2010 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 8-2-2010 

# Eli a s Alfonso Juare z -Gon z ale z v . Atty Ge n U SA P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-1790

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

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

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " El i as Al fon s o Juar ez -Gonzalez v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 814. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/8141 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 09- 1790

___________ ELI AS A LFON SO J UA REZ- GO NZA LEZ, PETI TI ON ER v . A TTO RN EY G EN ER A L U N I TED STA TES, RE S P ONDE NT

____________________________________ O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp eal s Im m i grat i on Judg e: H on orabl e F reder i c L eeds ( A gencyN o. A 075- 445- 182)

____________________________________ Subm i t t ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a) on A pr i l 7, 2009; R es ubm i t t ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a) on Panel R ehea r i ng on M ay24, 2010 B efor e: SC I R I C A , SM I T H and W E I S, C i r cui tJ udges (O p inion fil ed : A u g u st 2, 20 1 0 )

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C U R I A M.

E l i as A l fons o J uar ez- G onzal ez, a ci t i zen a nd nat i ve of M exi co, pet i t i ons thi s C our tforr evi ew of a f i nal r emoval or derent er ed bythe B oar d of I m m i gr at i onU nderI N A § 212( h) , the A t t orneyG ener al m ay , as a mat t erof di s cr et i on, w ai ve the 1 i nadmi s s i bi l i tyof, among ot her s , an al i en convi ct ed of a cr i m e i nvol vi ng m or al turpi tude i f “i ti s es t abl i s hed t o the s at i s fac t i on of the A t t orneyG ener al thatthe al i en’ s deni al of a d m iss io n w o u ld re su lt i n e x tre m e h a rd sh ip to th e U n ited S tate s c iti z e n o r la w f u lly re s id e n t s p o u s e , p a re n t, s o n , o r d a u g h te r o f s u c h a lie n [ .]” 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 8 2 (h )( 1 )( B ). Ju a re z -G o n z a lez h a s tw o U n ited S tate s c iti z e n m in o r c h ild re n . H e d o e s n o t re sid e w ith the chi l dr en orthei rm other s , buthe has es t abl i s hed thathe pr ovi des s om e fi nanci al s uppor tt o eac h chi l d. 2 A p p e a ls (“ B IA ” ). F o r t h e re a s o n s th a t f o llo w , w e w ill d e n yth e p e titio n f o r r e v ie w . I. J uar ez- G onzal ez e nt er ed the U ni t ed St at es w i thoutperm i s s i on i n 1993 at the age of s event een. I n 1997, he bec ame a l aw ful perm anentr es i dent . O n J anuary3, 2003, the Super i orC our tof N ew J er s ey , H uds on C ounty , convi ct ed J uar ez- G onzal ez f o llo w in g h is p lea o f

g u iltyto o n e c o u n t o f

c rim in a l re stra in t in th e th ird d e g re e in vi ol at i on of N . J . St at . A nn. § 2C : 13- 2, forw hi ch he w as s ent ence d t o thr ee y ear s of pr obat i on. I n 2006, J uar ez- G onzal ez de part ed the U ni t ed St at es fora s hor tt i m e and, u p o n return , the D ep artm en t of H o m elan d S ec u ri tych arg ed h im as re m o v ab le un d er 8 U . S. C . § 1182( a) ( 2) ( A ) ( i ) ( I ) forhavi ng been c onvi ct ed of a cr i m e i nvol vi ng m or al tu rp itu d e . B e f

o re th e Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e (“ IJ” ) Ju a re z -G o n z a lez c o n c e d e d h is r emovabi l i tyon the gr ound char ged and appl i ed fora w ai verof i nadmi s s i bi l i tyunder IN A § 2 1 2 (h), 8 U . S . C . § 1 1 8 2 (h). 1

