2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 5-5-2008 

# H aught on v . Atty Ge n U SA P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-2878

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_2008

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 2008 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 " H au ght on v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1270. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1270NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 07- 2878

___________ M OR RI S DAC OS T A HAUG HT ON, Pet i t i oner

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

____________________________________ O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof the U n ited S tate s D e p a rtm e n t o f H o m e lan d S e c u rity (A g en cyN o . A 9 6 -04 2 -05 2 )

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

M ay1, 2008 B efor e: SC I R I C A , C hi ef J udge, H A R D I M A N and ST A PL E T O N , C i r cui tJ udges ( Fi l ed: M ay5, 2008)

___________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

___________ P E R C U R I A M. M orr i s H aught on has fi l ed a pe t i t i on forr evi ew of a Fi nal A dm i ni s tr at i ve R emoval O rd e r o f th e D e p a rt m e n t o f

H o m e la n d S e c u ri ty o rd e ri n g th a t h e b e re m o v e d to J a m a ic a . F o r t h e f o llo w in g re a s o n s , w e w ill d e n yth e p e titio n f o r r e v ie w .Such pr ocee di ngs ar e perm i t t ed forthe r emoval of an a l i en w ho i s nota l egal 1 perm anentr es i dentand comm i t t ed an a ggr avat ed fe l ony . I n expedi t ed r emoval , the al i en h as n o ri g h t t o ap p ea r be fo re a n im m igrati o n jud g e a n d n o ri g h t t o an yd iscreti o n ary 2 I n 1991, H aught on pl eade d gui l tyt o pos s es s i on w i th i nt entt o di s tr i but e cr ack cocaine and po sses si on of a f i rearm bya fel on . A ft er s ervi ng t i m e i n p ri son fo r tho se offe ns es , H aught on appl i ed fora U ni t ed St at es pas s por t . I n hi s appl i cat i on, he r epr es ent ed thathe w as born i n L ake Char l es , L oui s i ana. H e s ubm i t t ed a “ D el ay ed C ert i fi cat e of Bi r th” i s s ued bythe St at e of Loui s i ana. H i s pas s por tappl i cat i on w as “fl agged” beca us e he us ed a de l ay ed bi r th cert i fi cat e. W hen author i t i es i nves t i gat ed, t hey det erm i ned thatH aught on w as a J amai can c i t i zen w i th a J amai can bi r th cert i fi cat e. T he governm entcr i m i nal l ypr os ecut ed hi m form aki ng a fa l s e s t at ementi n an appl i cat i on fora pas s por t , i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 1542. A ttr i al i n the U . S. D i s tr i ct C o u rt f o r th e S o u th e rn D istric t o f T e x a s, th e tw o p e o p le w h o h a d p ro v id e d su p p o rt f o r h is D el ay ed B i r th C ert i fi cat e, one i n an af fi davi tand the otheri n a bapt i s m al cert i fi cat e, t es t i fi ed thatnei therhad ac tual l yknow n H aught on s i nce bi r th and theyhad onl ys t at ed thatH aught on w as bor n i n L oui s i ana be caus e H aught on s ai d s o. H aught on t ook the s t and i n hi s ow n defe ns e and t es t i fi ed thathe i s a U . S. ci t i zen. A ft ertr i al , he w as convi ct ed and s e n te n c e d to tw e n ty-f

o u r m o n th s im p ri s o n m e n t. I n A pr i l 2007, the governm ents erved H aught on w i th a N ot i ce of I nt entt o I s s ue a Fi nal A dm i ni s tr at i ve O r derpur s uantt o 8 C . F. R . § 238. 1( b) , the i ni t i al s t ep i n pl aci ng an al i en i n expedi t ed r emoval pr ocee di ngs under8 U . S. C . § 1228( b) . O n J une 1, 2007, 1reli ef. S ee 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 2 8 (b).

