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
2-7-2007 

# C aroleo v . Atty Ge n U SA
P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 05-3762

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 no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t 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 no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2007 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 no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" C a r o le o v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1551. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/1551P 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- 3762

__________ S AL VAT OR E CA RO L E O,

P eti ti o n er,

vs. A LB ER TO R. G O N ZA LES, A t t orneyG eneral of the U nit ed S t at es,

R e sp o n d e n t.

__________ O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls U

. S. D epart m entof J us t i ce ( B I A N o. A 36- 322- 567)

__________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL

. A

. R

. 34. 1( a)

Sept ember 15, 2006

B efor e: SL O V I T E R , W E I S and G A R T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on Fi l ed: February7, 2007)-2- M ar i o A puzzo, E s q. 185 G at zmer A venue J amesbur g, N J 08831 C ouns el f orP et i t i oner Pet erD

. K i es l er M i chae l P. L i ndemann E t han B

. K ant er U

. S. 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 P. O

. B ox 878 B en Fr ankl i n St at i on W as hi ngt on, D C 20044 C ouns el f orR es pondent

__________ OP I NI ON

__________ G ar t h, C i r cui tJ udge: Pet i t i o n e r Sa l v a t o r e Ca r o l e o s e e k s o u r r e v i e w of a deci s i on of t he B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) deny i ng hi s m ot i on fora di s cr et ion ary w ai verof r emoval pur s uantt o § 2 1 2 (c) o f t h e Im m igrati o n an d N ati o n ali tyA c t (“IN A ”). B eca us e w e agr ee w i th the B I A ’ s det er m i nat i on t hatan aggr avat ed fel ony/ cr i m e of vi ol ence – forw hi ch C ar ol eo has been found r emovabl e on t he basi s of hi s s t at e cour tconvi ct i on-3- foratt empt ed murde r – has no s t atut or y count erpar t i n § 212( a) o f th e IN A , w e w ill d e n yC a ro le o ’s p e titio n . I. Pet i t i oner Sal vat or e C ar ol eo, a 35 y ear - ol d nat ive and ci t i zen of I t al y , ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es as a l aw ful per m anent r es i denton an I m m i gr antV i s a on A pr i l 23, 1978. I n D ece m ber 1993, C ar ol eo w as i ndi ct ed i n N ew J er s eySuper i orC our ton a num berof cha r ges r el at ed t o an att ack he comm it te d on a w om an i n M i ddl es ex C ount y . B yl et t erdat ed M ar ch 14, 1996, N ew J e r s e ySt a t e As s i s t a n tPr o s e c u t o rRob e r tJ

. Br a s s o f f er ed C ar ol eo a pl ea agre ement
. T he t er m s of t he pr opos al r equi r ed C aro leo to p lead g u il tyto three co u n ts: att em p ted m u rde r, s econd- degr ee bur g lar y , and pos s es s i on of a w eapon f or u n law fu l pu rpo ses. U n d er the term s o f th e p lea o ff er, C aro leo’s m axi m um cus t odi al s ent en ce w oul d be tw el ve y ear s , w i t h a f o u r- y e a r p e ri o d o f

p a ro le in e lig ib ilty. O n N o v e m b e r 1, 19 9 6 , C a ro leo a p p e a re d in c o u rt w ith h is at torn ey , L o u is C

. E sp o sit o , an d fo rm all yac ce p ted B rass’s M arc h 1 4, 1996 pl ea of fer

. O n J anuary6, 1997, C ar ol eo w as s ent ence d, i n acc or dance w i t h t he pl ea a gr eement , t o a t ot al of t w el ve y ear s i m pr i s onm ent
. T he s ent ence pr ovi ded thatC ar ol eo w o u ld n o t b e e lig ib le f

o r p a ro le p ri o r t o s e rv in g f o u r ye a rs .-4- II. O n J une 12, 2000, w hi l e s t i l l i ncar cer at ed, C ar ol eo w as se rv e d b yth e IN S w ith a N o tice to A p p e a r , c h a rg in g h im w ith b e in g re m o v a b le u n d e r I N A § 2 3 7 (a )( 2 )( A )( iii) , 8 U

. S .C . § 1227( a) ( 2) ( A ) ( i i i) , as an a l i en convi ct ed of a n “aggr avat ed f e lo n y ,” a s th a t te rm is d e f in e d in IN A § 1 0 1 (a )( 4 3 ), 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 3 )

. I n p a r t i c u l a r , t h e No t i c e t o Ap p e a rc o n t a i n e d t wo charges rel at i ng t o tw o separa t e agg ravat ed fe l on i es. T he fir st char ge al l eged thatC ar ol eo had been convi ct ed of an a ggr avat ed fe lon yco n sist ing o f “ a c ri m e o f v iolen ce [a tt em p ted m u rde r]

. . . f o r w h i c 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.” I N A § 101( a) ( 43) ( F) , 8 U

. S. C

. 1101( a) ( 43) ( F)

. T he s econd char ge al l eged that C aro leo w as convi ct ed of the aggr avat ed fel onyof “a t heftoffe ns e . . . or bur gl ary offe ns e for w hi ch the t e r m o f i mp r i s o n me n t[ i s ] a tl e a s to n e y e a r . ” I NA § 1 0 1 (a )( 4 3 )( G ), 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 1 (a )( 4 3 )( G ). A h ea ri n g w as h eld b ef

o re a n im m igrati o n jud g e (“ IJ ”) on A pr i l 19, 2001. A tt he hea r i ng, C ar ol eo, w ho w as r epr es ent ed b y c o u n se l, c o n c e d e d th e re m o v a l ch a rg e s, a n d so u g h t to a p p ly fo r a d iscreti o n ar y w a iv er o f d ep o rt ati o n u n d er IN A § 2 1 2 (c). C ouns el forC ar ol eo ac know l edged thatt he A nti terror i s m and E f f e c tiv e D e a th P e n a ltyA c t (“ A E D P A ” ), w h ich to o k e f f e c t in 1996, for ecl os ed § 212( c) r el i ef t o i ndi vi dual s s uch as Car ol eo w ho had bee n convi ct ed of a ggr avat ed fe l o ni es . H e ar gued, how ever , t hat C ar ol eo m i ghts t i l l be ent i t l ed t o r el i ef unde rt he-5- Se co n d C ir cui t ’ s deci s i on i n St

. C yrv. I N S, 229 F. 3d 406 ( 2d C i r . 2000) , w hi ch hel d t hatA E D PA ’ s r es t r i ct i on on § 212( c) re lief to a g g ra v a ted f

e lo n s co u ld n o t b e a p p lied re tro a c tiv e lyto a lien s w h o p led g u ilty p rio r t o A E D P A ’s e f f e c tiv e d a te o f

A p ril 2 4 , 1 9 9 6

. C a r o l e o c o n c e d e d t h a t h e h a d p l e d g u i l t y af t ert hat date, bu tasser t ed that , becau se hi s c r i me h a d b e e n c o m m itt e d in 1 9 9 3 – p rio r to th e e n a c tm e n t o f A E D P A

– th e p rin c ip les o f S t. Cyrs h o u l d b e e x t e n d e d t o r e n d e rAEDP A i n a p p l i c a b l e t o h i m. O n A pr i l 19, 2001, t he IJ i s s ued an or al deci s i on or der i ng t hatC aroleo be r emoved. T he I J r ej ect ed C ar ol eo’ s ar gum ent t hatt he hol di ng of St. C yrs houl d be ext ended t o al i ens l i ke C ar ol eo w hos e cr i m e had be en co m m i t t ed pr i ort o – buthad p led g u il tyaf

ter – A E D P A ’s ef

fe cti v e d ate. T h e IJ the ref o re hel d t hatSt

. C yrw as i nappl i cabl e t o C ar ol eo bec aus e C ar ol eo “has conce ded thathe p ledg u ilt y on N ovember 1, 1996, ” w hi ch w a s a f te r t h e A p ri l 2 4 , 1 9 9 6 e f f e c tiv e d a te o f

