FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MAY 26, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 14 20 0 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Agen cy No. A0 79 -0 61 -8 29 KAP SUN BUTKA, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pet it io ne r, ve rs us U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Res po nd en t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pet it io n fo r Rev ie w of aDeci si on of t he Bo ardof I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma y 26 , 20 11 ) Befo re HULL, PRYOR an d F AY, Circ ui t Jud ge s. PER CURI AM:Kap Sun B utka , a na ti ve an d c it iz enof S ou th Kore a, pe ti ti on s t hi s C ou rt f or rev ie w of t he Bo ardof I m m ig rat io n Ap pe al s’ (“ BIA”) ord er af firm in g t he Im m ig rat io n J ud ge ’s (“ IJ ”) fi na l o rd er o f rem ov al an d d en y in g h er ap pl ic at io n fo r ad jus tm en t o f st atus , INA § 2 45 (a), 8 U.S.C. § 1 25 5( a). Bu tk a arg ue s t ha t t he go ve rn m en t s ho ul d b e equi tabl y est op pe d fr om

see ki ng to rem ov e h er o n t he ba si s of a pr io r drug co nv ic ti on be cau se th e g ov ern m en t ea rli er ad m it te d h er i nt o t he Uni te d S ta te s d es pi te th atco nv ic ti on . But kaals o c on te nd s t ha t t he IJ v io la te d h er rig htto du e p ro ces s b y

de nyin g h er ap pl ic at io n fo r ad jus tm en t o f st atus witho ut ho ld in g ahe ari ng an d wi th ou t g iv in g h er an op po rtu ni ty to ap pl y forvo lu nt ary de pa rtu re. Fo r th e rea so ns st at edbe lo w, we den y th e p et it io n fo r rev ie w. I. The Depa rtment o f Hom el an d S ecu rit y is su eda Not ic e To Ap pe ar t o B ut ka , al le gi ng th atsh e was a na ti ve an d c it iz enof S ou th Kore a who was a dm it te d t o t he Uni te d S ta te s i n Oct ob er 1 98 1 a s a n on imm ig ran t v is it or for pl eas ur e, fo r a te m po rary peri odno t t o e xc eedsi x m on th s. Th e n ot ic e fu rth er s ta te d t ha t Bu tk a ha d b een co nv ic te d i n t he Cri m in al Dis tri ctCo urt o f Seo ul , Sou th Kore a, fo r th e of fen se of p os se ss io n o f 10 5 g ram s o f m ari juan a. The n ot ic e ch arg edth atBu tk a was subjec t t o re m ov al un de r INA § 2 12 (a)( 2) (A)(i )(II) , 8 U.S.C. § 1 18 2( a)(2 )(A)(i )(II) , as a n a li enwho ha d b eenco nv ic te d o f a co nt ro ll ed 2subs ta nc e o ffen se . The jud gm en t fr om Bu tk a’s 19 77 dru g c on vi ct io n re ve al edth at sh e h adbe enco nv ic te d o f po ss es si ng 10 5 g ram s o f he m p. Bu tk a subm it te d awrit te n p le ad in g a dm it ti ng th e al le ga ti on s i n t he no ti ce t o ap pe ar an d c on ced in g re m ov ab il it y . She fil edanap pl ic at io n fo r ad jus tm en t o f st atus pu rs ua ntto 8 U.S.C. § 12 55 (a), an d re qu es te d am eri ts he ari ng . Butkaals o ap pl ie d fo r a wai ve r of

in adm is si bi li ty und er INA § 21 2( h) , 8 U.S.C. § 11 82 (h ), se ek in g t o wai ve he r drug co nv ic ti on . At a m as te r cal en da r he ari ng , th e Dep art m en t o f Hom el an d S ecu rity serve d Bu tk a with aFo rm

