FI LED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEV ENT H CI RCUI T MARCH 1 4, 20 11 J OHN LEY CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 11 78 8 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Agen cy No. A0 42 -2 81 -0 32 NEVARDO DE JESUS RODRIGUEZ-CHAVARRIA, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Peti ti on er, ve rs us U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l 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 rch 14 , 20 11 ) Befo re EDMONDSON, PRYOR an d M ARTIN, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Nev ard o Dejes us Ro dr ig ue z-Ch av arri a p et it io ns forrev ie w th e Bo ardof

Im m ig rat io n Ap pe al s’ ord er af firm in g the de ci si on of t he Im m ig rat io n J ud ge . The IJ ’s dec is io n d en ie d R od rig ue z-Ch av arri a’s m ot io n t o t erm in at e h is reo pe ne d rem ov al pro ceed in gs . After c aref ul rev ie w, we den y

th e p et it io n. I. Ro dr ig ue z-Ch av arri a, a n at iv e an d c it iz enof C ol om bi a, was adm it te d i nt o th e Uni te d S ta te s as a la wfu l p erm an en t re si de nton Sep te m be r 23 , 19 90 . On May 13 , 20 03 , Rod rig ue z-Ch av arri a was co nv ic te d o f ag gr av at edass au ltwith ade ad ly weap on , invi ol at io n o f Fl a. St at . § 7 84 .02 1. Ba se d o n tha t co nv ic ti on , th e Dep artm en t o f Hom el an d S ecu rit y is su eda no ti ce t o app ear i n M ay 20 03 , cha rg in g Ro dr ig ue z-Ch av arri a with re m ov ab il ity un de r Sec ti on 23 7( a)(2 )(C) of t he Im m ig rat io n a ndNati on al ity Act. At h is rem ov al he ari ng on Ju ne 19 , 20 03 , 1 Ro dr ig ue z-Ch av arri a co nc ed edth athe was re m ov ab le un de r th e INA. On Jul y 10 ,

That sec tion of the I

NA provide s that: 1 Any alien who at any

time after

admission is convicted under a ny law of purcha sing, se lling, off

eringfor sa le, exchang ing, using , owning , possessing, or car rying, or of attemptingor conspiringto purcha se, sell, offe r for sale, e x chang e, use, own, possess, or c arr y , any wea pon, part, or a cce ssory

which is a fir ear

m or destructive de vice ( as def ined in section 921(a) of Title 18) in violation of a ny law is deportable. 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2) (C). 220 03 , he f

il edanap pl ic at io n fo r can cel la ti onof r em ov al . The IJ grant edth at ap pl ic at io n, af

te r a h eari ng , onJu ly 23, 2 00 3. On Oct ob er 2 4, 2 00 8, DHS fi le d am ot io n t o re op enrem ov al pro ceed in gs an d t o v acat e th e IJ ’s can cel la ti on of r em ov al ord er. Insupp ort o f it s m ot io n, DHS subm it te d ajud gm en t o f co nv ic ti on fro m New Jer se y

sh owi ng th atRo dr ig ue zCh av arri a was arre st edin19 95 an d c on vi ct edin19 98 forpo ss es si on of c oc ai ne . DHS st at edth at : “ [o ]n or abo utJu ly 23, 2 00 3, [i t] rana ba ck gr ou ndch eckan d [Ro dr ig ue z-Ch av arri a’s] cocai ne po ss es si on co nv ic ti on di d n otap pe ar.” DHS as se rte d tha t “ [t]he ex is te nc e o f th e 1 99 5 c oc ai ne arre stan d s ub se qu en t 1 99 8 co nv ic ti on is m at eri al , andwas n otav ai labl e fo r di sc us si on ba ckinJu ly, 20 03 .” The IJ g ran te d DHS’s m ot io n t o re op enon Nov em be r 17 , 20 08 . On Fe brua ry

