Pur s uantt o Feder al R ul e of A ppel l at e Pr ocedur e 43( c) ( 2) , D ougl as * M aur err epl ace s J os eph G r eene as a r es pondenti n thi s cas e. A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and the appe l l at e r ecor d, thi s thr ee-j udge ** panel has det erm i ned unani m ous l ythator al ar gum entw oul d notbe of mat er i al a s s is ta n c e in th e d e te rm in a tio n o f th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a u se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### A p ril3,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT M I GU EL AN GEL TO RRES DE LA CRU Z, P e tit io n e r-A p p e llan t, v. N o. 06- 9515 D O U G L A S M A U R E R , D i s tr i ct D i r ect or , U ni t ed St at es I m m i gr at i on an d N atura li za ti o n S erv ice, D en v er, Co l o r a d o , a n d ALBE RTO R.

* G O N Z A L E S , A tto rn e yG e n e ra l,

R espon den t s- A pp el l ees. P ET I TI ON F OR RE VI EW OF AN ORDE R OF THE BU RE AU

OF I M M I GR ATI ON APP EALS ( D. C. NO . 0 0 - CV - 1 6 5 8 - J L K) ( A gency N o. A 43 780 280) S ub m i t t ed o n the B ri efs: ** Jim S a lv a to r, L a fa y e tte, C o lo ra d o , fo r P e tit io n e r-A p p e llan t.The e nfor c e mentfu nc t i on s of the I N S w e r e r e c on s t i tut e d a s U . S. 1 I m m i gr at i on and C us t om s E nfor cementdur i ng the pende ncyof thi s cas e. Forthe sa k e o f c lar ity , w e w ill c o n tin u e to re fe r to th e a g e n c ya s th e IN S th ro u g h o u t th is opi ni on. -2- W i l l i am J. L eone, U ni t ed St at es A t t orney , and M ark S. Pes t al , A s s i s t antU ni t ed S t at es A t t orney , for R espon den t s- A pp el l ees. B efo re T AC HA , C h ie f J u d g e , HA RTZ , and TY M KOVI CH , C i rcui tJudg es. TY M KOVI CH , C i r cui tJ udge. M i guel A ngel T orr es de l a C ruz ( T orr es ) , a nat i ve and c i t i zen of M exi co, w as admi t t ed i nt o the U ni t ed St at es as a l aw ful perm anentr es i denton O ct ober30, 1992. A ft eran A ugus t6, 1999 s t at e courtconvi ct i on i n U t ah forpos s es s i on of a contr ol l ed s ubs t ance ( coca i ne) , the then- I m m i gr at i on and N atur al i zat i on Ser vi ce ( I N S) i ni t i at ed r emoval pr ocee di ngs agai ns thi m i n D ece m ber1999. H e w as

1 fo u n d to h a v e c o m m itte d a re m o v a b le o ffe n s e a n d o rd e re d re m o v e d . In th is a p p e a l, T o rre s a ss e rts fo u r c laim s: (1 ) h is s tate c o n v ictio n is n o t a contr ol l ed s ubs t ance offe ns e underthe r ece nthol di ng i n Sal i nas v. Uni t ed Stat es , 5 4 7 U .S . 1 8 8 (2 0 0 6 ), an d th u s d o e s n o t co n stitu te a re m o v a b le o ffe n se ; (2 ) h is s t at e mi s demeanorconvi ct i on forpos s es s i on cannotcons t i tut e an a ggr avat ed fel onyw i thi n the meani ng of the I m m i gr at i on and N atur al i zat i on A ct( I N A ) ; ( 3) the i m m i gr at i on court ’ s i nt erpr et at i on of 8 U . S. C . § 1229b( d) ( 1) , the s o- cal l ed

“ sto p -tim e ” ru le, v io late s h is rig h t to d u e p ro c e ss a n d e q u a l p ro tec tio n ; an d (4 ) h is-3-

r emoval pr ocee di ngs vi ol at e the V i enna Convent i on and an I N S r egul at i on on c o n s u la r n o tific a tio n ri g h ts . L a c k in g ju ri s d ic tio n o v e r T o rr e s ’s fir s t tw o c la im s , w e D IS M IS S th e m . W hi l e r et ai ni ng j ur i s di ct i on overhi s r emai ni ng tw o cl ai m s , w e fi nd theyl ack m e rit, D E N Y th e p e tit io n fo r re v iew , an d A F F IR M th e o rd e r o f re m o v a l. I . B ackground an d P roce dural H i s t ory T hi s cas e bega n i n D ece m berof 1999 w hen the I N S char ged thatT orr es wa s r e mo v a b l e fo rc o mmi t t i n g a n “ a g g r a v a t e d fe l o n y ” u n d e r8 U. S . C. § 1 2 2 7 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( A) ( i i i ) , a n d a “ c o n tr o l l e d s u b s t a n c e ” v i o l a t i o n u n d e r8 U. S . C. § 1227( a) ( 2) ( B ) ( i ) , bas ed on hi s U t ah s t at e gui l typl ea t o s i m pl e pos s es s i on of coca i ne i n A ugus tof 1999. D ur i ng hi s r emoval hear i ngs , the I N S dr opped the “aggr avat ed fe l ony ” countas a bas i s forr emoval . O n February7, 2000, an i m m i gr at i on j udge ( I J ) found thatT orr es had a “ contr ol l ed s ubs t ance ” convi ct i on and w as r emovabl e under§ 1227( a) ( 2) ( B ) ( i ) , det erm i ned thathe w as i nel i gi bl e for canc el l at i on of r emoval , and or der ed hi m r emoved t o M exi co. O n appea l , the B o ard o f Im m igrati o n A p p ea ls ( B IA ) co n side red T o rres’s ch all en g es to the IJ d e c is io n a n d fo u n d th e m to b e w ith o u t m e ri t in a n o rd e r d a te d A u g u s t 1 6 , 2 0 0 0 . O n S ep tem b er 1 , 2 0 0 0 , a U tah s en tenc ing co u rtm o d ifi ed T o rres’s convi ct i on fr om a fe l onyt o a mi s demeanor . B as ed on the s t at e court ’ s act i on, onA l though T orr es ’ s m ot i on w as dat ed Sept ember2, 2000, i tw as t i m e- 2 s t amped bythe B I A on Sept ember29, 2000. -4- Sept ember 29, 2000, T orr es fi l ed a mot i on t o r eopen the pr ocee di ngs w i th the 2 B IA to c h a llen g e h is re m o v a b ili ty . T h e B IA d e n ied th e m o tio n a s w ith o u t m e rit on February8, 2001. B eca us e he w as i n cus t ody , T orr es fi l ed a ha beas act i on i n U . S. D i s tr i ct C our tforthe D i s tr i ctof C ol or ado on A ugus t21, 2000. W hi l e the habe as pet i t i on w as i ni t i at ed pr i ort o the B I A ’ s deni al of hi s m ot i on t o r eopen, T orr es l at er a m e n d e d h is p e tit io n to in c lu d e th e a rg u m e n ts p re se n ted b e fo re th e B IA in h is mo t i o n t o r e o p e n . Th e c a s e wa s l a t e rh e l d i n a b e y a n c e p e n d i n g th e S u p r e me C o u rt’s d e c isio n in I

