## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 11

- 1386 S ALV AD O R T API A L E MO S, P etitio ner, v. E R I C H. H OLDER, J R . , A tto rneyGenera l ofthe U ni ted S tat es, Res pond e nt
.

Pe tition fo r Review o f O rde rs o f the Department o f Homelan d Secu rity
S UB MI TT ED M AR CH 4, 2011

— D ECI DE D A PRI L 7, 2011

Befo re E A S T E RB R OO K, Chi e f Judg e, a nd C OFFEYa nd R OV NER, C ircu it Judges . E A S T E RB R OO K, Chi e

f Judg e . Salv ad or T ap ia L e m o s , a ci ti zen o fM exi co, was ordere d rem ove d to hi s nat i ve countr y i n 199 7 f ol l owing hi s co nv i cti ons f oro bstr ucti on o fj us t i c e a nd f a i l i ngt o r e po r ta n a c c i de nt( that i s, being a h it-a nd

- run dri ver )
. H e r eente re d the Un i ted States w ithou t insp ection or th e A ttorn ey G e n e r al’s perm i ssi on. H e was caught i n J une 201 0 a nd r em oved a g a i n . He p r o mpt l y r e t u r n e d , a g a i n i n s e c r e t
. Whe n h e2 N o. 11

- 1386

was c au g hti n Oct o be r 20 10 , th e Depa r tmento fHomel an d Se curi ty re i nstated t he 19 97 re m ova l o rder, se e 8 U
. S. C
. §1231 (a )( 5), and prop osed to rem ove T ap ia f or a th ird tim e. O n D ec em b er 9, 20 10 , th ro u gh co u n se l, Ta pi a as k ed th e Depa r tment to st ay hi s r emov al and re sci nd t he 19 97 or der, wh i ch, Tapia co ntended, w as i m proper . H e co ntends thathi s co n vi cti ons w er e no t f or“a ggr avat ed fel oni es. ” His counselci ted M at t e rof E spin o z a -G o nz a lez , 2 2 I
. &N
. De c. 8 89 , 8 97( BI A 19 99 ) , a nd M a t t e ro f Jo s eph , 2 2 I
. & N
. Dec. 79 9, 80 1 ( BIA 1999) , bo th ofwh i ch post- date the 1997 r em ova l o rder
. Counsel ask ed the Dep ar tm ent t o i nsti tute f re sh r em ov al pr oceedi ngs s o that T ap i a co uld pre sent l ega l ar gum ents that he had not advanced i n 199 7. Bel i evi ng tha t s tea l thy r eentry i s no t a pro per m ea n s t o conte st th e va li dity o fa re m ova l o rder

— an d that Tap ia’s pr i nc i palo bs ta cl e i s hi s lacko fa ny c l ai m o fe nt i tl ement to be in the U nited States, w he th er or not his fel onies are
“ a g g r a v a t e d”

— the Depar tm ent o fH om el and Secur i ty denie d the m oti on f ora sta y o frem ov al and deci ded to lea ve t h e re in st at ed rem ov al or d er in fo rc e. T ap ia then fi l ed a pet i ti on f orr evi ew i n thi s co urt. R ein st at em e n t o f an old rem ov al or d er is re vie w ab le in a c ou rtof ap p ea ls u n d er 8 U .S .C . §12 52
. G o m ez-C ha vez v. Pe r rym an , 3 08 F
. 3d 79 6, 8 01 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 2). B uto ur j urisd iction de p en d s not on ly on th e existen ce of a fi nal r em ova l o rderbut al so on a ti m el y pe tit i on f or r eview , w hi chmustb e fi l ed wi th i n 3 0 day s o fthe re m ova l o rder
. 8 U
. S. C. §125 2( b) ( 1)
. Thi s l i m i t i s j uri sdict i onal, notsubjectto exte nsi on o n equi tabl e g ro und s.N o. 11

- 1386 3 S t o n ev . INS , 51 4 U.S
. 38 6 ( 1995 ). The Attor ney Gener al has ask ed us to dism i ss Tapia’ s peti ti on: the ord er o f r emov alwas r eins ta te d o n Nov embe r 1 , 2 01 0, y etthe p etition w as no t fi led u nt ilFebru ary 16, 2011 , m ore th an 100 d ays later. Tapia has t w o re pli es. The fi rs t i s that the ti m e does not st a r t u n til th e a lien is served with the o rder