A E D P A

. C ar ol e o f

i l e d h i s a p p e a l t o t h e BI A s h o r t l y a f t e rt he S u p re m e C o u rt a f

f irm e d S t. C yr o n Ju n e 2 5 , 2 0 0 1 . O n a p p e a l, C aro leo a g ain a rgu ed that h e w as n o t subject t o A E D P A ’s l i m i t at i ons on § 212( c) r el i ef beca us e hi s offe ns e w as comm i t t ed i n 1993, pr i or to t he ena ct m entof A E D PA

. O n J ul y30, 2001, t he B I A di s m i s s ed the appe al

. I n i t s or der , t he B I A s t at ed that C ar ol eo “a cknow l edges t hat he pl ed gui l t y t o at t empt ed murde r and bur gl ar yon orabout N o v em b er1, 1996, ” a da t e af t er A E D PA had t aken e ffe ct , and thatSt

. C yr onl y appl i es t o al i ens w ho pl ed gui lt y p ri ort o A E D PA ’ s eff ect i ve dat e r egar dl es s of-6- w h e n th e irc ri m e s w e re c o m m itte d

. III

. O n A p ril 2 5 , 2 0 0 5 , C a ro leo f iled a sp e c ial m o tio n w ith t he B I A see k ing § 212( c) r el i ef. C ar ol eo s peci fi cal l yr el i ed upon r egul at i ons then r ece nt l yadopt ed byt he D epart m entof J us t i ce t o i m pl ement St

. C yr . T hos e r egul at i ons pr ovi de t hatan al ien need onl yhave a gr eed w i t h t he pr os ecut orin fo rm a lly to pl ead gui l t ypr i ort o A E D PA ’ s eff ect ive dat e t o avoi d t he l i m i t at i ons i m p o sed byA E D PA

. I n hi s m ot i on, C ar ol eo as s er t ed, fort he fi r s tt i m e, t hatal t hough hi s gui l t y pl ea w as not for m al l y ent er ed i n cour t unt i l N ovember 1, 1996, he had i n fac t in fo rm a lly acc ept ed the pros ecut i on’ s M ar ch 14, 1996 pl ea of fer pr i or t o A E D PA ’ s A pr i l 24, 1996 eff ect i ve dat e, and thathe w as t her efor e el i gi bl e t o be cons i der ed for§ 212( c) r el i ef unde rpr eA E D PA s t andar d s . T o s uppor tt hi s as s er t i on, C ar ol eo s ubm i t t ed an af fi davi tfr om L ou i s C

. E s pos i t o, t he att or neyw ho had re p re se n ted h im in h is c rim in a l c a se . In th e a f f id a v it, E sp o sito s t at ed: 3. D ue t o t he quant i t yand qual i t yof t he evi dence t he St at e had agai ns t M r . C ar ol eo, he and I never seriou slyco n side red a tri al. W e the ref o re im m e d iate lyo p e n e d p lea n e g o tiatio n s w ith A ssi st ant Prosecut or R ob ertJ. B ras s. 4. O n M ar ch 14, 1996, M r . B rass m ade a pl ea o f f e r . Th e o f

f e rwa s t r a n s mi t t e d i n a l e t t e rt o me-7- dat ed M ar ch 14, 1996 .

. . T hi s offe rw as ac ce p ted by M r. C aro leo an d m e sho rt ly af ter I rec eive d the lett er. 5. D ue t o m ybus yt r i al cal endarand the ment al h e a lth p ro b lem s a n d se v e ra l m e n tal h e a lth hos pi t al i zat i ons exper i ence d byM r . C ar ol eo, t he offe rw as not for m al l y act ed upon unt i l N ovember 1 , 1 9 9 6 , the d a yM r. C a ro le o e n ter e d h is g u ilty pl ea on the r ecor d i n t he S u p eri orC our tof N ew J e rs e y. . . 6. T he i ni t i al offe rw hi ch w e r ece i ved i n w r i t i ng i n M r . B r as s ’ s l et t erdated M ar ch 14, 1996 w as neverr ej ect ed and accep t ed a s present ed a lm ost im m e d ia tely

. . . . 7. I have a cl earr ecol l ect i on of t he fa ct s of the c a s e , t h e p l e a n e g o t i a t i o n s wi t h t h e S t a t e , t h e t i me that the S tat e m ad e the o ff er, th e ti m e tha t M r. C a ro leo a n d I a c c e p ted th a t o f f e r, an d w o u ld , if re q u ire d , b e w ill in g to tes tifyin o p e n c o u rt to th is k n o w le d g e . I c a n s t a t e wi th c e r t a i n t y th a twe acce pt ed the Stat e’s p lea of f erdat ed M

ar ch 14, 1996 bef or e Apri l24, 1996

. C ar ol eo ac know l edged that , underam en d m ent s t o t he I N A t hatw er e i n pl ace s i nce 1990, § 212( c) reli ef w as unavai l abl e t o anyal i en w ho had s er ved a t er m of i m pr i s onm ent o f a t lea st f

iv e y e a rs f

o r a n a g g ra v a ted f

e lo n y . A t th e tim e h is s peci al m ot i on s eeki ng § 212( c) r el i ef w as fi l ed i n A pr i l 2005,-8- C ar ol eo w as s t i l l i ncar ce rate d, and had, t o t hatpoi nt , s er ved m o re th a n e ig h t yea rs in p ri s o n . C ar ol eo pr es ent ed tw o m ai n ar gum ent s t hathe w as n ev erthe les s e n titl ed to reli ef

. F ir st, as a m att er o f statuto ry in ter p re tatio n , C a ro leo a rg u e d th a t th e tim e a t w h ich to e v a lu a te w hether an ali en h as “ser ved a t erm of im pri sonm ent of atl east fi ve y ea r s , ” thus r ender i ng hi m i nel i gi bl e forcons i der at i on under§ 212( c) , i s w hen the al i en fi rst s eeks t o appl yfors uch re lief – o r a t th e late st, u p o n e n tryo f a f in a l o rd e r o f

re m o v a l. I n t he pr es entcas e, C ar ol eo had s ought t o appl yfora § 212( c) w ai veratt he hea r i ng befor e t he IJ on A pr i l 19, 2001, atw hi ch t i m e he ha d s er ved fe w ert han fi ve y ear s . M or eover , C ar ol eo had s t i l l nots er ved fi ve y ear s att he t i m e w h en the B I A i s s ued its J u ly 3 0 , 2 0 0 1 o rd e r a f f ir m in g th e IJ ’s d e c is io n . Second, C ar ol eo ar gued that , even i f he w as found t o be sta tu to rily b a rre d f