NS v. St . C

yr , 5 3 3 U .S . 2 8 9 (2 0 0 1 ). I n J anuary2006, the ca s e w as tr ans ferr ed t o thi s courtand conve r t ed t o a pet i t i on forr evi ew pur s uantt o the R E A L I D A ctof 2005, Pub. L . N o. 109–13, D iv . B , § 1 0 6 (a ), ( c ), 1 1 9 S ta t. 2 3 1 , 3 1 0 (2 0 0 5 ). I I . Juri s di ct i on Be fo r e a d d r e s s i n g M r . T o rr e s ’ s c l a i ms , o u rth r e s h o l d i n q u i ryi s wh e th e rwe have j ur i s di ct i on t o cons i derthi s appea l . C ongr es s has pr ovi ded an a venue for di r ectr evi ew of fi nal or der s of r emoval thr ough pet i t i ons forr evi ew i n court s of a p p e a ls. 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (a )(1 ); B errum -G arci a v. C om f ort , 390 F. 3d 1158, 1162 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). Ind ee d , “p eti ti o n s fo r rev iew fil ed w ith the c o u rto f a p p ea ls are th e s o le a n d e x c lu s iv e m e a n s o f re v ie w o f

m o s t a d m in is tr a tiv e o rd e rs o f re m o v a l.”-5-

Fer r y v. G onz al es , 457 F. 3d 1117, 1131 ( 10th C i r . 2006) ( i nt ernal quot at i on o m itted). A l though T orr es fai l ed t o fi l e a pe t i t i on forr evi ew w i thi n thi r tyday s of eith er o f th e B IA ’s fina l ord ers o f re m o v al as req u ir ed b y8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 (b)(1 ), the R E A L I D A ctcur es thi s defe ct . T orr es ’ s appea l i s pr emi s ed on hi s habea s pet i t i on fi l ed i n the di s tr i ctcourtunder28 U . S. C . § 2241. T he R E A L I D A ct di r ect s thathabea s pet i t i ons ( 1) chal l engi ng a fi nal or derof r emoval , and ( 2) wh i c h we r e p e n d i n g i n th e d i s tr i c tc o u r t s b e fo r e th e e ffe c t i v e d a t e o f th e RE AL ID A ct , l i ke T orr es’ s, are t o b e t ransferred t o the app ropri at e cou rtof ap peals as a p e tit io n fo r re v iew u n d e r § 1 2 5 2 n o tw ith sta n d in g th e fa ilu re to c o m p lyw ith § 1 2 5 2 (b)(1 )’s th irty -da yreq u ir em en t. P u b . L . N o . 1 0 9

– 1 3 , D iv. B at § 1 0 6 (c), 119 St at . at310 ( “The cour tof appe al s s hal l tr eatthe tr ans ferr ed ca s e as i f i thad been f i l ed pur s uantt o a pet i t i on forr evi ew unders uch s ect i on 242, exce ptthat su b se c tio n (b )(1 ) [ th e th irty -d a yd e a d lin e ] o f su c h se c tio n sh a ll n o t ap p ly .”); s ee Schm i t tv. Maur er , 4 5 1 F .3 d 1 0 9 2 , 1 0 9 5 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). H er e, the B I A or der ed Torr es r emoved on A ugus t16, 2000. T orr es then t i m el yfi l ed hi s habea s pet i t i on chal l engi ng thatfi nal or derof r emoval i n the d istric t co u rt o n A u g u st 2 1 , 2 0 0 0 . T h e d istric t co u rt late r g ra n ted h is m o tio n to a m e n d th e h a b e a s p e tit io n to in c lu d e a rg u m e n ts c o n sid e re d b yth e B IA in its d en ial o f th e m o ti o n to reo p en o n N o v em b er 1 4 , 2 0 0 0 . T h ese arg u m en ts th ere fo reT h e d istri ct co u rtinit ial lyg ran ted T o rres’s am en d m en t befo re the B IA 3 i s s ued i t s fi nal or der . B eca us e the B I A fai l ed t o i s s ue a t i m el yfi nal or der , once the fi nal or derw as i s s ued, the di s tr i ctcourtcons i der ed i ti ncorpor at ed i nt o the h a b e a s p e titio n . -6- fa ll w ith in th e lan g u a g e o f th e tra n sfe r p ro v isio n . T h e h a b e a s p e tit io n is 3 ther efor e cons i der ed a pe t i t i on forr evi ew overboth B I A deci s i ons and our ju ri s d ic tio n is fo u n d u n d e r 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 . S e e Sc h m itt , 451 F. 3d 1092, 1 0 9 4

– 9 5 . No twi th s t a n d i n g th e fo r e g o i n g , we o n l yr e t a i n j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e rc l a i ms chal l engi ng a fi nal or derof r emoval “i f the al i en has exhaus t ed al l admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es avai l abl e . . . as of r i ght . ” 8 U . S. C . § 1252( d) ( 1) . W e have r ecogni zed that “[n]egl ect i ng t o take an ap peal t o the B IA con st i tutes a fai l ure t o ex hau st admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es as t o anyi s s ue thatcoul d have be en r ai s ed, negat i ng t he j ur i s di ct i on nece s s aryfors ubs equentj udi ci al r evi ew . ” So beran es v. C om f ort , 388 F .3 d 1 3 0 5 , 1 3 0 8

– 0 9 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 4 ). A c c o rd in g ly , w e h a v e ju risd ictio n o n ly o v e r th o se c laim s th a t w e re p re se n ted to th e B IA a n d w e re p ro p e rlya p p e a led to thi s courtthr ough T orr es ’ s habea s pet i t i on. U nd er this fram ew ork, w e are depri ved of jur i sdi ct i on ov er To rr es’ s fi rs t tw o c la im s . A . C on trol l ed S u b st an ce O ffen se T orr es’ s fi rs tcl ai m chall eng es w hetherhis drug p ossess i on con vict i on i s a “re m o v ab le offe n se” af ter Sal i nas , 5 4 7 U .S . 1 8 8 (2 0 0 6 ). Sa l i na s h o ld s th a t aT o rr e s d o e s n o tr e v i v e th i s c l a i m i n h i s b r i e fs o n a p p e a l . A c c o r d i n g l y, 4 w e find this argu m en t aba n d o n ed an d m ak e n o p ron o u n ce m en ts as to the B IA ’s d e c is io n . -7- convi ct i on fors i m pl e pos s es s i on of a c ontr ol l ed s ubs t ance i s nota “c ontr ol l ed s ubs t ance offe ns e” forpurpos es of the U ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng G ui del i nes beca us e the G ui del i nes expr es s l ydefi ne the offens e t o r equi r e a tr aff i cki ng e lem e n t. 54 7 U .S . at 1 8 8 . C o n sid e rin g th a t Sa l i na s w as deci ded more than fi ve y ear s aft erhi s agenc ypr ocee di ngs w er e compl et ed, T orr es obvi ous l ycoul d not have i nvoked Sa l i na s in th e fir s t in s ta n c e b e fo re th e B IA . I n hi s m ot i on t o r eopen, how ever , T orr es gener al l ychar ged thatthe recl assi fi cat i on of h i s st at e con vict i on as a m i sdem eano r r end ers the o ffen se i n c a p a b l e o f