T he I J det erm i ned thatJ uar ez- G onzal ez’ s convi ct i on forcr i m i nal r es tr ai nt cons t i tut es a “vi ol entordanger ous cr i m e, ” a poi ntthatJ uar ez- G onzal ez’ s couns el di d not8 C .F .R . § 1 2 1 2 .7 (d ) p ro v id e s in re lev a n t p a rt: 2 T he A t t orneyG eneral , i n g eneral , w i l l no tfavo rabl yexerci se

d isc re tio n .. . to c o n se n t to a n a p p lica tio n .. . fo r ... a d m iss io n to the U n it ed S tat es .. . w ith resp ec t t o im m igran t al iens w h o are i nadmi s s i bl e under[8 U . S. C . § 1182( a) ( 2) ] i n cas es i nvol vi ng v iolen t or d an g ero u s crim es, ex ce p t i n ex tr ao rdin ary c irc u m sta n c e s, su c h a s ... c a se s in w h ich a n a lien c lea rly d e m o n s tr a te s th a t th e d e n ia l o f th e a p p lic a tio n f

o r ... admi s s i on as an i m m i gr antw oul d r es ul ti n exce pt i onal and extr emel yunus ual har ds hi p. 8 C . F . R . § 1 2 1 2 . 7 (d); see also 8 C . F . R . § 2 1 2 . 7 (d) (setti n g fo rth sam e p rov isi o n ). 3 di s put e. A . R . at48- 50, 154- 55. A s a r es ul tof thi s fi ndi ng, the I J hel d thatJ uar ezG onzal ez c oul d notqual i fyfora § 212( h) w ai verunl es s he made a hei ght ened s how i ng of an “e xcept i onal and extr emel yunus ual har ds hi p” t o hi s ci t i zen c hi l dr en, i n acc or dance w ith 8 C .F .R . § 1 2 1 2 .7 (d ). T h e IJ h e ld th a t Ju a re z -G o n z a lez f a iled to sh o w th e re q u isite 2 har ds hi p bas ed on the evi dence pr es ent ed.

J uar ez- G onzal ez r et ai ned new couns el and appe al ed t o the B I A . H e l i s t ed three issue s fo r rev iew in h is no ti ce o f a p p ea l: (1) the IJ us ed an inco rrect l eg al st an d ard i n det erm i ni ng w hetherJ uar ez- G onzal ez metthe bur den of pr oof fora w ai verof inad m issi b il ity ; ( 2 ) th e IJ f ail ed to co n side r m aterial ev iden ce that su p p o rt ed a w aive r, a n d g a v e im p ro p e r w e ig h t to im m a ter ial e v id e n c e , an d (3 ) th e IJ c o n sid e re d f a c ts n o t in e v id e n c e , err e d in a ss u m in g f a c ts, a n d d e n ied “ a f

u ll an d f a ir h e a rin g .” A .R . at 3 4 . In h is br i ef t o the B I A , J uar ez- G onzal ez a r gued thatthe I J err ed ( 1) i n fi ndi ng thathe comm i t t ed a vi ol entordanger ous cr i m e w i thoutfi r s texami ni ng N ew J er s eyl aw r egar di ng the4

el ement s of the off

ens e, ( 2) i n choos i ng t o appl ythe exc ept i onal and extr emel yunus ual h a rd sh ip sta n d a rd ra th e r th a n th e les se r e x tre m e h a rd sh ip sta n d a rd , an d (3 ) in its d i s c r e t i o n a r ya n a l y s i s o f th e f a c t o r s f o ra wa i v e rs e tf

o r th i n Ma t t e ro f

Ma r i n , 1 6 I & N D ec . 5 8 1 (B IA 1 9 7 8 ).

