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 12-18-2008 

# N ova s v . IC E 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 . 07-2218

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 author i 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 " N ovas v . IC E " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 77. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/77

### - 1- 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. 07- 2218

_____________ J A V I ER H . N O V A S; J ESS I CA REY ES v. IM M IG R A T IO N & C U S T O M S E N F O R C E M E N T (IC E ); DEPA RTM ENT O F HO M ELAN D SECU RI TY

Javi er H . N ov as, A ppel l ant

___________ A p p e a l f ro m th e O rd e r o f

th e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt fort he M i ddl e D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a ( D . C . N o. 07- cv- 00494) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le A . R ich a rd C a p u to

___________ S u b m itted U n d er T h ir d C ir cu itL . A . R . 3 4 . 1 (a),

N ovember20, 2008 B e f o re : F U E N T E S , H A R D IM A N , a n d G A R T H , C ir c u it J u d g e s .

( O pi ni on Fi l ed: D ece m ber18, 2008) OPI NI ON O F THE COURTA ppel l antdoes notpr ovi de a c ons i s t entacc ountof hi s age a tthi s j unctur e. 1 H oweve r , w he t he rN ov a s w a s 14 or15 y e a r s ol d a tthe t i me of hi s e ntr yun de rthe V W PP i s i m m at er i al t o ourhol di ng.



### - 2- FU E N T E S, C i r cui tJ udge: A ppel l antJ avi erN ovas appea l s the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s di s m i s s al of hi s m ot i on s eeki ng r el i ef f

r om an or derof r emoval i s s ued byI m m i gr at i on and C us t om s E nfor cement (“ IC E ” ). T h e a g e n c yo rd e re d N o v a s d e p o rte d a f ter it d isc o v e re d h e h a d ill e g a lly over s t ay ed hi s perm i t t ed ni nety - dayvi s i tt o t he U ni t ed St at es underthe V i s a W ai verPi l ot P ro g ra m (“ V W P P ” ). T h e so le q u e stio n b e f o re u s is w h e th e r th e D istric t C o u rt c o rre c tly c h a ra c ter ize d N o v a s’s m o tio n a s a c h a llen g e to a f in a l o rd e r o f

re m o v a l an d d ism iss e d it forl ack of

j ur i s di ct i on. B eca us e N ovas ’ s s ui ti n fac tcons t i tut es a cha l l enge t o t he fi nal o rd e r o f re m o v a l, a n d it s h o u ld h a v e b e e n f ile d in a c o u rt o f

a p p e a ls u n d e r 8 U .S .C . § 1252( b) ( 2) , w e w i l l aff

i r m t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s fi ndi ng thati tl acke d j ur i s di ct i on over Ap p e l l a n t ’ s c l a i m. I. B eca us e w e w r i t e fort he part i es , w e di s cus s onl ythe fa ct s r el evantt o our c o n c lu sio n . N o v a s, a n A rg e n tin ian n a tiv e , firs t ca m e to th e U n ited S tate s w ith h is p a re n ts i n 1 98 8, att he ag e of 4 . T he fa m i l yl eftthe co un t ryfor tw o y ears and reent ered i n A ug ust 1999, w hen N ovas w as 14 or15, underthe V W PP. T hatpr ogr am faci l i t at es t our i s m and 1 b u s i n e s s t r a v e l b y a l l o w i n g c e r t a i n a l i e n s t o e n t e rth e c o u n t r y w i t h o u tv i s a s f o rn i n e t y d a ys i f theyw ai ve thei rr i ghtt o cont es tan or derof r emoval befor e an I m m i gr at i on J udge ort heT he pet i t i on w as appr oved on J une 14, 2007, but a c c o rd in g to N o v a s h is 2 s ubs equentappl i cat i on foradj us t m entof s t atus t o become a l egal perm anentr es i dentw as deni ed byU . S. C i t i zens hi p and I m m i gr at i on Ser vi ces ( “U SC I S”) on A ugus t29, 2008, due t o t he out s t andi ng or derof r emoval . U SC I S al s o appar ent l yr evoked i t s i ni t i al appr oval of R ey es ’ s I - 130 pet i t i on bas ed on conc erns aboutthe bona f i de natur e of the mar r i age.