H aught on al s o fi l ed mot i on fors t ayof r emoval and mot i on forappoi nt m entof 2 couns el , w hi ch w e have al r eadydeni ed. See H aught on v. A t t orneyG ener al , C . A . N o. 07- 28 78 (3d C i r. A ug . 23 , 20 07 ). A round the sam e t i m e, the g ov ernm ent m ov ed to di sm i ss the pet i t i on forr evi ew forl ack of s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on, cont endi ng thatthe ju risd ictio n -strip p in g p ro v isio n , 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (a )(2 )(C ), p re v e n ts c o u rts o f a p p e a ls fr om exer ci s i ng j ur i s di ct i on overa pet i t i on forr evi ew fi l ed byan al i en convi ct ed of a n a g g ra v a ted f

e lo n y . A p a n e l o f

th e C o u rt re f

e rre d th e m o tio n to d ism iss to th e m e rits p a n e l. 3 I m m i gr at i on and C us t om s E nfor cement( “I C E ”) i s s ued a f i nal admi ni s tr at i ve r emoval o rd e r f o r H a u g h to n to b e re m o v e d to J a m a ic a . H aught on fi l ed a pe t i t i on forr evi ew i n w hi ch he a s s ert ed thathe i s a ci t i zen of t he U ni t ed St at es ( and ther efor e di s qual i fi ed forr emoval forhavi ng comm i t t ed an a ggr avat ed fel ony ) and thathi s cons t i tut i onal r i ght s w er e vi ol at ed i n hi s cr i m i nal tr i al . W e have 2 ju risd ictio n u n d e r 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (a )(2 )(D ) to re v iew th e leg a l q u e stio n w h e th e r h e is rem o v ab le as a n ag g rav ated fe lon . S ee T ran v . G o n za les, 4 1 4 F . 3 d 4 6 4 , 4 6 7 (3d C ir . 2005) . I n r es pons e t o H aught on’ s as s ert i on thathe i s a U . S. ci t i zen, the governm ent c o n ten d s th a t H a u g h to n is c o llate ra llye sto p p e d f ro m a ss e rtin g c iti z e n sh ip in th is C o u rt, b e c a u se a U .S . D istric t C o u rt h a s a lre a d yd e c id e d th a t h e lied a b o u t b e in g a U .S . citize n in h is p a ss p o rt a p p lica tio n . W e a g re e w ith th e g o v e rn m e n t th a t issu e p re c lu sio n a p p lies in thi s i ns t ance . “C ol l at er al es t oppel gener al l yappl i es w hen the s ame i s s ue w as pr evi ous l yl i t i gat ed bythe s ame par t i es and w as actual l ydeci ded bya tr i bunal of compet entj ur i s di ct i on. ” See D uval l v. A t t orneyG ener al of the U ni t ed St at es , 436 F. 3d 382, 391 ( 3d C i r . 2006)4

( ci t at i on om i t t ed) . T he det erm i nat i on m us tbe “e s s ent i al ” t o the pr i orj udgm ent . See B u rl ing ton N . R . R . C o . v . H yu n d ai M erc h . M arine C o . , 6 3 F . 3 d 1 2 2 7 , 1 2 3 1 -32 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 5 ). “I f

a p a rtyis p re c lu d e d f

ro m re lit ig a tin g a n iss u e w ith a n o p p o sin g p a rty , h e is a lso p re c lu d e d f

ro m d o in g so w ith a n o th e r p e rso n u n les s h e lac k e d a f u ll an d f a ir oppor tuni tyt o l i t i gat e the i s s ue i n t he fi r s tact i on orunl es s otherci r cumst ance s j us t i fy aff or di ng hi m an opportuni tyt o r el i t i gat e the i s s ue. ” M el i ki an v. C orr adett i , 791 F. 2d 2 7 4 , 2 7 7 -7 8 (3 d C ir . 1 9 8 6 ). A s H aught on acknow l edges , the i ndi ctm entchar ged hi m w i th know i ngl yand w ill f u llym a k in g a f

