2009 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 9-9-2009 

# M cN ei l 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 . 08-2040

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_2009

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 2009 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 " M cN ei l v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 691. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/6911 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. 08- 2040

___________ PAU L J OSEPH M CN EI L, Pet i t i oner vs. 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 of R evi ew of an O r derof the B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( A gencyN o. A 18 694 969) I m m i gr at i on J udge: H onor abl e W al t erA . D ur l i ng

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

Sept ember2, 2009 B efor e: FU E N T E S, W E I S and G A R T H , C i r cui tJ udges (O p inion fil ed : Se p tem b er 9 , 2 0 0 9 )

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C U R I A M.

Paul M cN ei l pet i t i ons forr evi ew of an or derof the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) vaca t i ng the I m m i gr at i on J udge’ s ( “I J ”) or dergr ant i ng hi s appl i cat i on2

f o rc a n c e l l a t i o n o f

r e mo v a l . We wi l l d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. M cN ei l i s a nat i ve and c i t i zen of J amai ca, w ho w as admi t t ed t o the U ni t ed St at es as a l aw ful perm anentr es i denti n 1970 atthe age of el even. I n 2007, the I m m i gr at i on and N atur al i zat i on Ser vi ce ( “I N S”) i s s ued a not i ce t o appea rchar gi ng that M cN ei l w as s ubj ectt o r emoval fr om the U ni t ed St at es bas ed on hi s convi ct i ons i n N ew Y or k s t at e courti n 1985 fora contr ol l ed s ubs t ance offe ns e and a fi r earm s offe ns e. T he I N S l at erfi l ed tw o not i ces of “A ddi t i onal C har ges of In a d m iss ib ili ty/D e p o rta b ili ty ” a g a in st M c N e il b a se d o n h is c o n v ictio n s in N e w Y o rk sta te c o u rt in 1 9 8 1 , 1 9 9 0 , an d 2 0 0 7 f o r c o n tro lled su b sta n c e o f f e n se s. T h ro u g h c o u n se l, M c N e il co n c e d e d th a t h e is re m o v a b le. M c N e il ap p lied f o r c a n c e llatio n o f

re m o v a l. M cN ei l t es t i fi ed thathe i s m arr i ed buts epar at ed, and thathe has thr ee U nit ed S t at es ci t i zen ch i l dren. T w o o f M cN ei l ’s chil dren are adult s and the y ou ng est chi l d, D aytw ana D erby , i s now four t een y ear s ol d. M cN ei l i s D aytw ana’ s court - or der ed c u sto d ial p a re n t an d th e yh a v e a c lo se re latio n sh ip . M c N e il t e stif ied th a t D a ytw a n a is hyper act i ve and thathe has t aken he rt o ther apyfr om t i m e t o t i m e. A tthe t i m e of the hear i ng, D aytw ana w as i n t he ca r e of he r70- y earol d gr andmot herand 95- y earol d gr eat gr andmot her . M cN ei l s t at ed that , s i nce he w as t aken i nt o cus t ody , D aytw ana ha s been doi ng w or s e i n s chool and mi s behavi ng. A m ent al heal th eval uat i on of D aytw ana w as per form ed i n connec t i on w i th t he i m m i gr at i on pr ocee di ngs , and the r eportr efl ect s that D aytw ana is sufferi ng from a m aj or depressi ve co nd i t i on and sym ptom s of an xietyas a3

re s u lt o f M c N e il’ s d e te n tio n . M c N e il h a s 1 1 c o n v ic tio n s f o r c ri m e s c o m m itte d f

ro m 1 9 8 0 th ro u g h 2 0 0 7 . T h e s e c o n v ic tio n s w e re a ll m is d e m e a n o rs w ith th e e x c e p tio n o f a 1 9 9 0 d ru g o f

f e n s e . M cN ei l admi t t ed thathe had a m ar i j uana pr obl em, buts t at ed thathe part i ci pat ed i n drug r e h a b i l i t a t i o n c o u r s e s wh i l e i n c a r c e r a t e d a n d th a th e h a s b e e n d ru g f r e e s i n c e 1 9 8 9 . He s t at ed thathe pl eade d gui l tyt o a drug offe ns e i n 2007 t o avoi d pr etr i al confi nement , and thathe di d nothave drugs w hen he w as arr es t ed.