### - 3- B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s , ort hr ough j udi ci al r evi ew , exce ptbym eans of an a p p lic a tio n f

o r a s y lu m . N o v as’s f

am il ystay ed b ey o n d the tim e p eriod all o tt ed u n d er the V W P P . In N ovember2005, N ovas m arr i ed J es s i ca Rey es , a U ni t ed St at es ci t i zen. She fi l ed an I m m edi at e R el at i ve Pet i t i on ( an I - 130 pet i t i on) i n J anuary2006, t o es t abl i s h a bas i s for N ovas t o become a l egal perm anentr es i dent , butw i t hdr ew i ti n J ul y2006. ( T he part i es d is p u te th e re a s o n f

o r t h is w ith d ra w a l.) O n Ja n u a ry3 , 2 0 0 7 , N o v a s w a s d e tain e d d u rin g a ro u tin e tra f f ic s to p . H is i m m i gr at i on s t atus w as di s cover ed, and he w as t aken i nt o cus t odybyI C E . O n J anuary26, 2007, an I C E agents um m ar i l yor der ed N ovas r emoved fr om the U ni t ed St at es , bas ed on N ov as’ s having rem ai ned i n the cou ntrybey on d the peri od authori zed u nd er the V i sa W ai verPi l otPr ogr am. A r ound February8, 2007, R ey es r efi l ed herI - 130 pet i t i on. 2 N ovas cl ai m s t hatnei t herhe norhi s couns el r ece i ved a c opyof the r emoval or der u n til M a rc h 1 4 , 2 0 0 7 , af ter N o v a s’s a tto rn e yre q u e ste d it. U pon r ece i vi ng the r emoval or der , t he att or ney( w hom N ovas had r et ai ned on M ar ch 13, 2007, t o r epl ace hi s pr evi ous couns el ) addr es s ed s ever al m ot i ons t o I C E ’ s Phi l adel phi a di r ect ors eeki ng a s t ayof re m o v a l a n d a re o p e n in g o f th e c a s e . T h e a g e n c yh a s n o t r e s p o n d e d to th o s e m o tio n s .

### - 4-

O n M ar ch 15, N ovas ’ s at t or neyal s o fi l ed a mot i on ent i t l ed “Em er gencyPet i t i on for W r i tof H abea s C orpus t o St ayR emoval ” i n t he D i s t r i ctC our tforthe M i ddl e D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a. A cl os e r eadi ng of thi s documenti ndi cat es thati t s s ol e purpos e w as t o s eek a s t ayof N ovas ’ s r emoval w hi l e R ey es ’ s I - 130 pet i t i on w as bei ng adj udi cat ed. T he D i s t r i ctC our ti ni t i al l ygr ant ed the s t ay , butthe governm ents ubs equent l yfi l ed a mot i on as ki ng t he C our tt o r ever s e thathol di ng on t he gr ounds thatN ovas ’ s m ot i on w as actual l ya pet i t i on forr evi ew of a f i nal or derof r emoval overw hi ch thi s cour t , notthe D i s t r i ctC our t , had j ur i s di ct i on. I n r es pons e, N ovas as s ert ed thathe w as chal l engi ng t he governm ent ’ s depr i vat i on of hi s due pr oces s r i ght s underthe V W PP and hi s det ent i on by t he I C E pendi ng t he out come of t he di s t r i ctcour tl i t i gat i on. T hatbr i ef s t at ed thatN ovas w as notcont es t i ng t he or derforhi s r emoval . T he D i s t r i ctC our tl i ft ed the s t ayon A pr i l 6, fi ndi ng t hati tl acke d j ur i s di ct i on overN ovas ’ s m ot i on beca us e i tdi d cons t i tut e a c hal l enge t o a fi nal or derof r emoval r athert han a ha beas m ot i on. O n A pr i l 18, N ovas fi l ed a pe t i t i on forr evi ew w i t h t hi s cour t , al ong w i t h a mot i on to sta yre m o v a l. (N o . 0 7 -2 1 6 7 .) T h a t p e tit io n w a s d ism iss e d a s u n tim e lyo n Ju n e 2 9 , w ith t he pane l r eas oni ng t hateven i f the thi r t y - dayw i ndow forfi l i ng of a pe t i t i on of r evi ew un der 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2(b)( 2) r an from M arch 13 , 20 07 , w hen N ov as al l eged he fir st r ece i ved a c opyof the or derof r emoval , the pet i t i on fi l ed on A pr i l 18 w as s t i l l out s i de that t i m e per i od. N ovas al s o fi l ed thi s appea l of the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s A pr i l 6 or deron A pr i l 19, 2007.O n J ul y12, 2007, N ovas had al s o fi l ed a s econd ha beas pet i t i on w i t h t he D i s tr i ct 3 C our ts ol el yaddr es s i ng t he det ent i on i s s ue, w hi ch w as r ender ed moot w hen he w as r el eas ed fr om I C E cus t odyand di s m i s s ed on Sept ember12, 2007.



