e as char ged. T he I J not ed i n hi s or al deci s i on t hatPar k di d notoffe ranyt es t i m onyt o r ebutt he al l egat i ons i n t he n o tice to a p p e a r, an d th a t co u n se l h a d sta ted th a t h is c lien t is S a n g K yu P a rk . P a rk d id nots eek a nyfor m of r el i ef f r om r emoval . T he I J l at eri s s ued a w r i t t en dec i s i on, w hi ch fur t herexpl ai ned hi s concl us i on t hatPar k w as r emovabl e bec aus e he ha d comm i t t ed an a g g ra v a te d f

e lo n y . T he B I A adopt ed and a ffi r m ed the I J ’ s deci s i on. T hi s pet i t i on forr evi ew fol l ow ed. W e mustfi r s taddr es s ourj ur i s di ct i on overt he pet i t i on forr evi ew . T he 1 G ov ernm ent ar gu es that the R eal ID A ctl i m i t s our j uri sdi ct i on ov er aggravat ed fe l on s’ pet i t i ons forr evi ew t o cons t i tut i onal and l egal ques t i ons , and thatPar k r ai s es no s uch ques t i ons . See 8 U . S. C . § 1252( a) ( 2) ( C ) . A s s how n bel ow , Par k has r ai s ed s uch ques t i ons i n hi s br i ef. M or eover , w e have al w ay s had j ur i s di ct i on t o det erm i ne the pr edi cat e fa ct s r equi r ed fort he appl i cat i on of § 1252( a) ( 2) ( C ) – t hatPar k i s an al i en and t hathe i s r emovabl e bec aus e he w as convi ct ed of a n aggr avat ed fe l ony . Papageor gi ou v. G o n z a le s , 4 1 3 F .3 d 3 5 6 , 3 5 7 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). P a rk c h a lle n g e s b o th o f th e s e f in d in g s . T hus , t he G overnm ent ’ s m ot i on t o di s m i s s i s deni ed.5

P ark arg u es th at th e B IA erred in af firm ing the IJ’s f

ind ing o f a li en ag e. P ark cont ends t hatt he I J err ed i n admi t t i ng t he evi dence s ubm i t t ed byt he G overnm ent , and t hathi s due pr oces s r i ght s w er e vi ol at ed bec aus e hi s s i l ence w as convert ed t o an a d m iss io n o f

a lien a g e . W e h a v e sta ted th a t th e tes t f o r th e a d m iss ib ili tyo f

e v id e n c e in d e p o rta tio n p ro c e e d in g s is w h e th e r th e e v id e n c e is p ro b a tiv e a n d w h e th e r its u se is fundament al l yfai rs o as nott o depr i ve the al i en of due pr oces s of l aw . E zea gw una v. A s hcr oft , 325 F. 3d 396, 405 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . T o pr ove al i enage , t he G overnm entoffe r ed t he R ecord o f D epo rt able A l i en (Fo rm I- 21 3), t he im m i grantvis a (Form 15 5) ( al so r efe r r ed t o as t he fa ce s heet ) , t he appl i cat i on fornatur al i zat i on, and the deni al of that appl i cat i on. T hes e document s r efl ectt hatSang K yu Par k i s a nat i ve of South K or ea w ho w as admi t t ed t o t he U ni t ed St at es i n 1983. Park i dent i fi ed hi m s el f att he hea r i ng as Sang Par k, and hi s l aw y ers t at ed thathe i s r efe r r ed t o as Sang K yu Par k. Par k al s o t es t i fi ed that he w as natur al i zed, i m pl y i ng t hathe w as notbor n her e. A l t hough Par k chal l enges t he admi s s i on of For m I - 213 beca us e the G overnm ent di d notcal l offi ci al s t o t es t i fyr egar di ng t he i nfor m at i on cont ai ned ther ei n, t he B I A has s t at ed thatFor m I - 213 i s i nher ent l yt rus t w or t hyand admi s s i bl e as evi dence t o pr ove al i enage , abs entanyevi dence t hati tcont ai ns i nfor m at i on t hati s i ncorr ectorw as obt ai ned bydur es s . I n r e Ponce- H ernandez , 22 I & N D ec. 784, 785 ( B I A 1999) . Par k has i dent i fi ed no s uch evi dence her e. Par k al s o chal l enges t he admi s s i on of the 1999 dec i s i on d e n y in g n a tu ra liza tio n b e c a u se h e tes tifie d th a t h e w a s n a tu ra lize d . P a rk ’s a rg u m e n t,6

h o w e v e r, g o e s to th e w e ig h t th e d e c is io n s h o u ld b e a f f o rd e d , n o t its a d m is s ib ility. S i m i l arl y , w e fi nd no m eri tt o P ark’ s object i on s t o the adm i ssi on of the i m m i grantvis a bas ed upon a l ack of