T he B I A di s m i s s ed the appe al , agr eei ng w i th the I J thatJ uar ez- G onzal ez do es not m eri ta § 2 12 (h) w ai ver. Itob served that Juarez-G on zal ez’s bri ef did no tadd res s h is c laim s th a t th e IJ h a d f a iled to c o n sid e r c e rta in e v id e n c e a n d h a d d e n ied a f u ll an d f a ir h e a rin g , w h ich h a d b e e n listed a s is su e s f o r re v iew in th e n o tice o f a p p e a l. T h e B IA h e ld th e se iss u e s w a iv e d a n d , alte rn a tiv e ly , su m m a rilyd ism iss e d th e m . T u rn in g to th e m e rits of the § 212( h) r eques t , the B I A expl ai ned that , w her e an a l i en has been c onvi ct ed of a vi ol entordanger ous cr i m e, he ors he musts how an exc ept i onal and extr emel yunus ual har ds hi p under8 C . F. R . § 1212. 7( d) t o qual i fyfora w ai ver . T he B I A hel d thatJ uar ezG o n za lez c o m m itted a v iolen t or d an g ero u s crim e. Itn o ted th at Ju are z-G o n za lez’s couns el had conc eded thatpoi ntbefor e the I J , w hi ch the B I A vi ew ed as a bi ndi ng j udi ci al admi s s i on and a w ai verof the i s s ue. M or eover , the B I A r evi ew ed the s t atut e of convi ct i on and ca s e l aw i nt erpr et i ng i t , and i tconcl uded on the mer i t s thatJ uar ezG o n za lez’s crim e, “at a m inim u m , q u ali fies a s a d an g ero u s crim e.” A . R . at 3. It obs erved that , even i f non- vi ol ent , “cr i m i nal r es tr ai ntm us tbe i m pos ed aga i ns tthe w i l l of the v ict im an d p o se a d an g er to the v ict im . ” Id . at 4. F inally , the B IA af firm ed the IJ’s det erm i nat i on thatJ uar ez- G onzal ez f ai l ed t o s how an exc ept i onal and extr emel yunus ual5

h a r d s h i p . J u a r e z - Go n z a l e z t i me l yf i l e d th i s p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. II . W e mustfi r s tcons i derourj ur i s di ct i on overthe pet i t i on forr evi ew . See B o n h o m e tr e v . G o n z a l e s , 4 1 4 F . 3 d 4 4 2 , 4 4 7 ( 3 d C i r . 2 0 0 5 ) ( “ W e b e g i n , a s w e a l w a ys m us tw hen r evi ew i ng agenc ydet erm i nat i ons , w i th a det erm i nat i on of w hetherw e have s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on t o cons i der[pet i t i oner ] ’ s cl ai m s . ”) . A s the G overnm ent corr ect l ynot es , w e l ack j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew the di s cr et i onarydeci s i on t o denya w ai ver of i nadmi s s i bi l i tyunder§ 212( h) . See 8 U . S. C . § 1252( a) ( 2) ( B ) ( i ) ; M endez - M or anche l v. A s hcr oft , 338 F. 3d 176, 179 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . H ow ever , w e r et ai n j ur i s di ct i on i ns ofaras th e p e t i t i o n e rs e e k s r e v i e w o f c o n s t i tu t i o n a l c l a i ms o rq u e s t i o n s o f l a w. S e e 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 5 2 (a)(2)(D ); Jarb o u g h v . A tt ’yG en . , 4 8 3 F . 3 d 1 8 4 , 1 8 8 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ).

J uar ez- G onzal ez r ai s es tw o ar gum ent s i n thi s C our t . Fi r s t , he cont ends t hat the B I A s houl d have appl i ed a c at egor i cal anal y s i s t o det erm i ne w hetherhi s convi ct i on f o rc r i mi n a l r e s tr a i n ti s a c r i me i n v o l v i n g mo r a l tu rp i tu d e , wh i c h J u a r e z - Go n z a l e z s e e ms t o vi ew a pr edi cat e fi ndi ng t o a det erm i nat i on of w hetherthe cr i m e i s vi ol entor d a n g e ro u s u n d e r § 1 2 1 2 .7 (d ). A s w e u n d e rsta n d th is f irst a rg u m e n t, Ju a re z -G o n z a lez is a s k i n g th i s Co u r tt o r e v i e w b o th th e d e t e r mi n a t i o n th a th i s o f f e n s e c o n s t i tu t e s a c r i me i nvol vi ng m or al turpi tude, and the det erm i nat i on thathi s offe ns e i s a vi ol entordanger ous c rim e . S e c o n d , Ju a re z -G o n z a lez c o n ten d s th a t h e w a s d e n ied d u e p ro c e ss b e c a u se h is pr i orcouns el al l egedl ypr ovi ded i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance byconce di ng tw o cr i t i cal i s s ues“ A c laim o f in e f f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f

