FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT JUL 05 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 16089 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ A ge nc yN o. A 28- 539- 525 M I R Z A A R S H A D B A I G , P e titio n e r , v ersu s U .S . A T T O RN E Y G E N E R A L , R e s p o n d e n t.

________________________ P e t i t i on f orR e vi e w of

aD e c i s i on of

the B o a r d o f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls

_________________________ ( Ju l y 5, 2006) B efo re D U B IN A , B A R K E T T an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: M i r z aA r s ha d B a i g pe t i t i ons , pr o s e , f orr e vi e w of

the B oa r d of

I m m i gr a t i on A p p e a ls ’ ( “B I A ” ) o r d e rd e n y in g h is c la im s o f in e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f

c o u n s e l.2

T hi s pet i t i on ori gi nat ed as a § 22 41 habeas pet i t i on fi l ed i n a di stri ctcourtthatw as the n tr a ns f

e rr e d unde r§ 106( c ) of

the R E A L I D A c tof

2005, P ub. L . N o. 109- 13, 1 1 9 S ta t. 2 3 1 , to th is C o u rt. In thi s c as e, there i s no d i sput e thatB ai g i s an al i en w ho i s r em ov abl e bas ed o n h is c o n v ic tio n o f

a n a g g r a v a te d f

e lo n y , th u s w e d o n o t h a v e ju r is d ic tio n to r e v ie w B a ig ’s o r d e ro f

r e m o v a l. H o w e v e r , w e d o h a v e ju r is d ic tio n to r e v ie w h is pet i t i on t o the ext entthati tra i se s quest i on s of l aw or const i tut i on al cl ai m s. S ee 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2(a) (2)( D ). B ai g m akes the const i tut i on al ar gu m entthathe re ce i ved i neff ec t i ve as si st ance of coun se l . A cc ordi ng l y, w e have j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew B a i g’ s pe t i t i on a s t o thi s c l a i m . A nd t o the e xt e nttha tthe B I A ba s e d i t s de c i s i on on al e ga l de t e rm i na t i on, r e vi e w i s de novo. M oha m m e d v. A s hc r of t , 261 F . 3d 12 44 , 12 47 -48 (11 th C i r. 20 01 ). A s f or the B IA ’ s f

ac tual fi nd i ng s, w e r evi ew them un der the subst ant i al -e vi dence t es tand “ m ustaf fi rm . . . i f [ the fi nd i ng s are ] supp ort ed by re as on abl e, subst ant i al , and p robat i ve evi dence on the re cord consi dere d as aw ho l e. ” A l N ajj arv. A shcr oft , 25 7 F . 3d 12 62 , 12 83 -84 (11 th C i r. 2 0 0 1 ) . ( q u o ta tio n o m itte d ) . I n c i vi l r e m ova l pr oc e e di ngs , a n a l i e n i s note nt i t l e d t o aS i xth A m e ndm e nt r i ghtt o c ouns e l , butha s the c ons t i tut i ona l r i ghtunde rthe F i f th A m e ndm e ntD ue P r oc e s s C l aus e t o af

unda m e nt a l l yf

a i rhe a r i ng a nd t o e f

f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of3

c ouns e l w he r e c ouns e l ha s be e n obt a i ne d. D a ka ne v. U . S . A tt ’ yG e n. , 399 F . 3d 1 2 6 9 , 1 2 7 3 - 7 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . I n M a tte ro f L o z a d a , th e B I A a d d r e s s e d th e c la im of i ne f f e c t i ve c ouns e l i n the c ont e xtof am ot i on t o r e ope n, f

i ndi ng tha ti tr e qui r e d: ( 1 ) th a t th e m o tio n b e s u p p o rte d b ya n a f f id a v it o f th e a lle g e d ly aggri eved res po nd entse tt i ng forth i n d et ai l the agree m entthatw as e nt e r e d i nt o w i th c ouns e l w i th r e s pe c tt o the a c t i ons t o be t a ke n a nd w h a t r e p r e s e n ta tio n s c o u n s e l d id o rd id n o t m a k e to th e r e s p o n d e n t in thi s r e ga r d, ( 2) tha tc ouns e l w hos e i nt e gr i tyorc om pe t e nc e i s be i ng i m pugne d be i nf

orm e d of the a l l e ga t i ons l e ve l e d a ga i ns thi m a nd be gi ven an o pp ortun i ty t o res po nd , and (3) thatthe m ot i on re fl ec t w hether acom pl ai nthas bee n fi l ed w i th app ropri at e di sc i pl i nary autho ri t i es w i th res pectt o any vi ol at i on of coun se l ’ s e thi ca l or l egal r e s p o n s ib ilitie s , a n d if

n o t, w h yn o t. 19 I . & N . D e c . 637, 639 ( B I A 1988) . I n a ddi t i on t o m e e t i ng the above r e q u ir e m e n ts , a n d a lie n m u s t a ls o s h o w p r e ju d ic e . D a k a n e , 3 9 9 F .3 d a t 1 2 7 4 .