ro m re lief

u n d e r § 2 1 2 (c ), th e B IA sh o u ld nev ertheles s cons id er hi s appli cat i on on equ i t able gr ou nd s. C ar ol eo as s er t ed t hati tw oul d be unj us tt o deny h im § 212( c) r el ief o n the bas i s of hi s now havi ng s er ved more t han fi ve y ear s ’ i n c a r c e r a t i o n , whe n h e h a d , i n f a c t , s o u g h ts u c h r e l i ef pr i ort o havi ng s er ved fi ve y ear s , but had bee n w r ongl ydeni ed th e o p p o rtu n ityto d o so . C a ro leo th e re f o re a sk e d th e B IA to em ploy t he equit able rem edy of n un c pro t un c t o co nsi der hi s § 2 1 2 (c) ap p li ca tio n as th o u g h h e h ad p rop erlyfil ed itb ef o re s e rv in g f iv e y e a rs .-9- In a n o rde r d ated Ju ly7 , 2 0 0 5 , the B IA d en ied C aro leo’s m ot i on. Fi r s t , t he B I A rul ed that C ar ol eo w as i nel i gi bl e fora § 212( c) w ai verbeca us e the aggr avat ed fel ony convi ct i ons on t he bas i s of w hi ch C ar ol eo w as found r emovabl e – i. e. , “cr i m e of vi ol ence ” and “ t heftorbur gl aryoffe ns e, ” “d o nothave a s t atut or ycount erpar ti n s ect i on 212( a) of t he A ct
. ” A s a s econd gr ound fordeny i ng hi s m ot i on, t he or ders t at ed: “i tappea r s t hat t he r es pondenthas s er ved more t han 5 y ear s of i ncar cer at i on for his agg ravat ed fel on y con vict i on s. If t his i s true, i tw ou l d als o r enderhi m i nel i gi bl e fora s ect i on 212( c) w ai ver . ” C ar ol eo then f ile d th is tim e ly p e titio n . I V. W e have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew cons t i tut i onal cl ai m s or ques t i ons of l aw r ai s ed upon a pe t i t i on forr evi ew fro m a fi nal or derof t he B I A pur s uant t o I N A § 242( a) , 8 U

. S. C

. § 1252( a) as a me n d e d b y s e c t i o n 1 0 6 o f t h e REA L I D Act o f 2 0 0 5, Pub. L

. N o. 109- 13, D i v. B , 119 St at
. 231, 310 ( 2005)

. W e r evi ew s u c h c o n s t i tu t i o n a l c l a i ms a n d q u e s t i o n s o f l a w d e novo. K a m a ra v . A tt’ yG e n ., 4 2 0 F .3 d 2 0 2 , 2 1 1 (3 d C ir .2 0 0 5 ). In o rde r fo r C a ro leo to estab li sh h is el igibil ityfo r § 212( c) r el i ef, he mustdemonst r at e ( i ) thathe agr eed t o pl ead gui l t ypr i ort o A E D PA ’ s eff ect ive d at e, and i s t her efor e not s u bje c t to A E D P A ’s a b so lu te b a r o n § 2 1 2 (c ) re lief toW e cons i deral l t hr ee of C ar ol eo’ s cl ai m s even though 1 the B IA ’s J u ly7 , 2 0 0 5 d ec isi o n d ea ls on lyw ith the “ fiv e y ea r” a n d “ s ta tu to ry c o u n te rp a rt ” g ro u n d s . -10- aggr avat ed fe l ons ; ( i i ) t hathe i s ent i t l ed t o i nvoke § 212( c) 1 des pi t e havi ng now ser ved more t han fi ve y ear s i n pr i s on; and (iii) tha t th e b a sis f

o r his re m o v a l h a s a “ sta tu to ryc o u n ter p a rt” gr ound forexcl us i on i n I N A § 212( a)

. C ar ol eo mustpr evai l on a ll th re e g ro u n d s to su c c e e d in h is pe tit io n – i.e., t o e sta b lish h is e lig ib ility f

o r r e lie f u n d e r I N A § 2 1 2 (c ). W er e w e t o r eac h t he fi r s tt w o i s s ues , w e w oul d hol d t hat C ar ol eo s houl d be perm i t t ed, on equi t abl e grounds , t o appl yfor § 2 1 2 (c) reli ef d esp it e h av ing n o w serv ed m o re tha n fiv e y ea rs i n pr i s on, and t hat C ar ol eo’ s appl i cat i on s houl d be r emanded for a deter m i nati on of w hen C arol eo agreed t o plead gu i l t y . T hese iss u e s a re m o o ted , h o w e v e r, b yo u r c o n c lu s io n th a t C a ro leo is i nel i gi bl e for§ 212( c) r el i ef a s a r es ul tof h is f ail ur e t o s at i s fy t he “st atutor ycou nterpart ” requi rem ent un der § 21 2(c) becau se a t lea st on e o f th e g ro u n d s u p o n w h ich th e g o v e rn m e n t se e k s h is r emov a l – t h e a g g r a v a t e d f e l o n yo f “ c r i me o f

v i o l e n c e” (a ttem p ted m u rd e r) – d o e s n o t h a v e a sta tu to ryc o u n ter p a rt in I NA § 2 1 2 ( a )

. T h u s , e v e n i f we h e l d f o r Ca r o l e o o n t h e f

i r s tt wo is s u e s lis te d a b o v e , h is p e titio n m u s t n e v e rt h e le s s b e d e n ie d

. 1. Th e p r i n c i p l e t h a t§ 2 1 2 ( c ) i s a v a i l a b l e i n r e movalSect i on 212( c) w as r epea l ed i n t he Il l egal I m m i gr at i on 2 R ef o rm an d Im m igran t R esp o n sibil ity A ct of 1 9 9 6 (“IIR IR A ”), Pub. L

. N o. 104- 208 § 304, 110 St at
. 3009- 597 ( 1996)

. R el i ef u n d er § 2 1 2 (c) rem ains av ail ab le, h o w ev er, pu rsua n t t o S t. C yr, f o r a li e n s w h o h a v e b e e n f o u n d re m o v a b le p u rsu a n t to g u ilty pl eas ent er ed pr i orto § 2 1 2 (c )’ s re p e a l. T he s t atut ory co u nt erpar tr equi r ement has s om ew hat 3 t or tuous or i gi ns . U nderi t s l i t er al t er m s , § 212( c) offe r s r el i ef o n ly to a lie n s w h o lea v e th e U n ited S tate s a n d a re f a c e d w ith exc l us i on u n d e rt h e p r o v i s i o n s o f I NA § 2 1 2 ( a )

. S e e I NA § 212( c) , 8 U

. S. C

. § 1182( c) ( “A l i ens l aw ful l yadmi t t ed for -11- p roc ee d ing s o n ly w h ere the gro u n d fo r rem o v al ha s a “ statu tory count erpar t ” ground for excl us i on has been f i r m l yi n pl ace and cons i s t ent l yappl i ed s i nce at l eas t 1991. T hi s r equi r ement has 2 al so recent l ybeen cod i fi ed in t he IN S regul at i on s: ( f) L i m i t at i ons on di s cr et i on t o gr antan a p p l i c a t i o n u n d e rs e c t i o n 2 1 2 ( c ) o f t h e Ac t
. An appl i cat i on for r el i ef under for m er s ect i on 212( c) of t he A cts hal l be deni ed i f:

. . . . (5) The al i en is deportabl e underf or m ers ect i on 241 of the A ct

orr em ovabl e unders ect i on 237 of the Acton a gr ound w h i ch does nothave a sta tu to ry c o u n ter

p a rt in se c tio n 2 1 2 o

f th e A c t. 8 C

. F. R

. § 1212. 3( f) ( emphasi s added)

. See al s o Far quhar s on 3per m anentr es i dence w ho t em por ar i l y pr ocee d abr oad

. . . m ay be adm i t t ed

in th e d isc re tio n o f

th e A tto rn e yG e n e ra l [ d e sp ite b e i n g f a c e d wi t h e x c l u s i o n u n d e rt h e p r o v i s i o n s o f I NA § 2 1 2 (a )] ” )( e m p h a s is a d d e d ). T he IN S , ho w ever, extended § 212 (c) rel i ef t o a sub cl ass of al i ens i n r em oval

ordepor t at i on pr ocee di ngs : al i ens w ho had left t h e U n it ed S tat es an d then w ere p erm itted to ree n ter d e sp ite b e in gex c lu da b le