3, 2 00 9, Ro dr ig ue z-Ch av arri a fi le d am ot io n t o t erm in at e h is reo pe ne d re m ov al pro ceed in gs , arg ui ng th atDHS’ s m ot io n t o re op ensh ou ldno t ha ve be engra nt edbe cau se hi s 1 99 8 c oc ai ne co nv ic ti on was d is co ve rab le at the ti m e o f hi s o rig in al rem ov al pro ceed in gs . Afer a h eari ng , th e IJde ni edRo dr ig ue zCh av arri a’s m ot io n a ndord eredth athe be rem ov edto Co lo m bi a. Inex pl ai ni ng hi s d eci si on , th e IJst at edth atitwas R od rig ue z-Ch av arri a’s bu rd ento di sc lo se hi s pr io r co nv ic ti on an d e st ab li sh th athe was s ta tu to ril y eli gi bl e fo r can cel la ti onof

3rem ov al . The IJ ob se rv edth atRo dr ig ue z-Ch av arri a co ul d n ot“ si t b ackan d 2 bl am e th e DHS fo r it s fa il ur e to di sc ov er h is co nv ic ti on an d thu s av oi d h is in di vi du al res po ns ib il ity

to di sc lo se th e co nv ic ti on reco rd .” The IJ als o p oi nt ed ou t tha t Ro dr ig ue z-Ch av arri a was ask edat h is ori gi na l re m ov al pro ceed in gs ab ou t hi s arres t h is to ry , andhe di d n otdi sc lo se hi s 1 99 5 arres t fo r co cai ne po ss es si on . 3 Nordi d h e d is cl os e th e arr es t o n h is ap pl ic at io n fo r can cel la ti on of r em ov al . The IJst at edth at : “ [t]he ex is te nc e o f th e 1 99 5 c oc ai ne arre stan d s ub se qu en t 1 99 8 co nv ic ti on was m at eri al an d was no t av ai labl e fo r di sc us si on ba ck inJu ly of 20 03 .” Ro dr ig ue z-Ch av arri a ap pe al edth e IJ ’s dec is io n t o the BIA, whi chaffi rm ed th e IJ ’s dec is io n wi th ou t o pi ni on . He no w pet it io ns forrev ie w of tha t d eci si on . II. W e rev ie w a de ci si onto reo pe n re m ov al pro ceed in gs foranab us e o f di sc ret io n. INS v . Doh erty , 50 2 U.S. 3 14 , 32 3, 1 12 S. Ct. 7 19 , 72 4– 25 (19 92 ); Al i v. U.S. Att ’y

Gen., 4 43 F.3d80 4, 8 08 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). Whe n the BIA ad op ts th e

An alien who se eks ca

ncellation of r emoval bea rs the burde n of establishinghis 2 elig ibility . See 8 C.F.R. § 1240.8(d) . At his J uly

2003 hearing, the g overnme nt asked Rodriguez-Chavar ria a bout his arre sts 3 in New Jersey . Rodrigue z-Chavarria testified that he ha d been a rre sted “for

drinkingin the park.” After

disclosing that a

rre st, the g overnme nt asked: “a ny other a rre sts? ” RodriguezChavarria re sponded: “that I reme mber? No.” 4IJ ’s dec is io n wi th ou t o pi ni on , we rev ie w on ly the de ci si on of t he IJ. Si lv a v . U.S.

Att ’y Gen., 4 48 F.3d12 29 , 12 35 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). W e rev ie w qu es ti on s o f la w de no vo . Ass a’ad v . U.S. Att’y Gen., 3 32 F.3d13 21 , 13 26 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). The Co de of F ed eral Reg ul at io ns pro vi de s tha t anIJ m ay reo pe n pr oc eed in gs “up on hi s o r he r own m ot io n a t an y ti m e.” 8 C.F.R. § 10 03 .23 (b )(1 ). Howev er, i f a m ot io n t o re op enis fil edby eith er p arty , th e reg ul at io ns pro vi de :

“ [a] m ot io n t o re op enwil l n otbe gra nt edun le ss th e [IJ ] is sat is fie d tha t ev id en ce so ug htto be off

eredis m at eri al an d was no t av ai labl e an d c ou ldno t h av e b een di sc ov eredor p res en te d at the form er h eari ng .” 8 C.F .R. § 1 00 3.2 3( b) (3 ). To b e