I-2 61 li st in g a n a dd it io na l ch arg e o f rem ov ab il ity . The Fo rm I-2 61 all eg edth atBu tk a h adrem ai ne d i n t he Uni te d S ta te s af te r ex pi rat io n o f he r vi sa , andwas re m ov ab le un de r INA § 2 37 (a)( 1) (B), 8 U.S.C. § 1 22 7( a)(1 )(B) , as anali enpre se ntin th e Uni te d S ta te s i n v io la ti onof t he INA or a ny oth er l aw of th e Uni te d S ta te s. Bu tk a reque st edad di ti on al ti m e to an swe r th e n ew ch arg e, so th e IJ di rect edBu tk a to subm ita writ te n p le ad in g b y Feb ru ary 28 , 20 09 , res po nd in g t o th e n ew ch arg e an d i de nt ifyin g a ny form s o f rel ie f th atsh e wis he d t o re qu es t. The IJask edBu tk a to st at e in he r res po ns e whe th er a h eari ng wou ldbe ne ed ed . Afte r th e Feb ru ary 28 , 20 09 , dea dl in e p as se d wi th ou t a r es po ns e fro m Bu tk a, th e IJ is su eda writ te n d eci si on pre te rm it ti ng Bu tk a’s reque stfora § 2 12 (h ) waiv er an d d en y in g h er ap pl ic at io n fo r ad jus tm en t o f st atus . The IJco nc lu de d t ha t 3Bu tk a was no t el ig ib le forad jus tm en t o f st atus be cau se he r pr io r dr ug co nv ic ti on ren de redhe r in adm is si bl e. The IJ furth er n ot edth atBu tk a’s drug co nv ic ti on co ul d no t b e wai ve d u nd er § 21 2( h) be cau se itin vo lv edm or e th an30 gra m s o f m ari juan a. The IJ ob se rv edth atBu tk a h adno t fo rm al ly app li edfor vo lu nt ary de pa rtu re, an d, i n a ny even t, the IJ d et erm in edth atBu tk a was in el ig ib le for vo lu nt ary de pa rtu re b ecau se sh e h adno t p ro vi de d t he go ve rn m en t wi th a tr av el do cu m en t s uc h a s a p as sp ort t ha t wo ul d b e su ffi ci en t fo r ad m is si on to a fo rei gn co un try. A cco rd in gl y , The IJ ord eredth atBu tk a b e rem ov edto So ut h Ko rea. Bu tk a ap pe al edto th e BIA, b utth e BIA d is m is se d h er ap pe al . The BI A ob se rv edth atBu tk a was in el ig ib le forad jus tm en t o f st atus du e to he r co nv ic ti on fo r a co nt ro ll edsubs tanc e v io la ti on . The BI A furth er n ot edth atBu tk a co ul d n ot se eka waiv er u nd er § 21 2( h) be cau se he r co nv ic ti onha d i nv ol ve d m or e th an30 gr am s o f m ari

juan a. Inad di ti on , th e BIA co nc lu de d t ha t t he IJ d idno t v io la te Bu tk a’s ri gh t t o due pro ces s b y is su in g arem ov al ord er wi th ou t h ol di ng a he ari ng . The BIA p oi nt edou t t ha t Bu tk a h adfai le d t o c om pl y with t he IJ’s i ns tru ct io ns to fil e a wri tt enpl ead in g i de nt ifyin g a ny form s o f rel ie f th atsh e was see ki ng . In li gh t o f Bu tk a’s fai lu re t o fi le a res po ns e, th e BIA d et erm in edth atitwas reas on ab le for

th e IJto co nc lu de th atsh e was no t re qu es ti ng vo lu nt ary de pa rtu re. II. 4As an in it ia l m at te r, we no te th atwe ha ve juri sd ic ti on ov er Bu tk a’s pe ti ti on .

As a g en eral m at te r, we m ay no t re vi ew a fi na l o rd er o f rem ov al en te redag ai ns t an al ie n s uc h a s B ut kawho ha s b een fou ndto be rem ov ab le ba se d o n aco nv ic ti on for a cri m in al off

en se . INA § 2 42 (a)( 2) (C), 8 U.S.C. § 1 25 2( a)(2 )(C) . W e d o h av e juri sd ic ti on , ho wev er, t o re vi ew co ns ti tu ti on al cla im s an d que st io ns of l aw. INA § 2 42 (a)( 2) (D), 8 U.S.C. § 12 52 (a)( 2) (D). Here, Bu tk a o nl y rai se s l eg al an d co ns ti tu ti on al arg um en ts , so 8 U.S.C. § 12 52 (a)( 2) (C) d oe s n otpre cl ud e u s fr om ex erci si ng juri sd ic ti on ov er h er cl ai m s.