— whi ch, T ap ia m ain ta i n s, d id n ot oc c u r u n til so m e t im e in Jan u ar y 2 01 1. T h er e a re m u ltip le p ro b lem s w ith th is conte nti on. The l anguage o fthe sta tute i s o ne. S ecti on 1252 ( b ) ( 1 ) s a y s t ha t t he 3 0 da y s r un s f r o m “ t he da t e o f th e fi na l o r dero fr emov al
. ” W e wro te i n Nowa kv . INS , 94 F
. 3d 39 0, 3 92 (7th Ci r . 1 99 6) , tha t th e st atut e m ea ns w hat i t s ays : the ti m e r uns f ro m t h e d at e on the f ace of the o rder, noto n the date i t i s r ecei ve d . T ap ia ask s us to ov er ru le Nowakand to hol d, as som e o therc i rcui ts have done, thatthe ti m e r uns f ro m the or der’ s r ecei pt r ather than i ts entr y. S ee Villeg a s de la P a z v. Ho l d er, 61 4 F
. 3d 605, 607–08 ( 6th Cir. 2010) (col le c t ing case s). W e are sk ep tic al, an d n ot on ly on ling u ist ic g r ou n d s. St one anal ogi zed a peti ti on for r evi ew o fa re m ova l o rderto a no ti ce o fappeal fro m the deci si on o fa dist ri ct c ourt
. Both ti m e l i m i ts ar e j uri sdic ti onal
. S ee Bo w les v. R uss el l , 551 U
. S. 20 5 ( 2007 )
. A nd the ti m e to a pp eala dist ri ct co urt ’s orde r b eg i ns whenthe o r deri s en te r ed o n the cour t’ s dock et, notwh en th e l i ti gant orco unsel r ecei ves a c o py b y mai l
. F e d. R. App. P. 4 ( a ) ( 7 )
. I t i s ha rd to se e w hy §1 252(b) ( 1) sho uld be tr eat ed differ entl y. Bu t we need notgi ve a defi n itiv e answ erto day, bec au se T ap ia re c eiv e d t h e o rd er on N ov em b er 1. H is4 N o. 11

- 1386

s i g na t ur e i s o n t he o r de r ; s o i s h i s thumbp r i nt
. P e r ha ps the Dep ar tm ent did not “se rv e” the or der i n th e sense ofm ai l i ng an ad d itio nal co py, but that w as not necessar y when the o rderwas i ssued i n the al i en’ s pre sence. A nd wh ethero r not h is l aw yerenj oye d fo rm al se rv i ce by m ai l, co unsel had actual kno w l edge no l ate r than Dece m ber9 , 2 01 0, the da te o n whi chc o uns elfi l ed th e m oti on t o s ta y re m ova l and vaca te the o rder ’ s r eentr y. A l aw yerwh o has a ctualkno w l edge o fa re m ova l o rder is not w e ll p laced to conte nd that l ack of service de fers a n y n e e d t o fi l e a pet i ti o n f o r r e mo v a l
. S o e v e n i fwe ass um e that c ou n selacqui re d knowledge on Decem ber9, 2010 , and that ti m e s tar ts w i th kno w led ge ( as opposed to th e o rd er ’s is su an c e), th e p e t itio n for re m ov al is s till unti m el y. I t was fi l ed 68 days a fterDecem ber9, 20 10. Ta pi a ha s a second l i ne o fa r g um en t

— that al though den y i nga mot i o n f o r a st ay, an d de cl i ni ngt o v ac at e th e 1997 order an d start o v e r , i s not itself a rem oval order, cf. Fo nseca -Sa nc hez v. G o nz a les , 484 F.3d 439 ( 7th Ci r . 2007), i t am ounts to the denia l of a m oti on to re op en rem ov al proce edi ngs, and thus i s am enabl e to j ud i ci al re vi ew . S ee K uc a na v. Ho lder, 13 0 S
. Ct. 82 7 ( 2010 )
. T hi s o rderwas ente red on J anuary 18 , 20 11, and Tapia co ntends that the pet i ti on fi l ed on F ebr uary 16 thus i s t i m el y. I t i s har d to see how the o rdero fJ anu ar y 18 co uld be cl ass i fi ed as one denyi ng r eopeni ng. Tapia di d not a sk th e ag en cy t o reope n the de ci si o n made i n 1 99 7. The wor d “ r eo pen ” do es no t appe ari n h i s r eque st
. M o ti o ns t o r eopen m ustb e fi l e d wi t hi n 9 0 da y s o fthe fi na l a dmi n i s t r a t i v e de c i s i o n, 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1 2 2 9 a ( c ) ( 7 ) ( C ) ( i ) , a t i meN o. 11

- 1386 5 that expir ed m or e than a deca de ago. W hat co unsel as ke d for in D ec em b er 20 10 w as (a) a s ta y of r e m o v al; ( b) the r es ci ss i o n o fthe 2 01 0 dec i si on to us e th e 1997 or der as the basi s f or anothe r re m ova l ; an d ( c) th e c om m en c em en t o f a n ew rem ov a l p ro c ee d in g. In othe r w or ds, Tapia wan ted the ag ency not to execute an outst anding or der o fr em ova l and i nstea d to b eg in pro

ceed ing s that cou ld lead to anoth er (orto non e). Yet adm i ni str ati ve deci si ons “to co m m ence proce edi ngs, adj ud i cate cas es, o r execute re m ova l o rder s a gai nst an y alien und erthi s chapte r” ar e no t r evi ew abl e. 8 U
. S. C. §125 2( g)
. Se e a l so R eno v. Am er ican-Arab AntiD iscrim ina tio n C o m m ittee, 5 25 U. S
. 4 71 ( 19 99 ) ( ex pl ai ni ng th e effect of §1252(g)). Because Tapi a di d not fi l e a ti m el y pet i ti on t o re view the o rdero fN ove m ber1, 20 10, and the or der o fJ anuary 18 , 20 11 , i s no t r ev i ewa bl e as eithera r emov alo r dero r the d en ialof a m otion to reop en the 1 9 9 7 rem oval order, we di smi ss the pe ti ti o n f o r wanto fj ur i sdi ct i o n.

4- 7- 11