. T hi s pr act i ce y i el ded an i nequi t abl e r es ul tby t r eat i ng di ffe r ent l y , r emovabl e al i ens w ho had l eftand r eent er ed the U n it ed S tat es an d tho se w h o h ad n ev er left. U n d er the IN S ’s pol i cy , byt he s i m pl e expe di entof t aki ng a tr i p abr oad, t he for m ercl as s of al i ens bec am e el i gi bl e fordi s cr et i onaryr el i ef w hi l e the l at t erw er e not
. ( W e us e the term “r emoval ” i ns t ead of “de por t at i on” bec aus e the statut or yt er m us ed i n t he I l l egal I m m i gr at i on R eform and I m m i gr ant R es pons i bi l i t yA ctof 1996 ( “I I R I R A ”) i s “r emoval ”)

. Fi ndi ng t hi s di s t i nct i on “not r at i onal ly r el at ed t o anyl egi t i m at e purpos e of the s t atut e, ” the Second C i r cui ti n 1976 s t ruck i tdow n as a vi ol at i on of t he equa l p ro tec tio n c o m p o n e n t o f th e D u e P ro c e ss C lau se o f th e F if th A m en d m en t. F ran cis v . IN S , 5 3 2 F

. 2 d 2 6 8 , 2 7 2 (2d C ir

. 1 9 7 6 ). T he B I A s ubs equent l yadopt ed thi s r eas oni ng i n M at t erof Si l va, 1 6 I. & N . D e c . 2 6 (B IA 1 9 7 6 ), a n d e x ten d e d § 2 1 2 (c ) re lief to r emovabl e al i ens r egar dl es s of w hethert heyhad depa r t ed the U ni t ed St at es s i nce the co m m issi on of the ac tr ender i ng t hem re m o v a b le

. U ndert he r at ion al e of Fr anci s and Si l va, cert ai n al i ens re m o v a b le u n d e r IN A § 2 3 7 m a yre c e iv e § 2 1 2 ( c ) re lief a s if -12-they w er e s ubj ectt o exc l us i on r athert han r em oval

. H o w ev er, t he equa l pr ot ect i on r ati onal e under l y i ng t he ext ens i on of § 212( c) r el i ef t o r emovabl e al i ens onl yr equi r es t hats uch r el i ef be m ade a vai l abl e t o r emovabl e ali ens w ho w oul d be ex c lu da b le f o rth e s a me r e a s o n s t h a t r e n d e rt h e m re m o v a b le – a s i tuat i on n o t tr u e f

o r a ll a lie n s f

a c in g re m o v a l. A ccordi ngl y, § 212(

c) r el i ef w as notext ended to al i ens w h o se r em ovabi l i t y is bas ed upon a gr ound f

orw h ich a com

par abl e gr ound of

exc l us i on – i

. e. a st atut ory cou nter pa rt – d oes no texist . S ee M att erof W adu d , 1 9 I

. & N

. D ec. 182, 184 ( B I A 1984) ; M at t erof G ra n a d o s , 1 6 I. & N . D e c . 7 2 6 (B IA 1 9 7 9 ). A s w e have r ecogni zed i n not e 2, s upr a, § 212( c) w as re p e a led in 1 9 9 6 , an d r e lief u n d e r th a t sta tu te is n o w a v a ilab le o n ly to a lie n s w h o e n te re d g u ilty p le a s p ri o r t o th a t d a te
. -13- v . U n it ed S tat es A G , 2 4 6 F

. 3 d 1 3 1 7 , 1 3 2 4 (11 th C ir

. 2 0 0 1 ); C at o v. I N S, 84 F. 3d 597 ( 2d C i r . 1996) ; G j onaj v. I N S, 47 F. 3d 824, 827 ( 6t h C i r . 1995) ; K om ar enko v. I N S, 35 F. 3d 432, 435 (9th C ir

. 1 9 9 4 ); C h o w v . IN S , 1 2 F

. 3 d 3 4 , 3 8 (5th C ir

. 1 9 9 3 ); L ea l-R o d ri g u ez v . IN S , 9 9 0 F

. 2 d 9 3 9 , 9 4 8 -52 (7th C ir

. 1 9 9 3 ); C a m p o s v . IN S , 9 6 1 F .2 d 3 0 9 , 3 1 6 -1 7 (1 s t C ir . 1 9 9 2 ). C ar ol eo ar gues he s houl d notbe r emo v ed beca us e he sa tisf ies th e “ sta tu to ryc o u n te r p a rt” re q u ire m e n t in th a t h is c r i mi n a l c o n v i c t i o n s

– f o r a t t e mpt e d mur d e r , b u r g l a r y , and unl aw ful pos s es s i on of a w eapon f o r a n unl aw ful purpos e – cons t i tut e “c r i m e[s ] i nvol vi ng m or al turp i tude, ” one of t he g ro u n d s f

o r e x c lu s io n u n d e r I N A § 2 1 2 (a ). S e e 8 U .S .C . §W e have r ecogni zed that“i ti s notuncomm on fort he 4 DHS t o c o n c e i v e o f

a s i n g l e c r i me a s q u a l i f y i n g b o t h a s a c r i me i nvol vi ng m or al turpi tude and as an aggr avat ed fe l ony . ” Par k v. G onzal es , N o. 05- 2054, s l i p op. at 14 ( 3d C i r . D ece m ber28, 2 0 0 6 )

. Howev e r , Pa r k i n v o l v e d o n l yt h e p r e l i mi n a r yq u e s t i on -14- 1182( a) ( 2) ( A ) ( i )

. O ur an al y s i s , how ever , l eads t o a di ffe r ent c o n c lu s io n . 2. S e c tio n 2 3 7 o f

th e IN A , e n title d “ D e p o rt a b le A lie n s ,” l i s t s t he gr ounds upon w hi ch the A t t or neyG ener al m ayor deran ali en rem o v ed

. Itis i n this co n text that co u rt s loo k to an ali en ’s un d erlyi ng cr i m i nalconvi ct i on to d e ter m in e w h e th e r it fa lls w i t hi n one of § 237' s s t atut or ygr ounds forr emoval

. For e x a mp l e , a n a l i e n wi l l o n l y b e s u b j e c t t o r e mo v a l u n d e r I NA § 237( a) ( 2) ( A ) ( i i i ) i f i t i s det er m i ned t hat t he cr i m e forw hi ch he w a s c o n v icte d is in d e e d a n a g g ra v a ted f e lo n ya s th a t term is defi ned i n t he IN A

. L i kew i s e, befor e an a l i en ca n be r emoved fo r a “ crim e inv o lving m o ral tu rpitu d e,” IN A § 2 3 7 (a)(2)(A )(i ), t he g ov ernm ent m ustest ab lis h thatt he ali en’s under l yi ng convi ct i on does i ndeed cons t i tut e a cr i m e i nvol vi ng m or al tu rpit u d e. I ti s i n t hi s cont ext– i

. e. , det er m i ni ng w hetheran al i en’s under l

yi ng convi ct i on qual i fi es as m or al turpi tude therebyes t abl i s hi ng re m o v a b ili ty – th a t so m e c a se s h a v e h e ld that crim e s li k e tho se f o r w h ich C aro leo w as c o n v ict ed are cr i m es i nvol vi ng m or al turpi tude. 4o f th e a li en ’s re m o v a b ili ty u n d er IN A § 2 3 7 ; § 2 1 2 (c) r el i ef f r om r em oval , and the s t atut or ycount erpar tr equi r em ent t her eunder , w er e noti n i s s ue. The anal y s es ar e di ffe r entfor e a c h o f th e s e p ro v is io n s . -15- T he s t atut or ycount erpar t r equi r ement under§ 212( c) , on t he o t h e r h a n d , p r e s e n t s a n e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t q u e s t i o n . I n an ap p li ca ti o n fo r § 2 1 2 (c) r el i ef

– i. e. a dis cr et i onar y w ai verof r em oval , the al i en’ s r emovabi l i t yhas al r eadybeen e s t abl i s hed