c o u n se l in re m o v a l p ro c e e d in g s is c o g n iza b le 3 underthe Fi fth A m endment– i . e. , as a vi ol at i on of thatamendm ent ’ s guar ant ee of due p roc ess.” F ad iga v . A tt ’yG en . , 4 8 8 F . 3 d 1 4 2 , 1 5 5 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). 6 befor e the I J : ( 1) thatthe off ens e w as a cr i m e i nvol vi ng m or al turpi tude, ther eby r ender i ng J uar ez- G onzal ez r emovabl e as char ged, and ( 2) thatthe off ens e i s a vi ol entor d a n g e ro u s c rim e , the re b ysu b jec tin g h im to th e h e ig h ten e d e x c e p tio n a l an d e x tre m e ly u n u su al ha rdsh ip stan d ard fo r ob tai n ing a § 2 1 2 (h) w aive r. 3

W e a r e s a t i s f

i e d th a tJ u a r e z - Go n z a l e z r a i s e s l e g a l a n d c o n s t i tu t i o n a l c l a i ms thatfal l w i thi n t he s cope of ourj ur i s di ct i on. T he G overnm ent , fori t s part , does nots eem t o di s put e thatther e i s j ur i s di ct i on under§ 1252( a) ( 2) ( D ) . I tar gues , how ever , thatthe peti t i on for r eview shou l d b e dis m i ssed becau se Juar ez-G on zal ez fail ed to exh aust admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es i n acc or dance w i th 8 U . S. C . § 1252( d) ( 1) , and/ orbeca us e he w ai ved r evi ew befor e the I J . R es pondent ’ s B r . at11- 14. J uar ez- G onzal ez r es ponds t hat the exha us t i on r equi r ementi s s at i s fi ed bec aus e the B I A , s ua s pont e, r ai s ed the i s s ue of couns el ’ s conce s s i on thatthe cr i m e i s vi ol entordanger ous , and i tr eac hed the mer i t s on that quest i on byho l ding t hat the cri m e, ata m i nim um , i s dang erous.

B eca us e “i s s ue exha us t i on as r equi r ed by§ 1252( d) ( 1) i s a j ur i s di ct i onal rul e, ” H oxha v. H ol der , 559 F. 3d 157, 159 n. 3 ( 3d C i r . 2009) , w e addr es s thatques t i on befor e pr ocee di ng fur ther . U nder§ 1252( d) ( 1) , “[a ] courtm ayr evi ew a fi nal or derof r emoval onl yi 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 t o the a lien a s o f

rig h t[ .]” W e h a v e h e ld th a t “a p e tit io n e r is d e e m e d to h a v e e x h a u ste d a ll7

admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es , and ther ebypr es erves the r i ghtof j udi ci al r evi ew , i f he ors he r ai s es al l i s s ues befor e the B I A . ” Li n v. A t t ’ yG en. , 543 F. 3d 114, 120- 121 ( 3d C i r . 2008) ( ci t at i ons and quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . “W e do not , how ever , appl ythi s pr i nci pl e i n a dr aconi an fa s hi on, ” i d. at121, and “s o l ong as . . . pet i t i onerm akes s om e ef for t , how ever i ns uffi ci ent , t o pl ace the B oar d on not i ce of a s tr ai ght forw ar d i s s ue bei ng r ai s ed on appea l , a pet i t i oneri s deemed t o have e xhaus t ed heradmi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es . ” I d. ( quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) ; s ee a l s o H oxha, 559 F. 3d at160 ( not i ng thatourcas e l aw “i ns truct [s ] thatourfocus [i n addr es s i ng exhaus t i on] m us tbe on the natur e of the not i ce p rov ided to the B IA b yb o th the N o ti ce o f A p p ea l and an yb ri ef fil ed w ith the B IA ”). In L in , w e h e ld th a t “th e B IA ’s c o n sid e ra tio n o f a n iss u e is s u f