M cN ei l has w or ked forthe C i tyof N ew Y or k on a s eas onal bas i s . W hen he w as notw or ki ng, he r ece i ved publ i c as s i s t ance . M cN ei l t es t i fi ed thathe pl anned t o fi nd a f u ll-ti m e jo b , ca re f

o r h is d a u g h ter , an d re m a in law a b id in g . M c N e il state d th a t, i f depor t ed, he w oul d l i ke t o t ake D aytw ana w i th hi m t o J amai ca, butM cN ei l ’ s m other , w ho al s o t es t i fi ed, fel tthatM cN ei l coul d nott ake he rbeca us e he doe s notknow any one ther e.

T he I J found thi s cas e t o be a c l os e one. T he I J s t at ed thatM cN ei l had not been as at t enti ve as on e w ou l d ex pect hi m t o b e w i th a ch i l d w i th m ental health p robl em s, not i ng hi s arr es t s i n 2006 form i s demeanorcr i m i nal m i s chi ef a nd di s or der l yconductand a mi s demeanorconvi ct i on forr eckl es s endange rm ent . T he I J , how ever , al s o concl uded thatM cN ei l car es deepl yforD aytw ana a nd the r es tof hi s fami l y , and thathe i s nota bad p e rso n o v e ra ll. T h e IJ n o ted th a t, un til 2 0 0 6 , M c N e il h a d g o n e 1 8 y e a rs w ith o u t a co n v ict ion , an d that, w h en M cN eil w as w o rkin g , h e w as a g o o d an d reli ab le w o rke r. T he I J s t at ed thathe w oul d denyM cN ei l ’ s appl i cat i on forcanc el l at i on of r emoval bas ed4

o n h is c rim in a l re c o rd a b se n t h is d a u g h ter . H o w e v e r, in a n e f f o rt to m a in tain f

a m ily u n ity , an d b e c a u se D a ytw a n a is a p re -te e n w ith e x c e p tio n a l n e e d s liv in g w ith e ld e rly g ra n d p a re n ts , th e IJ g ra n te d M c N e il’ s a p p lic a tio n in th e e x e rc is e o f d is c re tio n . T he B I A s us t ai ned the G overnm ent ’ s appea l , deni ed M cN ei l ’ s appl i cat i on f o r c a n c e lla tio n o f

re m o v a l in th e e x e rc is e o f d is c re tio n , a n d o rd e re d M c N e il’ s re m o v a l. T h e B IA a g re e d w ith th e G o v e rn m e n t th a t sig n if ica n t n e g a tiv e f

a c to rs m ili tate d a g a in st a favor abl e exe r ci s e of di s cr et i on. T he B I A not ed M cN ei l ’ s 11 convi ct i ons , r ecogni zi ng thatm os tof the convi ct i ons i nvol ved s i m pl e pos s es s i on of contr ol l ed s ubs t ance s , but st at i ng that M cN ei l had al so been con vict ed o f sel l i ng m ari j uan a, at t em pti ng t o p ossess a w eapon, and r eckl es s endange r m ent . T he B I A al s o not ed thata 1990 convi ct i on r es ul t ed i n a tw o t o foury earpr i s on s ent ence .

T he B I A al s o r ecogni zed thatM cN ei l had l i ved her e fornear l y40 y ear s and that he had com e here as a chi l d. B ut the B IA fou nd these facts l ess com pell i ng becau se o f th e a mo u n to f

t i me M c Ne i l h a d s p e n te i th e ri n c a r c e r a t e d o ro n p r o b a t i o n . T h e BI A re c o g n ize d th a t D a ytw a n a w o u ld e x p e rie n c e su b sta n tial p e rso n a l h a rd sh ip if M c N e il i s r emoved, buts t at ed thatM cN ei l i s nota per s on of s i gni fi cantval ue t o hi s comm uni tyand thathe has notbeen meani ngful l yr ehabi l i t at ed. W ei ghi ng the equi t i es agai ns tthe adver s e fa ct or s , the B I A concl uded thata fa vor abl e exe r ci s e of di s cr et i on w as not w arran ted a b sen t stron g ev iden ce that M cN eil h ad n o p rop en sityto re-o ff en d . O n e B o ard m emberdi s s ent ed, not i ng thats he found no e rr ori n the I J ’ s deci s i on. T hi s pet i t i on for5

r evi ew fol l ow ed.