“ Whe th er equi tabl e es to pp el sh ou ldap pl y is a le ga l que st io n t ha t we re vi ew de no vo .” To va r-

Alva re z v. U.S. Att’

y Gen . , 42 7 F .3d13 50 , 13 53 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). Neit he r th is Co urt n orth e Supr em e Co urt h as de fin it iv el y he ldth atth e d oc tri ne of equi tabl e es to pp el is ap pl ic ab le to imm ig rat io n p ro ceed in gs . Se e S av ou ryv. U.S. Att ’y Gen . , 44 9 F .3d13 07 , 13 18 -1 9 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 6) (no ti ng th at“ itis far fr om cl ear t ha t the do ctrin e o f equi tabl e es to pp el m ay be ap pl ie d a ga in sta go ve rn m en t ag en cy ,” an d p oi nt in g o utth atth e Supr em e Co urt h as , insev eral imm ig rat io n cas es , sp eci fic al ly decl in edto ap pl y est op pe l ag ai ns t t he go ve rn m en t). As su m in g th atequi tabl e es to pp el canbe ap pl ie d i n an i m m ig rat io n c as e, a p et it io ne r m us t es tabl is h t hr ee el em en ts in ord er t o i nv ok e it : “ ‘(1) wo rd s, co nduc t, o r acqui es cen ce tha t i nduc es rel ia nc e; (2) wil lfu ln es s o r ne gl ig en ce wi th reg ardto th e 5act s, co nduc t, o r acqui es cen ce; [an d] (3) de tri m en ta l re li an ce.’” Id . at 1 31 9 (quo ti ng Uni te d Sta tes v. McCorkl e , 32 1 F .3d12 92 , 12 97 (11 thCir . 20 03 )) (al te rat io n i n o rig in al ). In a dd it io n, t he pe ti ti on er m us t d em on strat e th atth e go ve rn m en t en ga ge d i n a ffi rm at iv e m is co nduc t— a sh owi ng of n eg li ge nc e o r m ere in act io n i s i ns uf

fic ie nt . Id. Here, ev enass um in g wi th ou t d eci di ng th atequi tabl e es to pp el m ay be ap pl ie d a ga in stth e g ov ern m en t i n t he imm ig rat io n c on te xt , But kaha s n ot es tabl is he d t he ele m en ts of a n e st op pe l cl ai m . Firs t, s he ha s n otsh own th atth e go ve rn m en t’s i ni ti al de ci si on to adm ithe r in to th e Uni te d S ta te s was du e to affi rm at iv e m is co nduc t, ra th er tha n t o i na ct io n o r ne gl ig en ce. Se e id. In a dd it io n, Bu tk a d idno t s uf

fer any leg al de tri m en t as a res ul t o f th e g ov ern m en t’s d eci si on to adm ithe r in to th e Uni te d S ta te s. Se e id. (ex pl ai ni ng th atanali enwho ha d m is ta ke nl y

be engra nt edad

jus tm en t o f st atus co ul d n otin vo ke equi tabl e es to pp el to ba r hi s re m ov al be cau se he ha d re cei ve d abe ne fitfro m th e g ov ern m en t’s earli er m is ta ke , rathe r th ansu ffer in g ade tri m en t). Th us , But ka ’s equ it ab le est op pe l cl ai m fai ls . III. W e rev ie w con st itut io na l ch al le ng es de no vo . La pa ixv. U.S. Att ’y Gen ., 60 5 F .3d11 38 , 11 43 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). Ali en s i n re m ov al pro ceed in gs are en ti tl ed 6to du e p ro ces s o f la w, m ean in g t ha t t he y m us t b e g iv enbo thno ti ce an d an op po rtu ni ty to b e h eard . Id. “ To es tabl is h adu e p ro ces s v io la ti on , th e p et it io ne r m us t s ho w th atsh e was de pr iv edof l ib erty witho utdu e p ro ces s o f la w andth atth e pu rp orte d e rro rs cau se d h er s ub st an ti al pre jud ic e.” Id. “ To s ho w subs ta nt ia l pr ejud ic e, anali enm