f icie n t to pr ovi de us w i th j ur i s di ct i on overthati s s ue” e ven i f the pet i t i onerfai l ed t o r ai s e the i s s ue at an yti m e b ef

o re the B IA . 5 4 3 F . 3 d at 12 3 n . 7 . W e n o ted th at “itis w ith in the [B IA ]’s di s cr et i on t o det erm i ne w hen t o di s m i s s s um m ar i l yan appe al forl ack of s peci fi ci tyand w hen the B I A i s s uffi ci ent l yappr i s ed of the appl i cabl e i s s ues t o ent ert ai n the appe al . ” I d. a t 1 2 4 . If

th e B IA sh o u ld e lec t to a d d re ss a n iss u e o n th e m e rits su a sp o n te ( a s it d id in L i n) , w e gene r al l yw i l l deem t he exha us t i on r equi r ements at i s fi ed. I d. at126.

A ppl y i ng thes e pr i nci pl es her e, w e conc l ude thatJ uar ez- G onzal ez s at i s fi ed the exha us t i on r equi r ementon t he ques t i on w hetherhi s cr i m e i s vi ol entordanger ousW e r ej ect , how ever , J uar ez- G onzal ez’ s ar gum entthathe s at i s fi ed the exha us t i on 4 r equi r ementw i th r egar d t o t he I J ’ s fi ndi ng thathi s offe ns e i s a cr i m e i nvol vi ng m or al tu rp i tu d e . J u a r e z - Go n z a l e z c o n c e d e d th a th e i s r e mo v a b l e f o rh a v i n g c o mmi t t e d a c r i me in v o lv in g m o ra l tu rp itu d e ; th e IJ h e ld h im re m o v a b le o n th a t b a sis ; Ju a re z -G o n z a lez d id notchal l enge thatdet erm i nat i on i n ei therhi s not i ce of appea l orhi s br i ef t o the B I A ; and the B I A di d notaddr es s the i s s ue s ua s pont e. C ons equent l y , the i s s ue ca nnotbe dee m ed exhaus t ed gi ven the abs ence of anynot i ce t o the B I A . W hi l e J uar ez- G onzal ez a r gues t hat h e d id , in f

a c t, ch a llen g e th e m o ra l tu rp itu d e f in d in g in h is b rie f

to th e B IA , the re c o rd is cl earthathe di d not . H i s ar gum enti n the br i ef w as thatthe I J ’ s fi ndi ng r egar di ng the vi ol entordanger ous natur e of the off ens e w as “arbi tr ary , s ubj ect i ve, and contr aryt o” BI A d e c i s i o n s , a n d th a th i s o f f e n s e h a d t o q u a l i f

ya s a n a g g r a v a t e d f

e l o n yu n d e r8 U. S . C. § 1101( a) ( 43) ( F) ( w hi ch def i nes as an aggr avat ed fe l ony“a c r i m e of vi ol ence . . . for w hi ch the t erm of i m pr i s onm ent[i s ] atl eas tone y ear ”) i n or dert o j us t i fyappl i cat i on of the exc ept i onal and extr emel yunus ual har ds hi p s t andar d. See A . R . at13- 14. E ven a m os tgener ous r eadi ng of thi s ar gum entdoes nots ugges tthati tputthe B I A on not i ce of a chal l enge t o t he fi ndi ng thatJ uar ez- G onzal ez i s i nadmi s s i bl e and r emovabl e bec aus e he com m i t t ed a cri m e i nv olvi ng m oral turpi tud e un der 8 U . S . C . § 1 18 2(a) (2) (A )( i )( I) . T hu s, w e l ack jur i sdi ct i on t o revi ew the m oral turpi tud e determ i nati on , and w e do no tadd res s that issue fu rth er. Se e W u v . A tt ’yG en . , 5 7 1 F . 3 d 3 1 4 , 3 1 7 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ). 8 under§ 1212. 7( d) . J uar ez- G onzal ez a r gued i n hi s br i ef t o the B I A thatthe I J had err ed 4 i n hol di ng thatthe off