evi dence s how i ng t hatt he fi ngerpr i nton t he documentw as hi s , and t o t he admi s s i on of the natur al i zat i on appl i cat i on bas ed upon a l ack of evi dence pr ovi ng t hatt he s i gnatur e on the form w as hi s . Fi nal l y , w e agr ee w i t h t he B I A t hatt he G ov ernm ent di d n ot i m perm i ssi blyrel yon P ark’ s si l ence o r r efusal t o tes t i fyt o est abli sh al i enage . A s des cr i bed above , t he G overnm ents ubm i t t ed ampl e document aryevi dence e s ta b lis h in g P a rk ’s a lie n a g e . P a rk a lso a rg u e s th a t th e IJ im p ro p e rlya d m itt e d th e c o n v ictio n re c o rd s u se d to estab li sh h is r em o v ab il ityb ec au se th eyw ere n o t certi fied in co m p li an ce w ith statu tory and r egul at or yr equi r ement s . T he G overnm ents ubm i t t ed a c opyof the J udgm entof C onvi ct i on i n Par k’ s cr i m i nal cas e w i t h a ce r t i fi cat i on byan i m m i gr at i on offi cert hatt he documenti s a “true and c or r ectcopyof the ce r t i fi ed J udgement& C onvi ct i on document cont ai ned i n t he off

i ci al U ni t ed St at es Feder al B ur eau of Pr i s ons fi l e. . . . ” J oi ntA pp. at 247. W e nee d notaddr es s w hethert he ce r t i fi cat i on compl i ed w i t h s t atut or yand re g u lato ryre q u ire m e n ts c ited b yP a rk , b e c a u se , ev e n if it d id n o t, th e B IA d id n o t er r in fi ndi ng t he J udgm entadmi s s i bl e under8 C . F. R . § 1003. 41( d) . T hi s pr ovi s i on s t at es t hat “[a ] nyot herevi dence t hatr eas onabl yi ndi cat es t he exi s t ence of a c r i m i nal convi ct i on m ay be admi s s i bl e as evi dence t her eof. ” See a l s o Fr anci s v. G onzal es , 442 F. 3d 131, 142 ( 2d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) (ho lding that B IA d id n o t err i n fin d ing p o li ce rep o rtad m issi b le un d er §B ase d o n o u r co n clus ion that the c o n v ict ion d o cu m en t w as a d m issi b le un d er 2 § 1 0 0 3 . 4 1 (d), w e n ee d n o t add ress P ark ’s ch all en g e to th e leg ali tyo f § 1 0 0 3 . 4 1 (b). Pa rk f u rth e r a rg u e s th a t an yw e ig h t th a t th e IJ g a v e to th e p re -se n ten c e re p o rt to p ro v e h is convi ct i on w as i m pr oper . T he I J , how ever , r el i ed on the copyof the J udgm ent , nott he p re -s e n te n c e re p o rt , a s p ro o f o f th e c o n v ic tio n . J o in t A p p . a t 9 1 .

7 1 0 0 3 . 4 1 (d) a s p roo f o f c o n v ict ion , w h ere rep o rtd id n o t fall w ith in an yo f th e statuto ry c a t e g o r i e s o f

d o c u me n t s c o n s t i tu t i n g p r o o f o f a c o n v i c t i o n ) . Ba s e d o n t h i s e v i d e n c e , we agree w i t h the B IA t hat the G ov ernm ent es t abli shed P ark’ s conv i ct i on . A s the B IA al so not ed, Par k di d notchal l enge the s ubs t ance of the r ecor d of convi ct i on. 2 Par k al s o ar gues t hathe w as deni ed due pr oces s beca us e the I J gr ant ed s ever al cont i nuance s i n or dert o gi ve the G overnm entaddi t i onal oppor tuni t i es t o pr epar e the document s i tneede d t o pr ove i t s cas e. W e agr ee w i t h t he B I A t hatt he r ecor d does not re f lec t a d u e p ro c e ss v io latio n o r th a t th e h e a rin g s w e re c o n d u c ted in a f u n d a m e n tally unfai rm anner . A s not ed byt he I J , t hi s w as nota ca s e w her e Park w as det ai ned by i m m i gr at i on author i t i es , and thus anydel ayt o obt ai n t he nec es s aryr ecor ds di d not p rejud ice h im . T h e IJ a lso n o ted a t th e M arc h 2 0 0 7 h ea ri n g that m an yo f P ark ’s o b jec tio n s c o u ld h a v e b e e n d isp o se d o f e a rlier h a d h e su b m itt e d h is m o tio n to ter m in a te b e f o re th e h e a ri n g . Par k al s o di s put es t hathi s convi ct i on cons t i tut es an aggr avat ed fe l ony . W i t hout expl i ci t l ys t at i ng, t he I J appl i ed the ca t egor i cal appr oach of T ay l orv. U ni t ed St at es , 495 U . S. 575 ( 1990) , and compar ed the s t atut e of c onvi ct i on w i t h t he aggr avat ed fe l ony offe ns e. T he I J expl ai ned thatPar k w as convi ct ed of a r m ed r obbery , and that , undert he8