us t d em on st rat e th at , inth e ab se nc e o f th e al le ge d v io la ti on s, th e o ut co m e o f th e p ro ceed in g wo ul d h av e b een di ffer en t.” Id. An al ie n s eek in g a dju st m en t o f st atus m us t s ho w th atsh e is eli gi bl e to rece iv e animm ig ran t v is a, an d i s ad m is si bl e fo r pe rm an en t re si de nc e. INA § 2 45 (a), 8 U.S.C. § 1 25 5( a). Thu s, al ie ns who are i na dm is si bl e b as edoncri m in al co nv ic ti on s m ay

no t re cei ve ad

jus tm en t o f st atus . The At to rn ey Gene ral m ay waiv e certa in co nv ic ti on s t ha t n orm al ly w ou ldren de r anali enin adm is si bl e. INA § 2 42 (h ), 8 U.S.C. § 11 82 (h ). Am on g o th er thi ng s, the Att orne y Gene ral m ay waiv e anali en ’s pri orco nv ic ti on fora co nt ro ll edsubs ta nc e o ffen se in vo lv in g t he po ss es si on of 3 0 g ram s o r le ss of m ari juan a. Se e INA § 2 42 (a)( 2) (A)(i )(II) an d (h ), 8 U.S.C. § 11 82 (a)( 2) (A)(i )(II) an d (h ). Inth is cas e, th e IJ di d n otvi ol at e Bu tk a’s ri gh t t o due pro ces s b y is su in g a rem ov al ord er wi th ou t h ol di ng a m eri ts he ari ng . Firs t, the IJ g av e Bu tk a a su ffi ci en t o pp ortu ni ty to ap pl y for vo lu nt ary de partu re. At the m as te r cal en da r he ari ng , th e IJdi rect edBu tk a to subm ita writ te n p le ad in g i de nt ifyin g t he form s o f 7rel ie f th atsh e was reque st in g. WhenBu tk a fai le d t o fi le an y su ch pl ead in g b y

th e de ad li ne setby the IJ, i t was reas on ab le forth e IJ to co nc lu de th atsh e d idno t in te ndto reque stvo lu nt ary de pa rtu re. Inad di ti on , th e IJdi d n otha ve to ho lda he ari ng on Bu tk a’s ap pl ic at io n fo r ad jus tm en t o f st atus be cau se th e d oc um en ta ry ev id en ce cl earl y

est ab li sh edth atsh e was no t el ig ib le forth atform of r el ie f. But kaadm it te d t ha t s he ha d apri or co nv ic ti on forpo ss es si on of 1 05 gra m s o f m ari juan a. Thatco nv ic ti onco ul d n ot be waiv edun de r § 2 12 (h ) be cau se itin vo lv edm or e th an30 gra m s o f m ari juan a. Se e INA § 2 12 (h ), 8 U.S.C. § 11 82 (h ). Bu tk a’s co nv ic ti onren de redhe r in adm is si bl e u nd er 8 U.S.C. § 1 18 2( a)(2 )(A)(i )(II) , m ak in g h er i ne li gi bl e fo r ad jus tm en t o f st atus . Se e INA § 2 45 (a), 8 U.S.C. § 1 25 5( a) (e xp la in in g t ha t an al ie n m us t b e ad m is si bl e in ord er t o re cei ve ad jus tm en t o f st atus ). Becau se th e ou tc om e o f th e p ro ceed in gs wou ldno t h av e ch an ge d h adth e IJ he lda he ari ng , Bu tk a was no t s ub st an ti al ly prejud ic edby the IJ’s d eci si onno t t o h ol d o ne . Se e La pa ix , 60 5 F .3dat 1 14 3. Acco rd in gl y , aft er re vi ew of th e rec or d a ndth e p art ie s’ bri efs , we den y th e pe ti ti on forrev ie w. PETI TI ON DENI ED.

8