ens e i s vi ol entordanger ous beca us e s uch a de t erm i nat i on can be m ade onl yaft era r evi ew of the el ement s of the off ens e. W hi l e the l egal theorybehi nd the ar gum entpr es ent ed t o t he B I A di ffe r s s om ew hatfr om the theorythathe now pr opounds i n t hi s C our t , J uar ez- G onzal ez made cl earthathe w i s hed t o chal l enge the vi ol entordanger ous det erm i nat i on. T he B I A , m or eover , addr es s ed thatdet erm i nat i on on the mer i t s and hel d t hatthe cr i m e, ata mi ni m um , i s danger ous . A l though i tnot ed that couns el had conc eded thatfi ndi ng befor e the I J , the B I A chos e t o addr es s the i s s ue, and its d isc u ss io n o f

th e m e rits re f

lec ts th a t itw a s “ su f

f icie n tlya p p rise d o f

th e a p p lica b le i s s ue[] t o ent ert ai n t he appe al . ” Li n, 543 F. 3d at124. E xhaus t i on, ther efor e, havi ng beenJuarez- G on zal ez’s second cl ai m befo re this C ou rt– thathe w as denied du e process 5 w hen cou nsel , al l eged l yi neff ect i vely , con ceded that the cri m e w as vi olentor dang erous – i s u n e x h a u s t e d . J u a r e z - Go n z a l e z c o n c e d e s th a th e d i d n o tr a i s e th a ti s s u e b e f o r e th e BI A, and the B I A di d notaddr es s the i s s ue s ua s pont e. I n anyevent , the cl ai m fai l s on the m er i t s . A s w i l l be di s cus s ed i n t he t ext , the B I A di d noterri n hol di ng thatJ uar ezG onzal ez’ s cr i m e i s danger ous . C ons equent l y , a due pr oces s chal l enge ba s ed on couns el ’ s fai l ur e t o cont es tthati s s ue i s w i thoutm er i t , as J uar ez- G onzal ez c annots how pr ej udi ce f

r om couns el ’ s act i on. See Fadi ga, 488 F. 3d at155 ( expl ai ni ng thatal i en c laim in g d e n ial o f

d u e p ro c e ss m u st s h o w “ (1 ) th a t h e w a s p re v e n ted f ro m re a so n a b ly p rese n ti n g h is case an d (2) tha t sub stan ti al pre jud ice resu lt ed ”) (q u o tat ion m ark s o m itted). 9 sa tisf ied , w e tu rn to th e m e rits o f w h e th e r th e B IA e rre d in h o ld in g th a t th e o f f e n se is dan gerous. 5 III .

W her e, as her e, the B I A agr ees w i th the I J ’ s anal y s i s and adds anal y s i s of its o w n , w e re v ie w th e d e c is io n s o f b o th th e B IA a n d th e IJ . S e e S a n d ie v . A tt’ yG e n ., 562 F. 3d 246, 250 ( 3d C i r . 2009) . W e r evi ew fac tual det erm i nat i ons underthe s ubs t ant i al e v id e n c e sta n d a rd , ac c e p tin g th o se d e ter m in a tio n s a s c o n c lu siv e u n les s “ ‘a n yre a so n a b le adj udi cat orw oul d be compel l ed t o concl ude t o the contr ary . ’ ” I d. at251 ( quot i ng 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (b )(4 )(B )). O u r re v iew o f leg a l d e ter m in a tio n s is d e n o v o , “s u b jec t to es t abl i s hed pr i nci pl es of def er ence . ” W ang v. A s hcr oft , 368 F. 3d 347, 349 ( 3d C i r . 2004) (cit ing C h ev ron v . N at. R es. D ef. C o u n cil , 4 6 7 U . S . 8 3 7 , 8 4 4 (19 8 4 )). W e a ff o rd defe r ence t o t he age ncy ’ s i nt erpr et at i on of i t s r egul at i ons , Z egr ean v. A t t ’ yG en. , 602 F .3 d 2 7 3 , 2 7 5 (3 d C ir. 2 0 1 0 ), w h ile “ w e o w e n o d e f e re n c e to [ its] in terp re tatio n o f a sta te crim inal statu te. ” P artyk a v . A tt ’yG en . , 4 1 7 F . 3 d 4 0 8 , 4 1 1 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ).T o th e e x t e n tth a tJ u a r e z - G o n z a l e z s e e k s t o f a u l tth e B I A f