s e r v i n g a s a b a s i s o f

r e mo v a l u n d e r8 U. S . C § 1 2 2 7 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( B) ( i ) . He argued that the o ffen se fel l un der the “f un ct i on al equ i valent ” of the F ederal F i rs t O ffe n d e r A c t a n d th a t th e “ o ffe n s e is n o t a d e p o rt a b le o ffe n s e .” A .R . a t 1 5 . 4 N everthel es s , w her e a s peci fi c i s s ue w as notaddr es s ed i n admi ni s tr at i ve pr ocee di ngs i n the manneri ti s now addr es s ed befor e us , gener al s t at ement s i n the not i ce of

appea l t o the B I A ar e i ns uffi ci entt o cons t i tut e exha us t i on of admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es . S e e R a m a n i v . A s h c r o ft, 3 7 8 F . 3 d 5 5 4 , 5 6 0 (6th C ir . 2004) . A ccor di ngl y , T orr es ’ s br oad as s ert i ons i n hi s m ot i on t o r eopen a r e not s uffi ci entt o exhaus tthe i s s ue. T orr es di d notas k the B I A t o cons i der , nordi d the B I A anal y ze, w hetherthe convi ct i on fora “c ontr ol l ed s ubs t ance offe ns e” i n the-8-

r emoval cont exti s anal ogous t o the Sent enci ng G ui del i nes ’ defi ni t i on r equi r i ng a tr a ffic k in g e le m e n t. T o rr e s ’ s fa i l u r e t o e x h a u s tth i s i s s u e p r e c l u d e s o u rj u r i s d i c t i o n a n d we dis m i ss the clai m w i tho ut r eaching the m eri t s. B. A gg r av at e d Fel ony T orr es ’ s s econd a r gum enti s thathe w as notconvi ct ed of a n “aggr avat ed fel ony , ” ther ebypr es ervi ng hi s el i gi bi l i tyforcanc el l at i on of r emoval under 8 U . S. C . § 1229b( a) . T he r ecor d m akes cl earthatthi s i s s ue w as neverpr es ent ed to th e B IA , w h ic h d iv e s ts u s o f ju ri s d ic tio n . C. To r r e s ’ s Ot h e r Cl a i ms Si nce theyw er e pr es ent ed t o the B I A , T orr es ’ s fi nal tw o cl ai m s s ur vi ve the p ro c e d u ra l b a r o f

e x h a u stio n . N e v e rth e les s, th e ym u st s til l w ith sta n d o th e r lim its t o ours ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on. C ongr es s has el i m i nat ed j udi ci al r evi ew of ( 1) B I A di s cr et i onarydeci s i ons , 8 U . S. C . § 1252( a) ( 2) ( B ) , as w el l as ( 2) any“fi nal or derof r emoval agai ns tan al i en w ho i s r emovabl e byr eas on of havi ng c o mmi t t e d ” c e r t a i n o ffe n s e s , a mo n g th e m c o n tr o l l e d s u b s t a n c e o ffe n s e s , 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 5 2 (a)(2)(C ). T h e s e b ro a d ju ri s d ic tio n -s tr ip p in g p ro v is io n s a re s u bje c t to tw o e x c e p tio n s . Fi r s t , as an A r t i cl e I I I court , w e have i nher entj ur i s di ct i on “t o det erm i ne w hether th e ju risd ictio n a l b a r a p p lies . W e m a yth e re fo re d e c id e w h e th e r th e p e tit io n e r is ( i ) an al i en ( i i ) deport abl e ( i i i ) byr eas on of a c r i m i nal offe ns e l i s t ed i n theW e have hel d that§ 1252( a) ( 2) ( D ) ’ s “ques t i on of l aw ” r efe r s t o a 5 “narr ow cat egoryof i s s ues r egar di ng s t atut orycons truct i on. ” D i al l o v. G onz al es , (continued...) -9- s t atut e. ” L a tu v . A sh c ro ft, 375 F. 3d 1012, 1017 ( 10th C i r . 2004) ( i nt ernal cit ati o n s o m itted). A cc o rdin g ly , w e h av e jurisdicti o n to rev iew T o rres’s ar gum ent s chal l engi ng the B I A ’ s or derof r emoval on the bas i s thathi s pl ea a nd c o n v ic tio n d o n o t c o n s titu te a n o ffe n s e w a rr a n tin g re m o v a l. See Bal l es t er os v. A sh c ro ft , 4 5 2 F . 3 d 1 1 5 3 , 1 1 5 6