– i

. e . , i th a s a l r e a d y b e e n d e t e r mi n e d t h a t t h e u n d e r l y i n g c r i me f o r w h i c h h e h a s b e e n c o n v i c t e d f a l l s w i t h i n o n e o f

I N A § 2 3 7 's g rou n d s fo r rem o v al. T h e re leva n t st atuto ryco u n terpa rtinq u iry t hen l ooks – nott o t he under l y i ng cr i m i nal convi ct i on – but r athert o t he s t at ut or

y gr ou n dfor re m oval c o n t a i n e d i n I NA § 237and w hetheri thas a count erparti n t he s t at ut or y gr ound f

or exc lusi on pr ovis i ons of I N A § 212( a)

. U ndert hi s cat egor i cal analy si s, w e com pare t he rem o val and ex cl usi on provis i on s of th e I NA to d e ter m in e w h e th e r th e ya re “ su b sta n tiallye q u iv a len t” S ee B ed o y a-V alen cia v

. IN S , 6 F

. 3 d 8 9 1 , 8 9 4 (2d C ir

. 1 9 9 3 ); C ampos v. I N S, 961 F. 2d 309, 313 n. 6 ( 1s tC i r . 1992)

. I f t hey a re , a s ta tu to ry c o u n te rp a rt h a s b e e n e s ta b lis h e d

. T his di s t i nct i on betw een the pr el i m i naryques t i on of re m o v a b ili ty u n d er IN A § 2 3 7 an d the s tatu to ryco u n terpa rt req u ir em en t fo r r el i ef

f r om r em oval under I N A § 212( c) l eads us to co n clud e tha t C aro leo h as n o t sat isfied th e st a tu tory count erpar tr equi r ement
. B ec au s e w hi l e i ti s t rue thatt he u n d e r l y i n gc r i me of at t empt ed murde rcan be char act er i zed a s-16- a cr i m e i nvo lvi ng m or al turpi tude fort he purpos es of det er m i ni ng re m o v a b il ity , s ee, e. g. , Y ous efi v. U ni t ed St at es IN S , 2 6 0 F

. 3 d 3 1 8 , 3 2 6 (4th C ir

. 2 0 0 1 ), the st atuto ryco u n terpa rt pr er equi s i t e for§ 2 1 2 ( c ) r e l i e f f r o m r e mov al f

o c u se s, q u ite di ffer ent l y , upon t he s t at ut or y gr ound f

orr em oval

– her e an aggr avat ed fel ony “cr i m e of vi ol ence . ” K om ar enko v. I N S, 35 F. 3d 432 ( 9t h C i r . 1994)

. A nd, t her e i s no author i t ychal l engi ng t he B I A ’ s di r ecthol di ng i n M at t er of B r i eva, 23 I & N D ec. 766 ( B I A 2005) t hatt he aggr avat ed fe l on y “cr i m e of vi ol ence ” groun d fo r r em ov al i s nota s t a tu t o r yc o u n t e rp a r to f I NA § 212( a) ’ s “cr i m e i nvol vi ng m or al turpi tude. ” I n K om ar enko, t he courtr ej ect ed an ana l y s i s verys i m i l ar t o t he one pr opos ed byC ar ol eo. K om ar enko w as convi ct ed of as s aul tw i t h a dea dl yw eapon i n vi ol at i on of C al i for ni a l aw and s ent ence d t o four y ear s i m pr i s onm ent
. T he I N S com m ence d r emoval pr ocee di ngs agai ns thi m forbei ng an al i en convi ct ed of th e a g g ra v a te d f

e lo n y o f a “ f

ir e a rm s c h a rg e ,” 8 U .S .C . § 1227( a) ( 2) ( C )

. K om ar enko conc eded r emovabi li t ybuts ought a w a iv e r un d e r § 2 1 2 (c ), a rg u in g th a t h is c o n v ictio n f o r a ss a u lt wi t h a d e a d l y wea p o n h a d a s t a tu t o r yc o u n t e rp a r ti n I NA § 212( a) ’ s “cr i m e i nvol vi ng m or al turpi tude” gr ou nd for e x c lu s io n . T he courts peci fi cal l yr ej ect ed K om ar enko’ s clai m t hat t he courtm us tl ook t o t he part i cul arfac t s of hi s cr i m e, w hi ch, he c la im e d , c o u ld b e d e e m e d a c ri m e o f m o ra l tu rp itu d e . T

he co urt held thati tis the s t at ut or y gr ound f

orr em oval

thatm us thave a-17- “subs t ant i al l

y i dent i cal ” count er

par ti n the s t at ut or

y gr ounds f or exc l us i on i n or dert o qual i f y f ors ect i on 212(

c) ; the f act ual bas is of the underl

yi ng cr i m i nal act i vi t

y is i r r el evant . T h e c o u rt expl ai ned th at t hi s concl us i on fol l ow s di r ect l yfr om t he equa l pr ot ect i on conce r ns t hatar e the b asis fort he w hol e i dea of a “s t atut or ycount erpar t ”: G en era l l y , w hen court s have f ound an equa l pr ot ect i on vi ol ati on, t he exc l udabi l i t yand d e p o rta tio n p ro v isio n s h a v e b e e n su b sta n tially i dent i cal

. T hatw ay , t he onl ydi s t i nct i on betw een t he t w o cl as s es of per s ons t he s t atut e cr eat ed w as t hatone cl as s of i ndi vi dual s had tr avel ed abr oad a n d re tu rn e d , an d th e o th e r h a d n o t. Itis th is arb i t r arydi s t i nct i on t hatvi ol at es equal pr ot ect i on. In th e in sta n t ca se , the p ro v isio n s a re e n tirely d i s s i mi l a r , a n d t h e d i s t i n c t i o n b e t we e n t h e t wo cl as s es i s notarbi t r aryorunr eas onabl e. . . . For t hi s r eas on, t he l i nchpi n of t he equa l pr o te ct i on anal y s i s i n t hi s cont ext i s t hatt he tw o pr ovi s i ons b e “ s u b s ta n tia lly id e n tic a l.” K o m a re n k o , 3 5 F .3 d a t 4 3 5

. T h e c o u rt a ls o a d d re ss e d K o m a re n k o ’s a rg u m e n t th a t, b e c a u se h is c o n v ictio n f o r a ss a u lt w ith a d e a d lyw e a p o n w o u ld also h av e q u a lif

ied h im fo r ex clus ion u n d er IN A § 2 1 2 (a)’s cr i m e i nvol vi ng m or al turpi tude gr ound, i tw oul d vi ol at e equa l-18- pr ot ect i on t o deny hi m § 212( c) r el i ef fr om r emoval pr ocee di ngs p red icated o n the s am e u n d erly ing crim inal ac ti v ity . T h e c o u rt r ej ect ed t hi s ar gum ent , h o ldi ng t hatt he under l y i ng cr i m i nal ac ti v ity w as n o t relev an t; w h at w as im p o rt an t w as th e statuto ry gr ound i n t he I N A under w hi ch r emoval w as s ought

. W hether the u n d erly in g crim e c o u ld also h av e b ee n the b asis fo r a di ffe r entgr ound forr emoval – one w hi ch does h av e a statu tory c o u n ter p a rt g ro u n d f

o r e x c lu sio n – is e n tirelyirre lev a n t. K om ar enko cl ai m s w e m us t focus on t he fa ct s of hi s i ndi vi dual cas e and c oncl ude t hatbeca us e he coul d have be en exc l uded under t he mora l turpi tude pr ovi s i on, he has been den i ed equa l p ro te c tio n . W

e dec l ine t o s

peculat e w hetherthe I.N .S . w o u ld h a v e a pp l iedth is b ro a d

ex c lu da b ili ty pr ovis i on t o an al i en i n Kom ar enko' s posi t i on. W ere w e t o do s o, w e w ou ld extend d iscret i on ary re v iew to e v e ry g ro u n d fo r d e p o rta tio n th a t co u ld c o n s t i t u t e “ th e e s s e n t i a le l e me n t s o f a c r i me i n v o l v i n g m o r a l t u r p i t u d e .” 8 U.S .C . § 1 1 8 2 (a )(2 )(A )(i)( II ). Such j udi ci al l egi s l at i ng w oul d vas t l yover s t ep our"l i m i t ed scope of ju d ic ia l in q u ir yin t o im m ig ra tio n le g is la tio n ," Fi al l o v. B el l , 430 U