o rf a i l i n g t o a p p l y a 6 “ca t egor i cal appr oach, ” hi s ar gum enti s r ej ect ed. J uar ez- G onzal ez c i t es no author i tyfor the p rop o sit ion that the B IA m u st ap p lya c ateg o ri ca l app roa ch w h en an aly zing w h ethe r a c rim e is v io len t o r d a n g e ro u s w ith in th e m e a n in g o f 8 C .F .R . § 1 2 1 2 .7 (d ). In a n ye v e n t, the B I A her e l ooked t o t he l anguage of the s t atut e of c onvi ct i on, and nott o J uar ezG o n z a lez ’s c o n d u c t, i n a sk in g w h e th e r h is c rim e is v io len t o r d a n g e ro u s, a n d its a n a ly sis es s ent i al l ycomport ed w i th t he type of c at egor i cal appr oach thatJ uar ez- G onzal ez a d v o c a tes . S e e P a rtyk a , 4 1 7 F .3 d a t 4 1 1 (d isc u ss in g c a teg o ric a l ap p ro a c h a s a p p lied to det erm i ne w hethercr i m e i nvol ves m or al turpi tude) . W hi l e J uar ez- G onzal ez s pecul at es thatthe B I A m i ghthave c onduct ed “a m or e thor ough cat egor i cal anal y s i s ” had i tnotbeen for hi s coun sel ’s con cessi on befo re the IJ that the cri m e i s vi olentor dang erous, P eti ti o n er’s B r. at 19 , su ch sp ec u lat ion d o es n o t w arran t a rem an d o f th is m att er. 10 J uar ez- G onzal ez c hal l enges the B I A ’ s anal y s i s of the s t atut e underw hi ch h e w a s c o n v icte d , su g g e stin g th a t N e w Je rse ylaw lea v e s o p e n th e p o ss ib ili tyth a t h is o f f e n s e is n o t a d a n g e ro u s c ri m e , a n d th e re f o re n o t w ith in th e p u rv ie w o f § 1 2 1 2 .7 (d ). S ee P eti ti o n er’s B r. at 19 . W e d iscern n o rev ersible e rror. 6

T he N ew J er s eys t atut e out l aw i ng cr i m i nal r es tr ai ntpr ovi des i n r el evant partthat“[a ] per s on comm i t s a cr i m e of the thi r d degr ee i f he know i ngl y. . . [r ] es tr ai ns anotherunl aw ful l yi n ci r cumst ance s expos i ng the othert o r i s k of s er i ous bodi l yi nj ur y [. ] ” N . J . St at . A nn. § 2C : 12- 2( a) . N ew J er s eycourt s r ecogni ze that“cr i m i nal r es tr ai nt funct i ons as a l es s eri ncl uded off ens e of ki dnappi ng, ” St at e v. Savage, 799 A . 2d 477, 492 (N .J. 2 0 0 2 ), an d th e o f

f e n se d if f e rs f ro m , an d is m o re se rio u s th a n , fa lse im p riso n m e n t in thatcr i m i nal r es tr ai nti n t he thi r d- degr ee “ r equi r es thatthe r es tr ai ntbe i n ci r cumst ance s ex p o sing the o ther to risk o f se ri o u s b o d il yinjury . ” Id . at 49 4 (qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted).