s t atut e of c onvi ct i on, “r obbery ” i s defi ned as t he “unl aw ful t aki ng orobt ai ni ng of per s onal pr oper t yfr om t he per s on ori n t he pr es ence of another , agai ns thi s w i l l , bym eans o f a c tu a l o r t h re a te n e d f

o rc e , o r v io le n c e , o r f

e a r o f in ju ry . . ..” 1 8 U .S .C . § 1951( b) ( 1) . T he I J fur t hers t at ed that , underthe I m m i gr at i on and N at i onal i t yA ct , an aggr avat ed fe l onyi ncl udes a “theftoffe ns e ( i ncl udi ng r ece i ptof s t ol en pr oper t y ) or b u rg la ry o f

f e n s e 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 o n e y e a r.” 8 U .S .C . § 1101( a) ( 43) ( G ) . T he I J expl ai ned thata theftoffe ns e does notr equi r e a s peci fi c i nt ent t o perm anent l ydepr i ve an ow nerof hi s pr oper t y , buta cr i m i nal i nt entt o depr i ve the o w n er o f th e righ ts an d b en ef it s o f o w n ersh ip, eve n if l ess th an total or p erm an en t. T h e IJ n o ted th a t, i n U n ited S tate s v . N e d ley, 2 5 5 F .2 d 3 5 0 , 3 5 7 (3 d C ir. 1 9 5 8 ), w e h e ld th a t § 1951 r equi r es a s peci fi c i nt entt o s t eal per s onal pr oper t yt aken f r om t he per s on of anotherbyvi ol ence orput t i ng i n fea r , and w i t h t he i nt ent i on t o perm anent l ykeep the p r o p e r t y. P r e s u m a b l y b e c a u s e t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f “ t h e f to f f e n s e ” e n c o m p a s s e s a “ r o b b e r y” under§ 1951, as cons t rued i n N edl ey , t he I J found thatPar k comm i t t ed an a ggr avat ed f e lo n y .P a rk a p p e a rs to c o n ten d th a t a c o n v ictio n u n d e r § 1 9 5 1 d o e s n o t n e c e ss a rilye n tail a th e f t o f f e n s e . U n d e r § 1 9 5 1 (a ), W hoeveri n anyw ayordegr ee obs t ruct s , del ay s , oraff ect s comm er ce ort he m ovementof anyar t i cl e orcomm odi t yi n comm er ce, byr obberyor ext or t i on orat t empt s orcons pi r es t o do s o, orcomm i t s ort hr eat ens phy s i cal vi ol ence t o anyper s on orpr oper t yi n fur t her ance of a pl an orpurpos e t o do anyt hi ng i n vi ol at i on of thi s s ect i on s hal l be fi ned undert hi s t i t l e or im p ri s o n e d n o t m o re th a n tw e n ty y e a rs , o r b o th .9

Par k as s er t s t hata convi ct i on under§ 1951 m ayr es ul tfr om “mer el yobs t ruct i ng, i nt er fer i ng, ordel ay i ng t he movem entof pr oper t y , even i f done s o t hr ough an ac tof vi ol ence , ort hr eat eni ng vi ol ence . ” A pp. B r . at60. T o t he ext entt hatt he di s j unct i ve p h rasing o f § 1 9 5 1 (a) inv it es in q u iryinto the sp ec ifi cs o f th e c o n v ict ion , the IJ d id n o t err i n l ooki ng att he J udgm ent , w hi ch r efl ect s Par k’ s gui l t ypl ea t o arm ed r obbery . See Si ngh v . A sh cro ft, 3 8 3 F . 3 d 1 4 4 , 1 6 3 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). P ark d o es n o t dispu te th at a ro b b ery c o n v ic tio n u n d e r § 1 9 5 1 c o n s titu te s a th e f t o f f e n s e . F in a lly , P a rk a rg u e s th a t th e n o tice to a p p e a r w a s im p ro v id e n tlyiss u e d b e c a u se it r efe r r ed t o 18 U . S. C . § 1952, and the j udgm entof convi ct i on does notr efl ecta vi ol at i on of thi s s ect i on. Par k as s er t s t hatt he G overnm entfai l ed t o corr ectt he pl eadi ngs , and thus t he pr ocee di ngs s houl d be di s m i s s ed. T o t he ext entPar k r ai s es a l egal ques t i on as t o t he vali dityof the no t i ce t o ap pear, w e agree w i t h the B IA t hat the reference t o § 19 52 w as a s cr i vener ’ s err or , and thatPar k w as notpr ej udi ced. Par k w as on not i ce thathe w as char ged w i t h r emovabi l i t yas an aggr avat ed fe l on forarm ed r obberyi n vi ol at i on of § 1951, and the I J di d notfi nd hi m r emovabl e bas ed on a c onvi ct i on under§ 1952. Ac c o r d i n g l y , we wi l l d e n yt h e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.