. S. 787, 792, 52 L

. E d. 2d 50, 97 S. C t
. 1473 ( 1977) ; Fr anci s , 5 32 F. 2d at272, and w oul d i nterfere w i t h t he br oad enf or cement pow er s C ongr es s has d elega t ed t o t he A t t or ney G e n e ra l, se e 8 U .S .C

. § 1 1 0 3 (a ). W e d e c lin e to-19- adopta fa ctual appro ach t o ourequal pr ot ect i on anal y s i s i n t he cont extof t he deport at i on and e x c lu d a b ility p ro v is io n s o f th e IN A

. K o m a re n k o , 3 5 F .3 d a t 4 3 5 (e m p h a s is a d d e d ). T hus , i t w as i r r el evant t o t he K om ar enko courtw hether t he ali en co ul d have be en r emoved undert he mora l turpi tude s t atut or ygr ound forr emoval

. T he go v ern m enthad or der ed K o m a ren k o rem o v ed fo r a f ir ea rm s ch arg e a n d the c o u rt t h ere fo re w as r equi r ed t o r es t r i cti t s i nqui r yt o t he ques t i on w h ethe r t h e re m o v al ca te g o ry“f ir ea rm s ch arg e” is a statu tory count erpar tof t he mora l turpi tude gr ound fo r exc l us i on. T he c o u rt h e ld th a t it w a s n o t. T he s ame anal y s i s was mor e r ece nt l yappl i ed i n t w o cas es b e f o re th e B IA , w h o se in ter p re tatio n o f th e IN A is e n tit led to de fe r e nc e . Se e Chev r on , U

. S. A

. , I nc . v. N RD C, I nc . , 46 7 U. S. 837, 844 ( 1984) , Fr ancoi s v. G onzal es , 448 F. 3d 645, 648 ( 3d C ir

. 2 0 0 6 ). In M att er o f B ri ev a, 2 3 I& N D ec . 7 6 6 (B IA 2 0 0 5 ), an al i en w as or der ed r emoved under the “cr i m e of vi ol ence ” aggr avat ed fel ony pr ovi s i on aft er havi ng been convi ct ed under s t at e l aw forunauthor i zed us e of a m ot orv ehi cl e. T he al i en appea l ed t o t he B I A on t w o gr o u nds

. Fi r s t , t he al i en as s er t ed t hat u n a u t h o r i z e d u s e o f a mot o r v e h i c l e was n o t a “ c r i m e of vi ol ence ” aggr avat ed fe l onyforw hi ch he co ul d be r emoved. Second, t he al i en ar gued thateven i f r emovabl e for comm i t t i ng a cri me of

vi ol e nc e , he w a s e nt i t l e d t o § 21 2( c ) r e l i e f b e cause-20- “c ri m e o f v iolen ce ” i s a statuto ryco u n terpa rto f IN A § 2 1 2 (a)’s “cr i m e i nvol vi ng m or al turpi tude. ” The B I A r ej ect ed both of t hes e ar gum ent s . T he B I A fi r s t hel d t hat unauthor i zed us e of a mo t o r v e h i c l e q u a l i f

i e s a s a c r i me o f v i o l e n c e u n d e r t h e I NA, t her ebym aki ng t he al i en r emovabl e as a r es ul tof hi s convi ct i on forthat“aggr av at ed fe l ony . ” R emovabi l i t yhavi ng been es t abl i s hed, t he B I A t hen tur ned t o t he al i en’ s r eques tforr el i ef under § 212( c)

. T he B I A deni ed r el i ef, hol di ng t hatt he cr i m e of vi ol ence gr ound forr emoval is n o t a s t atut or ycount erpartof I N A § 212( a) ’ s “cr i m e i nvol vi ng m or al turpi tude” gr ound for e x c lu s io n . T h e B IA h eld th at, in d ec iding th e q u esti o n , the c o u rt shou l d look n ot t o t he un derl y i ng cri m e – i

. e. , un authori zed u se of a m o torvehi cl e, butr athert o t he s t at ut or y gr ound

for re m o v a l: I n m aki ng t he compa ri so n i n t hi s cas e, t he r el e v a n t q u e s t i o n i s whe t h e r t h e " c r i me of v io len c e " a g g ra v a ted f

e lo n yg ro u n d , a s d e f

in e d in se c tio n 1 0 1 (a ) ( 4 3 )(F ) o f th e A c t, i s s u b sta n tially e q u iv a len t to a g ro u n d o f in a d m is s ib ili tyin se c tio n 2 1 2 (a ) o f

th e A c t.

. . . . A lth o u g h th e re n e e d n o t b e p e rf e c t s ym m e tryin order t o find t hat a gro un d o f rem ov al has a st atutor ycou nterparti n sect i on 21 2(a) , t here m ust be a cl os er m at ch t han t hat exhi bi t ed by t he-21- i nc i de nt a l ov e r l a p be t w e e n s e c t i on 10 1( a ) ( 43 ) ( F) (crim e o f v iolen ce ) an d sec ti o n 2 1 2 (a)(2)(A )(i )(I ) (c rim e in v o lv in g m o ra l tu rp itu d e ). T h e d istin c tly d i f f e r e n tt e r mi n o l o g yu s e d t o d e s c r i b e t h e t wo cat egor i es of off

ens es and t he s i gni fi cantvar i ance i n t h e t yp e s o f o f

f e n s e s c o v e r e d b y t h e s e t wo pr ov i s i o n s l e a d u s t o c o n c l u d e t h a tt h e ya r e not “s t atut or ycount erpar t s ” forpurpos es of sect i on 2 1 2 ( c ) e l i g i b i l i t y. M a tte r o f

B ri e v a , 2 3 I. & N . D e c . 7 6 6 , 7 7 3

. T he al i en i n B r i eva a l s o ar gued tha t , beca us e he c o u ld have been removed undert he “theftoffe ns e” pr ovi s i on of t he I N A , s e e 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 3 ) ( G ) ( s t a t i n g t h a tt h e I N A 's d e f init ion o f “a g g rav ated fe lon y ” i n clud es “a thef t o ff en se . . . forw hi ch t he t er m of i m pr i s onm ent[i s ] at l eas t one y ear ”) , t he BI A s h o u l d l o o k t o t h a t g r o u n d a s a b a s i s f o rc o mp a r i s o n t o I NA § 2 1 2 (a )’s m o ra l tu rp itu d e p ro v isio n . T h e B IA re jec te d th is a rg u m e n t: T he r es pondentar gues t hathi s cr i m e i s a " t heft o f f e n s e " f o rp u rp o s e s o f

c o mpa r i n g t h e mor al turpi tude gr ound of i nadmi s s i bi l i ty . H ow ever , t he r es pondenthas notbeen c har ged w i t h an aggr avat e d f

e l o n y " t h e f

t o f f e n s e . " T he compar abl e gr ound te s tfors ect i on 212( c) r eq u i r e s t h a t t h e o f

f e n s e c h a r g e d , i

. e . , " c r i m e of-22- vi ol ence , " ha ve an a nal ogous g r ound of in a d m is s ib ility. W

hetherthe r es

pondent could be f oun d i nadm is s i bl e f ora "thef

tof f ens e" am ou n t i ng t o a cr i m e of m or alt ur

pi t ude is not r el evant t o the cr i t i cal

ques t i on w hetherthe "cri m e of vi olence" rem ov a l g roun d h as a c o m p a ra b le g ro u n d

o f in a dm iss ib ili ty . Id . a t 7 7 2 n .4 (e m p h a s is a d d e d ). I n B r i eva, t he B I A r el i ed on I n r e B l ake, 23 I