Ju a re z -G o n z a lez h a s n o t sh o w n th a t itis in c o n sis ten t w ith § 1 2 1 2 .7 (d ) toW e not e thatJ uar ez- G onzal ez r ai s es no chal l enge i n thi s C our tt o the val i di tyof 7 § 1212. 7( d) , and thus w e do notaddr es s anys uch i s s ue. 11 defi ne hi s offe ns e as danger ous . U nder§ 2C : 12- 2( a) , J uar ez- G onzal ez pl ed gui l tyt o a cr i m e i n w hi ch he a ct ed aga i ns tthe w i l l of hi s vi ct i m thr ough r es tr ai ntand expos ed the v ictim to a risk o f

se rio u s b o d ilyin

ju ry . E v e n a ss u m in g , as th e B IA d id , tha t th e c rim e is non- vi ol ent , butcf. U ni t ed St at es v. Par s on, 955 F. 2d 858, 873 ( 3d C i r . 1992) ( hol di ng thatvi ol at i on of D el aw ar e’ s r eckl es s endange r m ents t atut e cons t i tut es “cr i m e of vi ol ence ” forpurpos es of U . S. S. G . § 4B 1. 1) , the dange ri nher enti n the off ens e, thr ough the r i s k of se rio u s b o d ilyin

ju ryto th e v ictim , is a p p a re n t. Ju a re z -G o n z a lez o f f e rs n o p lau sib le in te rp re ta tio n to th e c o n tr a ry.

T he A t t orneyG ener al adopt ed § 1212. 7( d) t o ai d i n the cons i der at i on of w a iv e r a p p lica tio n s, a n d in p a rticu lar to g u id e th e a g e n c y ’s e x e rc ise o f d isc re tio n in deci di ng w hethert o cons entt o an i nadmi s s i bl e al i en’ s r eques tforadmi s s i on. See Sam uel s v. C hert off, 550 F. 3d 252, 257 ( 2d C i r . 2008) ( expl ai ni ng that“i n pr om ul gat i ng S ect i on 12 12 . 7(d), the A t t orneyG eneral exerci sed t he au tho ri tygiven t o h i m byC on gress t o s etthe s t andar ds thatw i l l gui de the exe r ci s e of di s cr et i on thatfol l ow s aft erthe al i en s how s ‘ extr eme har ds hi p’ ”) ; M ej i a v. G onzal es , 499 F. 3d 991, 996 ( 9th C i r . 2007) ( not i ng that A t t orneyG eneral “prom ulgat ed [the] r egu l at i on t o g uide I Js i n the w aytheyexerci se their relat ivelyu n fe tt ere d g ran t of d iscreti o n af

ter th e statuto ryreq u ir em en ts are m et”). 7 A s s uch, § 1212. 7( d) di s t i ngui s hes al i ens w ho comm i t“vi ol entordanger ous cr i m es ” andr equi r es them t o m ake a hei ght ened s how i ng of an e xcept i onal and extr emel yunus ual

h a rd sh ip . A s o n e c o u rt h a s o b se rv e d , “[ t]h e h e ig h ten e d sta n d a rd is ra tio n a llyre late d to the nat i onal i m m i gr at i on pol i cyof notadmi t t i ng al i ens w ho coul d be a da ngert o s oci ety . ” M ej i a, 499 F. 3d at996. W e ca nnotconcl ude her e thatB I A contr avene d thi s pol i cy , or e x c e e d its a u th o ri ty, in d e te rm in in g th a t J u a re z -G o n z a le z ’s c ri m e is a d a n g e ro u s o n e . C o n se q u e n tly , itd id n o t er r in re q u irin g h im to sh o w a n e x c e p tio n a l an d e x tre m e ly u n u su al ha rdsh ip as a p rereq u isi te t o a § 2 1 2 (h) w aive r. I V. F o r th e f o re g o in g re a so n s, w e w ill d e n yth e p e tit io n f o r re v iew . T h is C our t ’ s O r derpr ovi s i onal l ys t ay i ng J uar ez- G onzal ez’ s r emoval i s her ebyvaca t ed.

1 2