– 1 1 5 7 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). T h e se c o n d e x c e p tio n is s tatu to ry , co m in g f ro m th e R E A L ID A c t. C ongr es s added a new s ect i on m aki ng cl earthat“[n] othi ng i n [1252( a) ( 2) ( B ) or ( C ) ] , ori n anyotherpr ovi s i on of thi s chapt er( otherthan thi s s ect i on) w hi ch l i m i t s orel i m i nat es j udi ci al r evi ew , s hal l be cons trued as pr ecl udi ng r evi ew of cons t i tut i onal cl ai m s orques t i ons of l aw r ai s ed upon a pe t i t i on forr evi ew . ” 8 U . S. C . § 1252( a) ( 2) ( D ) . C ons equent l y , w e ar e notbarr ed by§ 1252( a) ( 2) ( B ) or ( C ) fr om r evi ew i ng T orr es ’ s cl ai m s thatr ai s e ei thercons t i tut i onal orl egal q u e s tio n s . See Bal l es t er os , 452 F. 3d at1157. W e fi nd T orr es ’ s fi nal tw o cl ai m s s uffi ci ent l yr ai s e l egal orcons t i tut i onal ques t i ons t o confe rj ur i s di ct i on t o cons i derthei rm er i t s . T orr es ’ s due pr oces s and e q u a l p ro tec tio n c h a llen g e s to th e “ sto p -tim e ” ru le p a ten tlyp re se n t a c o n stitu tio n a l q u e stio n . H is fin a l ar g u m e n t b a se d o n c o n su lar n o tific a tio n rig h ts al s o r ai s es a ques t i on of l aw under§ 1252( a) ( 2) ( D ) beca us e i ti nvol ves l egal i s s u e s i n i n t e rp r e t i n g a tr e a ty. 5(...continued) 5 447 F. 3d 1274, 1282 ( 10th C i r . 2006) . “Q ues t i ons of l aw ” pert ai n t o “thos e i s s ues th a tw e r e h i s t o r i c a l l y r e v i e w a b l e o n h a b e a s - c o n s t i tu t i o n a l a n d s t a tu t o rycons truct i on ques t i ons , notdi s cr et i onaryorfac tual ques t i ons . ” Id . ( c i t i n g H. R. R e p . N o . 1 0 9 -7 2 a t 1 7 5 (2 0 0 5 ), a s r e p rin tedin 20 05 U . S . C . C . A . N . 24 0). T hu s, the B I A ’ s det erm i nat i on of a s t atut oryt i m e- bars uffi ci ent l yr ai s es a ques t i on of la w to c o n fe r j u ri s d ic tio n . Id . H e re , T o rre s a rg u e s th a t h e w a s e n tit led to cons ul arnot i fi cat i on underthe V i enna Convent i on and an I N S r egul at i on and that a B IA p ro c e d u ra l b a r m a yn o t a p p ly to th o s e ri g h ts . I n O C e n tro Esp irita B e n e fice n te Un ia o d o Veg e ta l v. A sh c ro ft , w e not ed that“an A ctof C ongr es s . . . i s on a ful l par i tyw i th a tr eaty . ” 389 F. 3d 973, 1009 n. 5 ( 10th C i r . 2004) . T he conve r s e i s al s o true: C ongr es s ’ s tr eatypow eri s gi ven s im ila r w e ig h t to its le g is la tiv e p o w e r. C f . Val ent i ne v. Uni t ed Stat es , 299 U . S. 5, 1 0 (1 9 3 6 ) (“ T h e C o n stitu tio n d e c lar e s a tre a tyto b e th e law o f th e lan d . It i s cons equent l y. . . t o be r egar ded i n court s of j us t i ce a s equi val entt o an ac tof the l egi s l atur e, w heneve ri toper at es of i t s el f w i thoutthe ai d of anyl egi s l at i ve pr ovi s i on. ” ( i nt ernal quot es om i t t ed) ) . T hus , the i nt erpr et at i on of tr eat i es , s uch as th e V ie n n a C o n v e n tio n , is a “ q u e s tio n o f la w ” u n d e r § 1 2 5 2 . See, e. g. , O C entr o , 389 F. 3d at988 ( M urphy , J . , concurr i ng i n partand di s s ent i ng i n part ) ( “Fi r s tand fo re m o st, th e in terp re tatio n o f [ a ] C o n v e n tio n is a q u e stio n o f law .”); see also Q ua ngLy Tran v. G on zal es, 447 F. 3d 937, 943 ( 6th C i r . 2006) ( r evi ew i ng l egal i s s ues i nvol vi ng the U . N . C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e ( C A T ) underthe § 1 2 5 2 (a )(2 )(D ) g ra n t); A kr am Q as s i m Ham i d v. G onz al es , 4 1 7 F .3 d 6 4 2 , 6 4 7 (7 th C i r . 2005) ( court s of appe al s m ayr evi ew cons t i tut i onal and l egal ques t i ons “ re lev a n t to a p e tit io n e r’s c laim fo r re lief u n d e r C A T ” ); Kam ar a v. A t t ’ y G en. of the United S tates , 420 F. 3d 202, 211 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( fi ndi ng j ur i s di ct i on over “ p u r e q u e s t i o n s o f

l a w” a n d th e “ i s s u e s o f a p p l i c a t i o n o f

l a w t o fa c t ” i n a CA T claim ). -10- II I. A n a ly sis W e re v ie w th e le g a l a n d c o n s titu tio n a l q u e s tio n s d e n o v o . Fer r y v. G o n z a le s , 457 F. 3d 1117, 1226 ( 10th C i r . 2006) . W e now addr es s T orr es ’ s fi nal tw o c la im s . A . T h e S to p -T im e R u le and C ancel l at i on of R em oval-11-

T orr es l aunche s a cons t i tut i onal att ack on the deni al of hi s el i gi bi l i tyfor ca n ce ll ati o n o f re m o v al un d er 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 2 9 b (a). U n d er § 1 2 2 9 b (a), canc el l at i on of r emoval i s a di s cr et i onaryform of r el i ef thatal l ow s the A t t orney G ener al t o canc el the r emoval or derof a r emovabl e al i en. T o qual i fyfor cance l l at i on of rem ov al , an ali en m ustsat i sfythree el em ents : (1) the ali en m ust have be en “l aw ful l yadmi t t ed forperm anentr es i dence fornotl es s than fi ve y ear s , ” 8 U . S. C . § 1229b( a) ( 1) ; ( 2) the al i en musthave “ r es i ded i n the U ni t ed St at es cont i nuous l yfor7 y ear s aft erhavi ng been a dm i t t ed i n anys t atus , ” i d. § 1229b( a) ( 2) ; and ( 3) the al i en maynothave be en “c onvi ct ed of a nyaggr avat ed fel ony , ” id . § 1 2 2 9 b (a )( 3 ). T orr es gai ned l aw ful perm anen tres i den ce on O ct ob er 30, 19 92 , and so pu t at i velysat i sfi es the five-y ear r equ i rem ent of § 1 22 9b (a) (1) . N evertheles s, underthe s o- cal l ed “s t op- t i m e” rul e, the I J found Torr es i nel i gi bl e for canc el l at i on of r emoval under§ 1229b( a) ( 2) . T he s t op- t i m e rul e, as pr ovi ded for i n 8 U . S. C . § 1229b( d) ( 1) , i s a met hodol ogyt o cal cul at e an a l i en’ s cont i nuous phy s i cal pr es ence orr es i dence i n the U ni t ed St at es and thus det erm i nes w hether an al i en has been he r e l ong enough t o be el i gi bl e forcanc el l at i on of r emoval u n d e r § 1 2 2 9 b (a )( 2 ). U nderthe rul e, t i m e w i l l s t op acc rui ng w hen the al i en w as ( 1) s erved w i th a n o tice to a p p e a r, o r ( 2 ) w h e n th e a lie n c o m m itte d c e rt a in re m o v a b le o ffe n s e s . Id. § 1 2 2 9 b (d )(1 ). T o rre s a rriv e d in th e U n ited S tate s o n O c to b e r 3 0 , 1 9 9 2 a n d h is-12-