. & N

. D ec. 722 ( B I A 2005) , i n w hi ch the B I A had hel d t hat the “s exual ab u se of a m i nor ” aggr avat ed fe l onygr ound forr emoval , s ee I NA § 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 3 ) ( A) , i s n o ta s t a tu t o r yc o u n t e rp a r to f I NA § 212( a) ’ s “cr i m e i n vol vi ng m or al turpi tude” gr ound for excl us i on. I n r eac hi n g this concl us i on, t he B l ake Courtnot ed t hat , al t hough s om e cr i m es cons t i tut i ng “s exual abus e of a m i nor ” may w ell co ns t i tut e mora l turpi tude, t hi s fac tw as not det er m i nat i ve undert he ca t egor i cal appr oach: A s i ndi cat ed byt he appr o ac h t aken i n our deci s i ons i n t he fi r earm s cas es di s cus s ed a bove, w hethera groun d of dep ort at i on or r em ov al has a s t atut or ycount erpar ti n t he pr ovi s i ons for excl us i on ori nadmi s s i bi l i t ytur ns on w hether C o n g re ss h a s e m p lo y e d sim ilar la n g u a g e to des cr i be s ubs t ant ia l l yequi val entcat egor i es of offe ns es . A l t hough m anyfi r earm s offe ns es m ayB eca us e w e fi nd t hat t he cr i m e of vi ol ence gr ound for 5 C aro leo’s re m o v al h as n o statu tory co u n terpa rt in IN A § 2 1 2 (a), t hus r ender i ng hi m i nel i gi bl e for r el i ef under § 212( c) , w e do not r eac h t he ques t i on w hethert he s econd gr ound upon w hi ch the gover nm ents eeks t o r emove Car ol eo – a “theftoffe ns e . . . or bu rgl ary off

ense for w hich t he ter m of im pri sonm ent [i s] atl east o n e y ea r, ” 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 1 0 1 (a)(43 )(G ) – h as a statu tory c o u n te rp a rt in IN A § 2 1 2 (a ). -23- al s o be cr i m es of m or al turpi tude, t he ca t egoryof f ire a rm s o f

f e n se s is n o t a s tatu to ryc o u n ter p a rt to cr i m es of m or al turpi tude. S im il ar l y , al t hough t her e maybe cons i der abl e over l ap betw een offe ns es cat egor i zed a s s exual abus e of a m i nor and thos e cons i der ed cr i m es o f m or al turpi tude, thes e tw o ca tego ri es o f o ff en ses are n o t st atuto ry cou nterpart s. In re B la k e , 2 3 I. & N . D e c . 7 2 2 , 7 2 8

.
V. In t h e pre sen t ca se, C aro leo w as co n v ict ed in state co u rt of at t empt ed murde r , bur gl ary , and unl aw ful pos s es s i on of a w eapon f

oran unl aw ful purp o s e. B as ed upon the att empt ed m ur der convi ct i on, t he gover nm entchar ged C ar ol eo w i t h bei ng s ubj ectt o r emoval underthe “cr i m e of vi ol ence ” aggr avat ed fel onygr ound cont ai ned i n I N A § 237. C ar ol eo does not 5-24- di s put e t h athi s at t empt ed murde rconvi ct i on i s a cr i m e of v io len c e u n d e r th e IN A ; in d e e d , h e c o n c e d e s th a t h e is re m o v a b le o n th a t b a s is

. C ar oleo’s appl i cat i on fors ect i on 212( c) r el i ef w as pr oper l ydeni ed. U n d er M att er of Si l va, 16 I

. & N

. D ec. 26 (B IA 1 9 7 6 ) a n d su b se q u e n t au th o rity , C a ro leo is n o t en tit led to r el i ef unde r§ 212( c) unl es s t he s t atut or ybas i s forhi s r emoval

– i

. e. , cr i m e of vi ol ence , has a s t atut or ycount erpar tgr ound for excl us i on i n I N A § 212( a)

. A s K om ar enko, B r i eva, and B l ake m ake c l ear , t he underl y ing cr i m e forw hi ch C ar ol eo w as convi ct ed pl ay s no r ol e i n t hi s i nqui r y . I t i s t her efor e i r r el evant t hatC ar ol eo’ s convi ct i on for att empt ed murde rcoul d have s ubj ect ed h im t o r emoval as an al i en convi ct ed of a cr i m e of m o ra l tu rp itu d e u n d e r IN A § 2 3 7 (a )(2 )(A )(i). S e e , e.g ., Y o u se f i, 2 6 0 F .3 d a t 3 2 6 . O n c e th e g o v e rn m e n t h a s c a teg o ri z e d h is offe ns e as a “c r i m e of vi ol ence ” i n r emoval pr ocee di ngs , and t hatcat egor i zat i on has been uphe l d, our§ 212( c) i nqui r yfocus es o n w h ethe r this s t at ut or y gr ou nd

f o r re m o v a l is su b sta n tially equi val entt o anyof the s t atut or ygr ounds forexcl us i on co n tai n ed in IN A § 2 1 2 (a). T he B I A has hel d t hat t he “cr i m e of vi ol ence ” aggr avat ed fe lon yg rou n d fo r r em oval u n d e r IN A § 2 3 7 is no t “s u b sta n tially equi val ent ” t o I NA § 2 1 2 ( a ) ’ s “cr i m e i nvol vi ng m or al turpi tude” gr ound f

orexc l us i on s u ch t hatt he tw o can be cons i der ed s ta tu to ry c o u n te rp a rt s . B ri e v a , 2 3 I. & N . D e c . a t 7 7 3

.-25- W e re cogni ze the s eemi ng i l l ogi c of a s cheme under wh i c h t h e c r i me o f

a t t e mp t e d mu r de r ma yc o n s t i tu t e a c r i me in v o lv in g m o ra l tu rp itu d e re n d e rin g th e a lien re m o v a b le, w h ile t h e s a me a l i e n , i f

c h a r g e d wi t h b e i n g r e mo v a b l e u n d e rI NA § 2 3 7 ' s a g g ravat ed fe l o n y“ c rim e o f v io len c e ” g ro u n d , is in e lig ib le f o r § 2 1 2 (c ) re lief

b e c a u se a “ c rim e o f

v io len c e ” is n o t a s ta tu to ry c o u n te rp a rt o f a “ c ri m e in v o lv in g m o ra l tu r p i t u d e .” H ow ever , t hi s i s t he r es ul tof an a dm i ni s t r at i vel yengr aft ed “s t atut or y count erpar t ” r equi r ement and i t s i nt erpr et at i on byt he B I A i n B r i eva a nd t he N i nt h C i r cui ti n K om ar enko, and w e fi nd thes e a u th o ri ti es p ersu asiv e. B ec au se w e h o ld tha t C aro leo’s c o n v i c t i o n o f

a t t e mp t e d mu r d e ri s a n a g g r a v a t e d f e l o n y“ c r i me o f v i o l e n c e ” t h a th a s n o s t a t ut or yc o u n t e rp a r ti n a c r i me inv o lving m o ral tu rpitu d e w e w il l d en y C aro leo’s req u est fo r § 2 1 2 (c ) r e lie f

a n d th u s h is p e titio n . W E I S, J

. , C oncur r i ng. I concuri n t he deni al of t he pet i t i on of r evi ew . A l t hough I d o n o ta c c e p ts o me p o r t i o n s o f t h e ma j or i t yo p i n i o n o f

my di s t i ngui s hed col l eague s , I agr ee thatt he di s pos i t i ve i s s ue i s t he appl i c a t i o n o f t h e c o mpa r a b i l i t y t e s t , a p o l i c y a d o p t e d b yt he i m m i grat i on authori t i es. A l t hough t he t es thas been us ed for s om e dec ades , i thas o n l yr e c e n t l yb e e n c o d i f i e d i n a r e g u l a t i on . S e e 8 C. F