### - 5- N ov as w as r el eased from detent i on pen ding t he resol uti on of thi s appea l on A ug ust 31, 2007. 3 II. N o v as ra ises sev era l objecti o n s o n ap p ea l. H e a rgu es th at th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s r echa r act er i zat i on of hi s habea s corpus pet i t i on and i t s di s m i s s al forl ack of j ur i s di ct i on ( as oppos ed t o t r ans ferr i ng i tt o t hi s cour t ) w er e i m pr oper . A ddi t i onal l y , acc or di ng t o N ovas th e p e tit io n w a s tim e lyb e c a u se o f h is la te r e c e ip t o f

th e re m o v a l o rd e r a n d th u s w e sh o u ld r eac h hi s ar gum enton t he mer i t s : hi s cont ent i on thatthe s um m aryr emoval w as an u n c o n stitu tio n a l d e n ial o f d u e p ro c e ss . S in c e th e D istric t C o u rt w a s c o rre c t in r e c h a r a c t e r i z i n g No v a s ’ s s u i ta n d d i s mi s s i n g f o rl a c k o f

j u r i s d i c t i o n , we wi l l a f f i r m. A . T he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s r echa r act er i zat i on of N ovas ’ s m ot i on w as noti n err or . T he i ni t i al m ot i on foran emer gencys t ays oughtonl yt o have N ovas ’ s r emoval del ay ed s o he coul d pet i t i on I C E r egar di ng hi s s t atus as the s pous e of a U . S. ci t i zen. T o t he ext entN ovas r ai s ed anycol or abl e l egal cl ai m , i tw as the due pr oces s cl ai m s etouti n hi s r es pons e t o t he m ot i on t o l i ftt he s t ay , and the D i s t r i ctC our tpr oper l ycons t rued thatas a di r ectchal l enge to the o rde r of

rem o v al. S ee A h m ed v . D rag o v ich, 29 7 F . 3 d 2 0 1 , 2 0 8 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). N o v a s ’s b e la te d d is c la im e r t o th e c o n tr a ry d o e s n o t c h a n g e th e s u b s ta n c e o f h is a rg u m e n ts .N ovas s ugges t s t her e i s a s t andi ng or derof thi s cour tr equi r i ng the tr ans ferof 4 p e tit io n s f

o r re v iew o f

a f in a l o rd e r o f

re m o v a l in c o rre c tlyf

iled in d istric t co u rt to th is cou rt . N o such order exi st s.



### - 6- A p p e llan t d id ra ise a g e n u in e h a b e a s is su e in h is la ter b rie f , reg a rd in g th e p ro p rie ty of hi s pr e- r emoval det ent i on. A tbes t , the D i s t r i ctC our ts houl d have r et ai ned j ur i s di ct i on overt hatpar t i cul arcl ai m w hi l e di s m i s s i ng the due pr oces s chal l enge. R egar dl es s , that aspectof N ov as’ s sui ti s now m oo tsi nce h e w as r el eased from cust od ybyIC E on A ug ust 31, 2007. T her efor e, N ovas ’ s m ot i on di d pr oper l ybel ong befor e thi s cour tpur s uantt o 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (a )( 5 ) ( “ [ A ] p e titio n f o r r e v ie w f

ile d w ith a n a p p ro p ri a te c o u rt o f a p p e a ls . . . sh all b e the so le an d ex clus ive m ea n s fo r j u d ici al rev iew o f a n o rde r of rem o v al . . . . ”). B. T he D i s t r i ctC our tal s o di d noterri n di s m i s s i ng the r echa r act er i zed mot i on r ather t han tr ans ferr i ng i tt o t hi s cour t , t he pr operforum fora pet i t i on forr evi ew of a f i nal or der of deport at i on. 8 U . S. C . § 1252( a) ( 5) depr i ves a di s t r i ctcour tof j ur i s di ct i on overs uch a p e tit io n . T h o u g h th e D istric t C o u rt c o u ld th e o re tica llyh a v e tra n sf e rre d th e c a se to th is cour tunder28 U . S. C . § 1631, t he r ecor d r evea l s thatN ovas neverm ade, and the D i s t r i ct C o u rt n e v e r c o n sid e re d , su c h a re q u e st. T h e re f o re , N o v a s c a n n o t ra ise th e iss u e o n a p p e a l. 4 See Trump H ot el s & C as i no R es or t s , I nc. v. M i r age Resort s I nc. , 140 F. 3d 478, 487 ( 3d C ir . 1 9 9 8 ). E v en if th is qu esti o n w as p rop erlyb ef o re u s, the lac k o f m erito f N o v as’s un derl y i ng du e process chal l eng e, based o n the i nv al i dityof h i s due p rocess w ai ver as a m i nor , s ugges t s t hata tr ans ferw oul d nothave be en i n t he “i nt er es tof j us t i ce. ” See

### - 7-

M u rg ia- M e len d re z v . U .S . Im m ig ra tio n & N a tu ra liza tio n S e rv ., 4 0 7 F .2 d 2 0 7 , 2 0 9 -1 0 (9 th C ir. 1 9 6 9 ) (h o ld in g th a t a m in o r m a ym a k e a n in tellig e n t w a iv e r o f c o n stitu tio n a l rig h ts u n d er c ertain c ir cu m stan ce s). Fort he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e af fi r m the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s di s m i s s al forl ack of j ur i s di ct i on.