r emovabl e offe ns e occurr ed on A ugus t 6, 1999. T he I J hel d thatthe cl ock s t opped t i cki ng “abouta mont h and [a ] hal f, tw o m onths s hor t ” of the s even- y ear m i l es t one of § 1229b( a) ( 2) and s o deni ed hi m el i gi bi l i tyforcanc el l at i on. A . R . at 9 3 . T o rre s a rg u e s th a t th e sto p -tim e ru le a s a p p lied to h im lac k s a ra tio n a l b a sis a n d th u s v i o l a t e s c o n s t i tu t i o n a l d u e p r o c e s s a n d e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n p r i n c i p l e s . We fi nd T orr es ’ s cons t i tut i onal ar gum ent s unper s uas i ve bec aus e he ha s no pr ot ect ed l i bertyi nt er es ti n the ca ncel l at i on of hi s r emoval or derand the cha l l enged s ta tu to ry p ro v is io n s e a s ily w ith s ta n d ra tio n a l b a s is re v ie w . Fi r s t , T orr es al l eges thathi s due pr oces s r i ght s w er e vi ol at ed bec aus e no r at i onal bas i s exi s t s forthe s t op- t i m e rul e for§ 1229b( a) ( 2) ’ s “cont i nuous pr es ence ” r equi r ementw hen no s uch rul e exi s t s for§ 1229b( a) ( 1) ’ s fi ve- y ear r equi r ement . T he s t op- t i m e rul e does notext end t o § 1229b( a) ( 1) beca us e that p ro v isio n ’s la n g u a g e re fe rs o n lyto law f u l ad m iss io n a s a p e rm a n e n t re sid e n t, w hi l e the s t op- t i m e rul e appl i es onl yt o “cont i nuous r es i dence orcont i nuous phy s i cal pr es ence . ” See 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 9 b (a )(1 ), (d )(1 ); s ee als o Si not es - C r uzv. G onz al es , 46 8 F . 3d 11 90 , 11 97 (9th C i r. 20 06 ). A l tho ug h u nclearfrom the b ri efs, w e cons true thi s ar gum entt o encompas s both s ubs t ant i ve and pr ocedur al due p roc ess c lai m s. S ec o n d , T o rres co n tend s tha t an e q u al pro tecti o n v iolati o n o cc u rs w hen § 1229b( a) ( 2) ’ s appl i cat i on t o al i ens of “a nys t atus ” i m perm i s s i bl ycr eat es-13-

d is p a ra te tr e a tm e n t o f “ fir s t- tim e v io la tio n ” a n d “ re p e a t- la w -b re a k in g ” a lie n s . W e d is a g re e w ith b o th c o n te n tio n s . 1. P rocedu ralD ue P rocess B efor e pas s age of

the I l l egal I m m i gr at i on R eform and I m m i gr ant R e sp o n sib ili tyA c t o f

1 9 9 6 (IIR IR A ), su sp e n sio n o f d e p o rta tio n , as a p u re ly dis cret i on aryform of rel i ef, did not gi ve ri se t o a li bertyor propertyi nter est p ro te c te d b yth e d u e p ro c e s s c la u s e . Un itedS ta tes v . A g u irr e -Te llo , 353 F. 3d 1 1 9 9 , 1 2 0 4

– 0 5 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) (ex am ining the c ase law in se v era l ci rcu it s), vacated , Un itedS ta tes v . A g u irr e -Te llo , 353 F. 3d 1199, 1209 ( 10th C i r . 2004) ( en b a n c ). N e v e rth e les s, “ w h e n fa c in g d e p o rta tio n . . . alie n s a re e n tit led to p ro c e d u ra l d u e p ro c e ss , w h ich p ro v id e s a n o p p o rtu n ityto b e h e a rd a t a m eani ngful t i m e and i n a meani ngful m anner . ” Id . a t 1 2 0 4 . T orr es ’ s cl ai m s ar e governed bythe I I R I R A ; neverthel es s , the s ame poi nt o f law a p p lies . W h ile th e c a n c e llatio n o f re m o v a l is n o t a lib e rtyo r p ro p e rty i nt er es t , al i ens chal l engi ng el i gi bi l i tyforthe ca ncel l at i on of r emoval ar e ent i t l ed t o an “opportuni tyt o be hea r d ata meani ngful t i m e and i n a meani ngful m anner . ” Id . T orr es r ece i ved the pr oces s thatw as due, as evi dence d bythe I J ’ s col l oquyT h e tran script fo r T o rres’s rem o v al pro ce ed ing rev ea ls th at th e IJ 6 perm i t t ed Torr es ’ s couns el t o pr es entar gum ent s i n favorof el i gi bi l i tyfor c a n c e lla tio n o f

re m o v a l. T H E C O U R T : T he C our ts etthe mat t erdow n thi s aft ernoon for ar gum enton w hetherthe r es pondentqual i fi ed forcanc el l at i on of rem o v al un d er 2 4 0 A (a). M r. S alva tor [T o rres’s co u n sel], is th ere an ything y o u w an t t o stat e, si r? T O R R E S C O U N SE L : Y ourhonor , I ’ ve l ooked atthe br i ef thatthe S erv ice h as su b m itted a n d I un d erstan d the a rgu m en t th at ap p ea rs u n d er the S erv ice’s interp retati o n o f th e law M r. T o rres is sho rt abouta mont h i n t erm s of qual i fy i ng bas ed on cont i nuous pr es ence and ourar gum entt o s ubm i tt o the courti s s i m pl ythatther e’ s no r a t i o n a l b a s i s fo rd i s t i n g u i s h i n g o rc u t t i n g r a th e rh a v i n g a s t o p t i me p r o v i s i o n fo rc o n t i n u o u s p r e s e n c e a n d n o th a v i n g a s t o p t i me p ro v is io n fo r l a w f

u l p e rm a n e n t r e s id e n ts . T H E C O U R T : O k a y. A . R . at92. A ssum i ng arguen do that this cl ai m requi res anysubst anti ve d ue p rocess 7 re v ie w . -14- w i th T orr es ’ s couns el r egar di ng the canc el l at i on of r emoval , and he w as ent i t l ed 6 t o no m or e. 2. E qu al Protect i on & Sub stan t i ve D ue P rocess In di sposi ng of T orr es’ s equal prot ect i on and subst anti ve d ue p rocess 7 c la im s , w e h o ld th a t th e s to p -t im e ru le is ra tio n a lly g ro u n d e d . S e e Ap p i a h v . I