. R. § 1003. 44, 1212. 3( f) ( 5) ( eff ect i ve O ct
. 28, 2004)

. B r i efl ys t a t ed, i n or dert o qual i fyfora w ai verunders ect i on 212( c) of t he-26- Im m igrati o n an d N ati o n ali ty A ct (“IN A ”), 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 1 8 2 (c), t he g r ound of depor t at i on m us thave a count erpar ti n s ect i on 2 1 2 (a). T he s u b s t a n c e o f t h e i n q u i r y h a s b e e n e x p r e s s e d i n a v a rie tyo f

w a y s, b u t th e ter m “ g ro u n d ” h a s n o t b e e n c lea rly defi ned by t he cour t s . I n m y vi ew , t he compar abi l i t ys houl d be th a t b e tw e e n th e g ro u n d s s p e c if ie d in IN A s e c tio n 2 3 7 (a ), 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 2 2 7 (a), an d the g rou n d s li sted in se cti o n 2 1 2 (a). T her efor e, t he a li en m us tfi r s ts how t hatt he under l y i ng convi ct i on cons t i tut es a depor t abl e off ens e unders ect i on 237( a) and then demonstr at e the compar abi l i t yof t hat gr ound w i t h one in se cti o n 2 1 2 (a). I a g r e e wi t h t h e ma

j o r i t yt h a t a n a g g r a v a t e d f e l o n yc r i me o f v iole n ce h as n o statu toryco u n terpa rtin se cti o n 2 1 2 (a). H ow ever , as w e not ed i n Par k v. G onzal es , N o. 05- 2054, 2006 W L 3821408, at*6 ( 3d C i r . D ece m ber28, 2006) , a convi ct i on m aybe ca t egor i zed a s bot h an aggr avat ed fe lon yand one of mo r a l tu rp i tu d e a s t h o s e t e r ms a r e u s e d i n t h e i mm i g r a t i o n l a w. W h e re a c o n v ictio n d o e s so q u a lify , the c o u n ter p a rt tes t sh o u ld be appl i ed t o bot h t he aggr avat ed fe l onyand mora l tu rpi tude g rou n d s fo r de p o rt ati o n in se cti o n 2 3 7 (a). Pet i t i onerar gues t hathi s convi ct i on w as one of mora l turp itu d e tha t has an ex p li citco u n ter p art i n sec ti o n 2 1 2 (a). T h ere fo re, he co n te n d s tha t he is eli g ible fo r a d iscreti o n ary w ai v er unders ect i on 212( c)

. H e thus w oul d have theThe majority did not reac h the question whethe r the 6 pe tit ion e r’ s se c on d groun d o f re mov a l f or a the ft of fens e ha s a statutory counter part in I NA section 212(a) , but using the c ateg orical a pp ro a c h it wo uld a pp e ar t hat th e pe tit ion e r’ s th e ft

of fens e wo uld

a lso constitute a crime of moral turpitude. -27- compar abi l i t yexi s tbetw een the under l y i ng convi ct i o n and sec ti o n 2 1 2 (a). T he pet i t i oner ’ s ar gum enti s fl aw ed. A s s um i ng t hatt he c o n v i c t i o n was f

o r a c r i me o f mor a l tu rp i tu d e , t h e n e x tand cruci al ques t i on i s w hetheri t w as a gr ound of depor t at i on under s ect i on 237( a)

. I bel i eve t hi s cas e pr es ent s a s i tuat i on w her e the pet i t i oner ’ s under l y i ng convi ct i on for at t empt ed m ur der can be bot h a cr i m e of vi ol ence and mora l turpi tude. 6
A l t hough cr i m es of m or al turpi tude ar e ofte n notones t hatal l ow foreas y an d sp eci fi c def i ni t i ons , at t empt ed murde r fi t s neat l y w i t hi n t he t es t s w e form ul at ed i n D eLeon- R eynos o v. A s hcr oft , 293 F. 3d 633 ( 3d C i r . 2002) and Par t y ka v. A t t or ney G eneral , 41 7 F

. 3d 40 8 (3d C i r. 20 05 ). T here w e ci t ed v i l eness, depr avi t y , an d r epr ehens i bl e ac t s del i ber at el ycomm i t t ed as c ha r a c t e r i s t i c of

mor a l turpi tud e . Se e , e . g. , A s c e nc i o v . I N S, 371 F. 3d 614 ( 11t h C ir

. 1 9 9 4) ( B I A cat egor i zed a t t empt ed m u rde r as c ri m e o f m o ral tu rpitu d e). T h a t sa id , h o w e v e r, p e tit io n e r’s c rim e s d o n o t co n stitu te d e p o r t a t i o n g r o u n d s fo r mo r a l t u r p i t u d e . I NASubsect ion (iii) provides that an alien who is convicted of 7 two or more c rimes involv i ngmoral turpitude not arising out of a sin g lesc he meof

c ri min a l mi sc on du c t . . . is depo rt able. B e c a us e both convi ct i o n s in this case re sulted from a sing le incident, that provision is not applicable to this case. -28- § 2 3 7 (a )(2 )(A )(i)(I) sp e c if ica llysta tes th a t “ a n y a lien w h o is convi ct ed of a cr i m e i nvol vi ng m or al turpi tude comm i t t ed w ith in f iv e y e a rs . . . a f

ter th e d a te o f

a d m iss io n . . . is dep ort able. ” S ee 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 22 7(a) (2) (A )(i )(I ). B ecause

7 pet i ti o n er com m i t t ed the cr i m es her e on a da ym or e than fi ve y ear s aft eror i gi nal l ybei ng admi t t ed t o t hi s countr yand has not lef t th e c o u n trya n d b e e n re a d m itt e d d u r in g th a t ti m e , h is convi ct i ons do nots at i s fyt hi s pr ovi s i on. T her efor e, al t h o u g h p e t i t i o n e rc o mmi tt e d c r i me s o f m or al turpi tude, t he governm enthad no author i t yt o depor t hi m on t hat bas i s . H i s m or al turpi tude convi ct i on coul d notbe a “ gr ound” f o r d e p o rta tio n , an d th e re f o re th e iss u e o f

c o m p a ra b ili tyw ith s ect i on 212( a) i s s i m pl ynotappl i cabl e. M or eo v er, beca us e he c oul d notbe deport ed on the g ro u n d o f

m o ra l tu rp itu d e , the re is n o n e e d f o r p e tit io n e r to obt ai n a w ai veron t hatbas i s under s ect i on 212( c)

. I n eff ect , he has al r eady rec ei ved the s ubs t ance of t hatbenef i tbeca us e the m o ra l tu rp itu d e d e p o rta tio n p ro v isio n n o lo n g e r a p p lies to h im sin c e f iv e y e a rs h a d e lap se d f

o llo w in g h is a d m iss io n . In sh o rt, he coul d notr ece i ve a w aiver of depor t at i on fora mora l-29- t urp i tu d e c o n v i c t i o n whe n t h e p a s s a g e o f t i me h a d a l r eady pr event ed deport at i on. I agr ee w it h the m aj or i t yt hat , al t hough pet i t i onerhas a ss e rte d o th e r su b sta n tial d e f e n se s, in th e e n d th e c o m p a ra b ili ty i ssue t rum ps t ho se content i on s. A ccor di ngl y , I j oi n i n t he deni al of t he p eti t i on for r e v i e w.