“ P rej u d i ce ex i st s w h en th e p erfo rm an ce o f co u n sel i s so i n ad eq u at e th atth ere i s a r e a s onabl e pr obabi l i tytha tbutf orthe a tt orne y ’ s e rr or , the out c om e of the pr oc e e di ngs w oul d ha ve be e n di f f e r e nt . ” I d. I n thi s c a s e , the B I A f

ound tha tB a i g s a t i s f

i e d the M a tt e rof

L oz a dat e s ta nd th e g o v e rn m e n t d o e s n o t d is p u te th is f in d in g . T h u s , th e o n lyis s u e is w h e th e rB a ig suff er ed any prej ud i ce as a r es ul tof hi s c ou nsel ’ s a l l eged i neff ec t i veness . T he B IA m a de the f

a c tua l f i ndi ng tha tB a i g ha d a1995 c onvi c t i on f orpos s e s s i on of

c oc a i ne a nd a2003 c onvi c t i on f orthe pur c ha s e a nd pos s e s s i on of 20 gr a m s orl e s s of c a nnabi s . T he r e c or d c ont a i ns s ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e tha ts upport s the B I A ’ s f i ndi ng4

th atB ai g h ad tw o d ru g co n v i ct i o n s. In so far a s B ai g argues thathi s c ou nsel shou l d h ave c hal l enged the l egal f in d in g th a t th e s e tw o c o n v ic tio n s q u a lif ie d a s a g g r a v a te d f

e lo n ie s , h is a r g u m e n t is w i thoutm e r i t . U nde rthe I N A , a n “ a ggr a va t e d f e l ony ” i nc l ude s a nydrug tr a f f ic k in g c r im e a s d e f

in e d b y1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 4 ( c ) . S e e 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 3 ) ( B ) . S e c t i on 924( c ) ( 2) i n turn de f i ne s “ drug tr a f

f i c ki ng c r i m e ” t o m e a n “ a nyf e l ony p u n is h ab le u n d e rth e C o n tr o lle d S u b s ta n c e s A c t ( 2 1 U .S .C . 8 0 1 e t s e q .) ” ( “C S A ” ) . T h e C S A d e f

in e s “f e lo n y ” a s “a n yF e d e r a l o rS ta te o f f e n s e c la s s if

ie d b yap p lic ab le F ed eral o r S t at e l aw as a fel o n y. ” 2 1 U . S . C . § 8 0 2 (1 3 ). B ai g ’ s co cai n e-p u rch ase of f e ns e w a s af

e l onyunde rF l or i dal a w . F l a . S t a t . §§ 893. 03( 2) ( a ) ( 4) a nd 893. 13( 2) ( a ) ( 1) . A ddi t i ona l l y , the pur c ha s e of c a nnabi s i s af

e l onyunde rF l or i da law . F la. S tat. § § 8 9 3 .0 3 (1 )( c) (7 ) a n d 8 9 3 .1 3 (2 )( a) (2 ). T h er ef o re , b o th o f B aig ’s c onvi c t i ons qua l i f

i e d a s a n “ a ggr a va t e d f

e l ony ” w i thi n the m e a ni ng of § 1 10 1(a) (43). T hus , ba s e d on the e vi de nc e i n the r e c or d, B a i g w a s r e m ovabl e be c aus e of h is tw o c o n v ic tio n s f

o ra g g r a v a te d f

e lo n ie s . T h e r e f

o r e , th e r e is n o t ar e a s o n ab le pr obabi l i tytha t , butf

orthe a tt orne y ’ s a c t i ons , the out c om e of the pr oc e e di ngs w ou l d h ave been di ff

er ent . D akane, 39 9 F . 3d at12 74 . T o the ext entB ai g rai se s a nya ddi t i ona l a r gum e nt s tha tc ouns e l w a s i ne f f e c t i ve a ta nys t a ge i n hi s r e l e va nt5

pr oc e e di ngs , w e r e

j e c tthos e a r gum e nt s . A c c or di ngl y , w e de nyB a i g’ s pe t i t i on. P E T I T I ON DE NI E D.