NS , 2 0 2 F .3 d 7 0 4 , 7 0 9

– 1 0 (4 th C ir. 2 0 0 0 ) (a p p ly in g ra tio n a l b a sis re v iew to su b sta n tiv e d u e p ro c e ss a n d e q u a l p ro tec tio n c h a llen g e s to sto p -tim e ru le) . W ith th e sto p -tim e ru le, “ C o n g re ss in ten d e d to p re v e n t alie n s f ro m c o n tin u in g to-15-

acc um ul at e t i m e t ow ar d the cont i nuous r es i dencyr equi r ementaft erI N S had i s s ued an or dert o s how caus e t o an al i en. ” S i b a n da v . I NS , 282 F. 3d 1330, 1335 ( 10th C i r . 2002) . B ym andat i ng the s t op- t i m e rul e, C ongr es s al s o r emoved an al i en’ s i ncent i ve forpr ol ongi ng r emoval hear i ngs i n or dert o become el i gi bl e for c a n c e lla tio n o f

re m o v a l. Appi ah , 2 0 2 F .3 d a t 7 1 0 . T h e se p u rp o se s a re v a lid g o v e rn m e n ta l o bje c tiv e s . To rr e s a r g u e s th a tth e s t a tu t o rys c h e me i s i rr a t i o n a l b e c a u s e th e s t o p - t i me rul e appl i es onl yt o § 1229b( a) ( 2) ( s even y ear s of cont i nuous r es i dence ) and not to § 1 2 2 9 b (a )(1 ) (fiv e y e a rs f ro m law f

u l ad m iss io n ) a n d so th e in c e n tiv e to pr ol ong r emoval pr ocee di ngs per s i s t s . W e do notfol l ow thi s l ogi c. A n al i en m u s t s a tis f

ya ll th re e re q u ir e m e n ts o f § 1 2 2 9 b (a ) t o b e e lig ib le fo r c a n c e lla tio n . I f § 1229b( a) ( 2) cannotbe s at i s fi ed, then the al i en i s i nel i gi bl e forcanc el l at i on of r emoval notw i ths t andi ng the al i en’ s compl i ance w i th § 1229b( a) ’ s other p rov isi o n s. If a n ali en is sho rto f th e se v en y ea rs req u ir ed u n d er § 1 2 2 9 b (a)(2), he i s i nel i gi bl e forcanc el l at i on of r emoval and s o i tdoes notm att erthatthe al i en’ s t i m e count ed t ow ar d perm anentr es i dencys t i l l acc rues under § 1229b( a) ( 1) . A ccor di ngl y , pr ol ongi ng the r emoval pr ocee di ngs w i l l be u n a v a ilin g . T orr es al so com plai ns t hat the st op -t i m e rul e l acks a rat i on al basi s becau se i t( 1) deni es canc el l at i on t o l aw ful l yadmi t t ed al i ens w ho have notbeen c o n tin u o u slyp re se n t in th e c o u n tryfo r se v e n y e a rs, (2 ) w h ile g ra n tin g e lig ib ili ty-16-

foral i ens w ho m ayhave be en i n the countryunl aw ful l y( and s ubs equent l ygai ned l egal perm anentr es i dence ) buthave none thel es s been i n the countryforthe requi si t e seven y ears . W e di s agr ee thatthes e cl as s i fi cat i ons fai l r at i onal bas i s r evi ew . Sect i on 1 2 2 9 b (a )(1 ) p ro v id e s th a t alie n s e lig ib le fo r c a n c e llatio n m u st h a v e b e e n law f u lly admi t t ed forperm anentr es i dence foratl eas tfi ve y ear s . C ongr es s m ayhave det erm i ned thataft erfi ve y ear s of l aw ful r es i dence and s even y ear s of phy s i cal pr es ence i n the country , al i ens s houl d be el i gi bl e forcanc el l at i on of r emoval r egar dl es s of thei rpr i orunl aw ful pr es ence i n the country . W hi l e the pol i cy o bjec tiv e m a yn o t b e p e rfe c tlya d v a n c e d b yth e se p ro v isio n s, o n lya re a so n a b le re la tio n s h ip to th e o bje c tiv e a n d th e c h o s e n m e a n s n e e d b e s h o w n . T h e S u p re m e C o u rt h a s re p e a ted lye m p h a siz e d th a t o v e r n o c o n c e iv a b le su bjec t is th e leg isla tiv e p o w e r o f C o n g re ss m o re c o m p lete th a n it i s o v e r th e a d m iss io n o f a lien s, a n d it h a s lo n g re c o g n ize d th e p o w e r to expel orexcl ude al i ens as a funda m ent al s over ei gn attr i but e exe r ci s ed bythe G overnm ent ’ s p o li ti cal depart m ent s [i s ] l ar gel yi m m une fr om j udi ci al contr ol . T hus , i n det erm i ni ng w hethera r at i onal bas i s exi s t s for m a k in g d istin c tio n s b e tw e e n c las s e s o f a lien s, w e a re e sp e c ially d e fe re n tia l. L a tu , 375 F. 3d at1020 ( i nt ernal quot at i ons om i t t ed) . I f C ongr es s choos es t o tr eat ali en s w h o w ere fo rm erlyp rese n t i ll eg all yb u t l eg ali ze d their st atus m o re favo rabl ythan tho se w ho com m i tdrug cri m es, i ti s not our r ole t o secon d-guess the governm ent al obj ect i ve.A rt ic le 3 6 (1 )( b ) h o ld s , 8 W ith a v iew to fa c ili tatin g th e e x e rc ise o f c o n su lar f

u n c tio n s re latin g to nat i onal s of the s endi ng St at e: i f he s o r eques t s , the compet ent author i t i es of the r ece i vi ng St at e sh al l , w i thoutdel ay , i nform the co n su lar po st of

the s en d ing S tat e if, w ith in it s co n su lar distri ct, a nat i onal of thatSt at e i s arr es t ed orcomm i t t ed t o pr i s on ort o cus t ody p en d ing tr ial o r i s d etaine d in an yo ther m an n er. 21 U . S. T . 77, 100- 101 ( A pr . 24, 1963) . T he U ni t ed St at es i s a s i gnat oryt o the V ie n n a C o n v e n tio n , w h ic h w a s ra tifie d b yth e U n ite d S ta te s o n O c to b e r 2 2 , 1 9 6 9 . See C o n g . R ec . 3 0 9 9 7 (19 6 9 ). T he r egul at i on s t at es , “Pr i vi l ege of comm uni cat i on. E verydet ai ned al i en 9 sh a ll b e n o tifie d th a t h e o r sh e m a yc o m m u n ica te w ith th e c o n su lar o r d ip lo m a tic o ffi c e r s o f

th e c o u n tryo f

h i s o rh e rn a t i o n a l i tyi n th e Un i t e d S t a t e s . ” 8 C. F . R. § 2 3 6 . 1 (e). -17- S i n c e we fi n d n o c o n s t i tu t i o n a l i n fi r mi tywi th § 1 2 2 9 b ( a ) a n d th e s t o p - t i me rul e, w e nee d notaddr es s T orr es ’ s ar gum ent s aboutal t ernat e i nt erpr et at i ons of the s to p -t im e ru le . B . C onsul ar N ot i fi cat i on T orr es ’ s fi nal ar gum entconce rns the I N S’ s fai l ur e t o appr i s e hi m thathe w as ent i t l ed t o comm uni cat e w i th M exi can c ons ul arordi pl om at i c off i cer s under the V i enna Convent i on and i m m i gr at i on r egul at i ons . Speci fi cal l y , he cont ends thatthe B I A ’ s fai l ur e vi ol at es A r t i cl e 36( 1) ( b) of the V i enna Convent i on on C o n su lar R elati o n s an d 8 C . F . R . § 2 3 6 . 1 (e). T h e B IA h eld th at T o rres’s 8 9 a rg u m e n t w a s w a iv e d b e c a u se h e fa iled to a ss e rt th e iss u e b e fo re th e IJ, a n d , in a n ye v e n t, T o rr e s c o u ld n o t s h o w th a t th e v io la tio n re s u lte d in a n yp reju d ic e . A . R . at46.-18-