W e mustfi r s taddr es s the G overnm ent ’ s m ot i on t o di s m i s s the pet i t i on for r evi ew . T he G overnm entar gues thatw e l ack j ur i s di ct i on beca us e the B I A deni ed M cN ei l ’ s appl i cat i on forcanc el l at i on of r emoval i n the exe r ci s e of di s cr et i on. T he G ov ernm ent cont end s that M cN ei l rai ses no co l orabl e qu est i on s of l aw that m i gh tbypass the j ur i s di ct i onal bar , and that8 C . F. R . § 1003. 1( d) ( 3) ( i i ) al l ow s the B I A t o r evi ew ques t i ons of di s cr et i on de novo. T he G overnm ents t at es thatM cN ei l as s ert s onl ythatt he B IA d id n o t p ro p e rl ye x e rc is e its d is c re tio n in e v a lu a tin g th e e v id e n c e .

T h e G o v e rn m e n t is c o rre c t th a t “[ t]h is C o u rt g e n e ra llylac k s ju risd ictio n to r evi ew di s cr et i onarydeci s i ons m ade unde r[8 U . S. C . ] § 1229b r egar di ng canc el l at i on of r emoval . ” M endez - R ey es v. A t t orneyG ener al , 428 F. 3d 187, 189 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . U nder the R eal I D A ct , the C our tr et ai ns j ur i s di ct i on t o ent ert ai n cons t i tut i onal cl ai m s and ques t i ons of l aw . I d. M cN ei l ar gues i n hi s br i ef thatthe B I A err ed as a mat t erof l aw by f a ili n g to d e f

e r to th e IJ’ s f

in d in g s a n d b ye n g a g in g in in d e p e n d e n t f a c t f in d in g in vi ol at i on of 8 C . F. R . § 1003. 1( d) ( 3) ( i ) , ( i v) . M cN ei l al s o as s ert s thatthes e err or s deni ed hi m due pr oces s of l aw . B eca us e M cN ei l pr es ent s ques t i ons w i thi n ourj ur i s di ct i on, t he G overnm ent ’ s m ot i on t o di s m i s s the pet i t i on forr evi ew i s deni ed.

A l though w e have j ur i s di ct i on overthe pet i t i on forr evi ew , M cN ei l has not s h o w n th a t th e B IA e rr e d a s a m a tte r o f la w . T h e B IA re lie d o n 8 C .F .R . § 1003. 1( d) ( 3) ( i i ) , w hi ch al l ow s the B I A t o r evi ew ques t i ons of di s cr et i on de novo. T he6

B IA d id n o t d isa g re e w ith th e IJ’ s f a c tu a l f in d in g s o r e n g a g e in its o w n f a c t f in d in g in vi ol at i on of the r egul at i ons . R ather , the B I A ’ s deci s i on r efl ect s thatthe B I A det erm i ned that a f av o rab le ex erc ise o f d iscreti o n w as n o t w arran ted w h en the e q u it ies i n M cN eil ’s cas e w er e bal ance d agai ns tthe nega t i ve fa ct or s . T o the ext entM cN ei l chal l enges that d e te rm in a tio n , w e la c k ju ri s d ic tio n to c o n s id e r t h e B IA ’s d is c re tio n a ry d e c is io n . M cN ei l ’ s due pr oces s ar gum ents t emm i ng fr om the al l eged l egal err ori s al s o w i thout m e ri t. A c c o rd in g ly, w e w ill d e n yth e p e titio n f o r r e v ie w .