“ m at eri al ,” th e o ffer edev id en ce m us t b e th e k in d tha t, i f th e p ro ceed in gs were reo pe ne d, wo ul d l ik el y

ch an ge th e res ul t i n the cas e. See Al i v . U.S. Att’y Gen., 44 3 F .3d80 4, 8 13 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). Evi de nc e th atwas a va il ab le an d c ou ldha ve be enpre se nt edat aform er h eari ng is no t co ns id ered“ ne w.” Veran o- Vela sc o v . U.S. Att ’y

Gen., 4 56 F.3d13 72 , 13 77 (11 thCir . 20 06 ); s ee al so Zhan g v . U.S. Att ’y Gen., 5 72 F.3d13 16 , 13 19 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ) (ex pl ai ni ng th atbe cau se m ot io ns to reo pe n a re d is fav or ed , th e m ov in g p arty be ars a “ he av y

bu rd en ”). Ro dr ig ue z-Ch av arri a co nt en ds th atth e IJim pr op erl y grant edDHS’ s m ot io n to reo pe n b ecau se th e ev id en ce o ffer ed —h is 19 95 arre stan d s ub se qu en t co nv ic ti on in19 98 for

co cai ne po ss es si on—was no t “ ne w” ev id en ce. Bec au se

5bo th oc cu rredbe fo re h is ori gi na l re m ov al pro ceed in g i n J ul y 20 03 , he a rg ue s tha t ev id en ce was av ai labl e an d c ou ldha ve be endi sc ov eredbe fo re the pro ceed in g. It i s u nd is pu te d tha t Ro dr ig ue z-Ch av arri a’s New Je rs ey co cai ne po ss es si on arre stan d c on vi ct io n i s “ m at eri al ” ev id en ce. Haditbe enbe fo re the IJ i n J ul y 20 03 , th e IJco ul d n otha ve gra nt edhi s ap pl ic at io n fo r can cel la ti on of r em ov al . The is su e inth is cas e is whethe r itwas e vi de nc e th at“ was no t av ai labl e an d [t ha t] co ul d n otha ve be endi sc ov eredor p res en te d,” 8 C.F .R. § 1 00 3.2 3( b) (3 ), athi s Ju ly 200 3 re m ov al pro ceed in g. W e rejectRo dr ig ue z-Ch av arri a’s arg um en t tha t h is arre stan d c on vi ct io n co ul d h av e b eendi sc ov eredbe fo re h is rem ov al pro ceed in g s ol el y be cau se th ey oc cu rredfir stinti m e. The re co rdsh ows th atDHS per fo rm eda ba ck gr ou ndch eck be fo re Ro dr ig ue z-Ch av arri a’s rem ov al pro ceed in g a ndth atth e arr es t an d co nv ic ti on di d n otap pe ar o n the rep ort. The reco rdals o s ho ws tha t Ro dr ig ue zCh av arri a d idno t d is cl os e h is arre stor c on vi ct io n o n h is ap pl ic at io n fo r can cel la ti on of r em ov al . To sa ti sf y § 1 00 3.2 3( b) (3 ), DHS di d n otha ve to pro ve to a m et ap hysic al cert ai nt y

th atno am ou ntof s earc hi ng wou ldha ve rev eal ed Ro dr ig ue z-Ch av arri a’s arre stan d c on vi ct io n. DHS ex erci se d re as on ab le di li ge nc e to de te rm in e Ro dr ig ue z-Ch av arri a’s el ig ib il ity for can cel la ti on of r em ov al by runn in g aba ck gr ou ndch eck . Had Ro dr ig ue z-Ch av arri a d is cl os edhi s p rio r arre st 6an d c on vi ct io n o n h is ap pl ic at io n fo r can cel la ti on of r em ov al —as he was re qu ire d

to do —h is in el ig ib il ity

wou ldha ve be enap pa ren t. Un de r th e ci rcu m st an ces of th is cas e, we fi ndth atRo dr ig ue z-Ch av arri a’s arre stan d c on vi ct io n was ev id en ce th at“ co ul d n otha ve be endi sc ov ered .” Acco rd in gl y , we con cl ud e th atDHS’ s m ot io n t o re op enwas p ro pe rly gran te d a ndth eref or e d en y Ro dr ig ue z-Ch av arri a’s pe ti ti on . PETITION DENIED.

7