1. The B I

A ’s P r ocedur alB ar T he B I A det erm i ned thatT orr es ’ s cons ul arnot i fi cat i on ar gum entw as not pr es ent ed t o the I J and thus the ar gum entw as w ai ved. “O n a pet i t i on forr evi ew t o thi s court [, ] w e w i l l notperm i tthe pet i t i onert o ci r cumventpr operpr ocedur al r equi r ement s of the B I A bypr es ent i ng cont ent i ons thatw er e pr ocedur al l ybarr ed bythe B oar d. ” G alvezP i neda v. G onz al es , 4 2 7 F .3 d 8 3 3 , 8 3 7 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). In th is pe ti ti o n , T o rres claim s tha t a “rev iew at th e B IA is de n o v o , an d the B IA ci t ed no ca s e l aw orr egul at i on i n s uppor tof the pr ocedur al defa ul ti tappl i ed for the fi r s tt i m e i n the Torr es cas e. ” A pl t . B r . at54–55. W e fi nd thi s cont ent i on u n p e rs u a s iv e . T he B I A has hel d thatm att er s notr ai s ed befor e an I J ar e notpr es erved on a p p e a l. S e e In r e R - S- H- , 2 3 I. & N . D ec . 6 2 9 , 6 3 8 (B . I. A . 2 0 0 3 ) (“T h e re co rd do es not r efl ectthat the respon den trai sed anyobj ect i on s t o the at t orney s’ p re se n c e a t th e h e a rin g . T h e re fo re , the re sp o n d e n t w a iv e d h is o p p o rtu n ityto p u rsu e th is iss u e o n a p p e a l.”); In r e F id e l Jim e n ez -S a n tilla n o , 21 I . & N . D ec. 567, 570 n. 2 ( B . I . A . 1996) ( “The r ecor d r efl ect s , how ever , thatthi s i s s ue w as n e i th e rr a i s e d b e fo r e , n o rru l e d u p o n b yth e I mm i g r a t i o n J u d g e . T h e r e fo r e , we w il l no t dec ide th e issu e, fo r i t i s n o t pro p erlyb efo re u s. ”); Matter of E dw ards, 20 I . & N . D ec. 191, 196 n. 4 ( B . I . A . 1990) ( “[B]e caus e the r es pondentdi d notobj ect t o the entryof thi s documenti nt o evi dence atthe hea r i ng bel ow , i ti s not ap p rop ri ate fo r him to o bject on ap p ea l. ”); Mat t erof G ar ci a- R eye s , 1 9 I . & N.T he G ov ernm ent s ug gest s that To rr es al so fai l ed to exh aust 10 admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es under8 U . S. C . § 1252( d) ( 1) . A pl e. B r . at23–24. T he s t a tu t o rye x h a u s t i o n r e q u i r e m e n ti s d i ffe r e n tth a n th e B I A ’ s p r o c e d u r a l b a r . We (continued...) -19- D ec. 830, 832 ( B . I . A . 1988) ( “I ti s cl earthatobj ect i ons themsel ves s houl d be m a d e o n th e re c o rd , o r s u c h o bje c tio n s w ill n o t b e p re s e rv e d fo r a p p e a l.” ). T he B I A ’ s w ai verrul e, as w i th m os tappel l at e bodi es , i s w hol l ycons i s t ent w ith its ru le s o f

p ra c tic e . See 8 C . F. R . § 1003. 1( d) ( “The B oar d s hal l funct i on as an appe l l at e bodychar ged w i th the r evi ew of thos e admi ni s tr at i ve adj udi cat i ons underthe A ct . ”) . A s w e have not ed i n anal y zi ng the w ai verdoctr i ne i n a d iffe re n t co n tex t: In o rd e r to p re se rv e th e in teg rity o f th e a p p e llate stru c tu re , w e sh o u ld n o tb e c o n s i d e r e d a “ s e c o n d - s h o t ” fo ru m , a fo ru m w h e r e s e c o n d a ry, back- up theor i es m aybe mount ed forthe fi r s tt i m e. Par t i es m us tbe encour aged t o gi ve i teverythi ng they ’ ve got at the t r i al l evel . T hus , an issue m u st be p rese n ted to , co n side red an d d ec id e d b ythe tri al co u rt b e fo re it c a n b e ra is e d o n a p p e a l. Tel e- C om m uni cat i ons , Inc. v. C om m is s i oner , 1 0 4 F . 3 d 1 2 2 9 , 1 2 3 3 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n s a n d c ita tio n s o m itte d ). T hes e r eas ons appl yw i th equal for ce t o the B I A . L i ke ci r cui tcourt s , the B I A ’ s abi l i tyt o engage i n fac t - fi ndi ng i s l i m i t ed, 8 C F. R . § 1003( d) ( 3) ( “The B oar d w i l l notengage i n de novo r evi ew of fi ndi ngs of fa ctdet erm i ned byan im m ig ra tio n ju d g e .”), a n d th e fa ilu re to ra ise a n iss u e b e fo re th e IJ p ro p e rly w ai ves the ar gum enton appea l t o the B I A . W e thus agr ee thatthe doctr i ne of w a iv e r c a n a p p ro p ria telyb e a p p lied b yth e B IA u n d e r its ru les a n d p re c e d e n t. 10(...continued) 10 need notr eac h the exha us t i on i s s ue s i nce w e fi nd T orr es ’ s cl ai m w as “ p ro c e d u ra lly b a rr e d b yth e B o a rd .” G alvezP i neda , 427 F. 3d at837. -20- Si nce Tor r es fai l ed t o r ai s e the r egul at oryr i ghtof cons ul arnot i fi cat i on befor e the I J , the B I A pr oper l yconcl uded the i s s ue w as pr ocedur al l ybarr ed. For th e s a m e re a s o n s a s th e B IA , w e d e c lin e to re a c h th e is s u e . 2. E f f ectof the Vi enna C onvent i on W hetherT orr es has a cl ai m di r ect l yunderA r t i cl e 36( 1) ( b) of the V i enna C o n v e n tio n is a d iffe re n t m a tter. T o rre s in v ites u s to re c o g n ize a n e n fo rc e a b le rig h t u n d e r th e V ien n a C o n v e n tio n th a t cannotbe pr ocedur al l ybarr ed bas ed on a p a iro f In te rn a tio n a l C o u rt o f J u s tic e (I C J ) r u lin g s . See Case Concer ni ng A vena a n do th e r Mex ica n Na tio n a ls (Mex . v . U.S .) , 2004 I . C . J . N o. 128 ( J udgm entof M a r. 3 1 ) (p re c lu d in g th e a p p lica tio n o f A m e ric a n p ro c e d u ra l d e fa u lt ru les to A rticle 3 6 c laim s); L a G r a n dC a s e (F.R .G . v . U.S .) , 2001 I . C . J . 466 ( J udgm entof J u n e 2 7 ) ( s a me ) . We d e c l i n e th e i n v i t a t i o n . I n s t e a d , we c h o o s e t o fo l l o w, a s we m u s t, th e d ic ta te s o f

th e U n ite d S ta te s S u p re m e C o u rt . See U . S . C o n st. A rtIII § 1 . O n lylasty ea r, the S u p rem e C o u rtn o ted th at th e IC J’s p ron o u n ce m en ts are not“conc l us i ve on ourcourt s , ” butar e onl yent i t l ed t o “r es pect ful cons i der at i on. ” Sanchez