a lse sta tem e n t in a n a p p lica tio n f o r a U .S . p a ss p o rt, w ith in ten t to sec u re the p assp o rtfo r his o w n u se. Itch arg ed that H au g h ton stat ed in h is pa ssp o rt a p p lic a tio n th a t h e w a s b o rn in L a k e C h a rl e s , L o u is ia n a , b u t th a t h e k n e w th is to b e f a ls e . I n or dert o convi cthi m of the off ens e under18 U . S. C . § 1542 , the j uryhad t o fi nd that H a u g h to n k n o w in g lym a d e th e f a lse sta tem e n t th a t h e w a s b o rn in L o u isia n a in h is p a s s p o rt a p p lic a tio n . S e e U n ite d S ta te s v . G e o rg e , 3 8 6 F .3 d 3 8 3 , 3 9 7 (2 d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). H aught on s t at es thatas evi dence i n s uppor tof the cha r ge, a pas s por tand vi s a fr aud i nves t i gat ort es t i fi ed thataft erH aught on’ s appl i cat i on w as fl agged, the i nves t i gat i on rev ea led th at H au g h ton h ad a Ja m aica n b irth ce rt ifi ca te reflec ti n g that h e w as b o rn in P o rt A nt oni o, J amai ca. T he governm ental s o pr es ent ed tw o pr i ors t at ement s byH aught on ab o u t his birth p lace : a 19 8 6 arrest b lott er sh o w ing that H au g h ton rep rese n ted h e w as b o rn i n Por tA nt oni o, J amai ca, and a 1984 appl i cat i on fora Texas i dent i fi cat i on car d forw hi ch5

H aught on pr ovi ded a J amai can bi r th cert i fi cat e. W i th r egar d t o the del ay ed Loui s i ana b irth c e rtific a te, a s p re v io u slym e n tio n e d , the tw o p e rso n s w h o h a d su p p o rte d th e b irth cert i fi cat e t es t i fi ed thatnei therper s onal l yknew w hetherH aught on w as born i n L oui s i ana, butthatH aught on had t ol d t hem he w as born ther e. A l though H aught on t es t i fi ed i n hi s ow n defe ns e and a tt empt ed t o poi ntoutthe sh o rtc o m in g s in th e Ja m a ica n b irth c e rtific a te, th e ju ryu lti m a telyf o u n d H a u g h to n g u ilty o f 1 8 U . S . C . § 1 5 4 2 . T h e jury ’s co n clus ion that H au g h ton li ed o n h is pa ssp o rt appl i cat i on abouthi s ci t i zens hi p w as es s ent i al t o i t s convi ct i on of H aught on and i s now pr ecl us i ve on the ques t i on of hi s al i enage . T he ques t i on pr es ent ed her e–w hether H aught on i s a ci t i zen of the U ni t ed St at es –i s ul t i m at el y“the s ame as thati nvol ved i n the pr i oract i on. ” B ur l i ngt on N . R . R . C o. , 63 F. 3d at 1231- 32. H aught on m ai nt ai ns thathe di d nothave a ful l and fa i roppor tuni tyt o l i t i gat e the ci t i zens hi p i s s ue i n hi s cr i m i nal c a se , b u t th is a ss e rtio n is b e lied b yth e f a c t th a t h e tes tifie d a n d p re se n ted e v id e n c e o n h is o w n b e h a lf. Fi nal l y , t o t he ext entthatH aught on as s ert s a cons t i tut i onal cl ai m r egar di ng the crim inal p roc ee d ing s, w e n o te th at he ap p ea led h is cri m inal co n v ict ion to the U . S . C o u rt of A ppeal s forthe Fi fth C i r cui t , and i tappea r s he r ai s ed the s ame i s s ue conc erni ng the depos i t i on of hi s m otheri n t hatappea l . See U ni t ed St at es v. H aught on, N o. 06- 20054, 2 0 0 7 W L 2 1 8 6 2 5 0 ( 5 th Ci r . J u l y3 0 , 2 0 0 7 ) . Th e F i f th Ci r c u i td e n i e d Ha u g h t o n ’ s c l a i m, and w e s ee no r eas on nott o acc or d i tappr opr i at e def er ence . E ven i f i tw er e notthe exa ct6

cl ai m as pr es ent ed i n hi s pet i t i on forr evi ew , w e do notfi nd a due pr oces s vi ol at i on im p a c tin g th e in s ta n t r e m o v a l p ro c e e d in g s . W e w ill d e n yth e p e tit io n f o r re v iew . T h e g o v e rn m e n t’s m o tio n to d ism iss is deni ed. H aught on’ s m ot i ons t o cl ar i fyand t o s t aythe appe al ar e deni ed.