- Ll am as v. O r egon , 126 S. C t . 2669, 2684–85 ( 2006) . T he C our tthen r eaffi r m ed i t s pr evi ous hol di ng i n B r ear d v. G r eene , 523 U . S. 371, 375 ( 1998) ( deal i ng w i th s t at e pr ocedur al bar s ) , that , even i f the V i enna Convent i on cr eat esA n d w e h a v e s e ri o u s d o u b ts th a t it d o e s . 11 See, e. g. , C ar denas v . D r etke , 4 0 5 F .3 d 2 4 4 (5 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ) (th e V ien n a C o n v e n tio n d o e s n o t co n fe r in d iv id u a lly en fo rce ab le priva te ri g h ts) ; Uni t edStat es v . E m uegbunam , 2 6 8 F .3 d 3 7 7 , 3 9 4 (6 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) (sam e); S ta te v . Mar t i nez - R odr iguez , 3 3 P . 3 d 2 6 7 (N . M . 2 0 0 1 ) (sam e); O r egon v. Sanchez

- Ll am as , 1 0 8 P . 3 d 5 7 3 (O re. 20 0 5 ) (sam e); Sh acklef ordv. C om m onw eal th, 5 4 7 S .E .2 d 8 9 9 (V a . 2 0 0 1 ) ( s a m e ). -21- pr i vat e enfor cea bl e r i ght s , s uch “c l ai m s underA r t i cl e 36 of the V i enna 11 C o n v e n tio n m a yb e su bjec ted to th e sa m e p ro c e d u ra l d e fa u lt ru les th a t ap p ly gener al l yt o otherfede r al - l aw cl ai m s . ” Id. T he C our tr eas oned thatpr ocedur al d e fa u l tru l e s a r e a n i mp o r t a n ta n d i n d i s p e n s a b l e p a r to f o u r“ a d v e r s a rys y s t e m, w h ich re lies c h ieflyo n th e p a rties to ra ise sig n ifica n t issu e s a n d p re se n t th e m to the court s i n the appr opr i at e manneratthe appr opr i at e t i m e foradj udi cat i on. ” Id. at2685. A ccor di ngl y , r egar dl es s of w hetherA r t i cl e 36( 1) ( b) gi ves T orr es an en fo rce ab le ri g h t of

co n su lar no ti fica ti o n , w e h o ld tha t st atuto ryan d reg u lat o ry pr ocedur al bar s appl yt o T orr es ’ s cl ai m and the B I A ’ s fi ndi ng thathe defaul t ed on h is c la im is c o n c lu s iv e . W e ac know l edge thatthe Supr eme C our t ’ s rul i ng i n Sa nch ez-L lam as d e a lt s peci fi cal l yw i th s t at e pr ocedur al defa ul trul es i n the cr i m i nal s ett i ng. Y et , w e do nots ee how the C our t ’ s r at i onal e w oul d di ct at e a di ffe r entconcl us i on i n fede r al rem o v al pro ce ed ing s. A fter all, rem o v al pro ce ed ing s b efo re a n IJ an d the B IA

“ g e n e ra llya re a d v e rsa ria l an d e m p lo ym a n yo f th e sa m e p ro c e d u re s u se d in A r t i cl e I I I court s . ” Fr ango v. G onz al es , 4 3 7 F .3 d 7 2 6 , 7 2 8 (8 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ); s ee-22-

a lso D e tro it Fre e P re ss v . A sh c ro ft , 303 F. 3d 681, 699 ( 6th C i r . 2002) ( “I ti s cl ear that rem o v al pro ce ed ing s are d ec ided lyad v ersa ri al. ”); Nor th Jers ey Medi a G r oup, In c . v . A s h c r o

ft, 3 0 8 F . 3 d 1 9 8 , 2 2 3

– 2 4 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) (Sc ir ica, J. , d issen ti n g ); E t chu- N j ang v. G onz al es , 403 F. 3d 577, 583 ( 8th C i r . 2005) . I n thi s cas e, T orr es w as su bject t o an ad v ersa ri al rem o v al pro ce ed ing an d so B IA p roc ed u ral ba rs r i ght ful l yappl i ed. I n fac t , the natur e of r emoval pr ocee di ngs m i l i t at es m or e s tr ongl yforthe appl i cat i on of pr ocedur al bar s than i n the cr i m i nal cont ext . A ft er al l , a r emoval pr ocee di ng i s a ci vi l pr ocee di ng, nota cr i m i nal one, and the demands of c o n s titu tio n a l o r l e g a l s a fe g u a rd s a re a c c o rd in g ly le s s s tr ic t. C f. Uni t ed Stat es v. Valdez , 9 1 7 F .2 d 4 6 6 , 4 6 9 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 0 ). W e cl os e w i th ouroft - not ed admoni t i on, “i thas l ong [bee n] r ecogni zed [ th a t] th e p o w e r to e x p e l o r e x c lu d e a lien s a s a f u n d a m e n tal s o v e re ig n a ttribu te exer ci s ed bythe G overnm ent ’ s pol i t i cal depart m ent s [i s ] l ar gel yi m m une fr om j udi ci al contr ol . ” L a tu , 3 7 5 F .3 d a t 1 0 2 0 . If th e p o lit ica l b ra n c h e s d o n o t w ish to e x c lu d e A rticle 3 6 (1 )(b ) c laim s f ro m a g e n c yp ro c e d u ra l b a rs, it is n o t fo r u s to s a y d i ffe r e n t l y. I n s um , w e fi nd no err ori n the B I A ’ s concl us i on thatT orr es ’ s cons ul ar not i fi cat i on cl ai m w as w ai ved.-23- I V . C oncl usi on Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e D I SM I SS T orr es ’ s appea l i n partforl ack of ju ri s d ic tio n a n d w e D E N Y in p a rt fo r l a c k o f m e ri to ri o u s c la im s . T h e B IA ’s o r d e ro f r e mo v a l i s AF F I RMED .