2010 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 7-19-2010 

# Andrew Gordon 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 . 09-4738

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_2010

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 2010 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 " Andr ew Gor don v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 940. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/940NOT 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. 09- 4738

___________ ANDR E W ROWAN GOR DON, Pet i t i oner v . 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 forR 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 026- 629- 636) I m m i gr at i on J udge: H onor abl e A ndr ew A r thur

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

J ul y14, 2010 B efor e: SM I T H , FI SH E R and G A R T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: J ul y19, 2010 )

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM A ndr ew G or don, pr ocee di ng pro se , pet i t i ons forr evi ew of a Boar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) deci s i on uphol di ng an I m m i gr at i on J udge’ s ( “I J ”) or derof r e mo v a l . F o rth e r e a s o n s th a tf o l l o w, 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.2 I G or don i s a ci t i zen of

the U ni t ed K i ngdom . H e w as born i n J anuary1969, arr i ved in th e U n ited S tate s in Ju ly1 9 8 4 , an d o b tain e d law f u l p e rm a n e n t re sid e n t sta tu s in N ovember1987. I n 1989, G or don w as convi ct ed i n C onnect i cuts t at e courtfor p o s s e s s i o n wi th i n t e n tt o s e l l c o c a i n e . He wa s s e n t e n c e d t o a s u s p e n d e d t e r m o f two y ea rs’ i m p ri so n m en t. In 2 0 0 7 , G o rdo n p lead ed g u il tyin the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o rth e Di s tr i c to f

Co n n e c t i c u tt o p o s s e s s i o n wi th i n t e n tt o d i s tr i b u t e mo r e th a n 5 0 g r a ms of coc ai ne bas e, i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . §§ 841( a) ( 1) and ( b) ( 1) ( A ) . H e r ece i ved a se n ten c e o f

7 0 m o n th s’ im p riso n m e n t. B a se d o n h is f

e d e ra l d ru g c o n v ictio n , the D e p a rtm e n t o f H o m e lan d S e c u rity i ni t i at ed r emoval pr ocee di ngs agai ns tG or don. G or don conce ded r emovabi l i ty , but ar gued bef

or e the I J thathe mayhave obt ai ned U ni t ed St at es ci t i zens hi p w hen hi s m ot her natur al i zed i n 1994. T he I J concl uded thatG or don w as nota ci t i zen a nd thathe w as i nel i gi bl e foranyform of di s cr et i onaryr el i ef. G o rd o n a p p e a le d , pro se , arg u in g th a t th e IJ f a iled to c o n sid e r th e h a rd sh ip o n h is Am e r i c a n - b o r n c h i l d r e n a n d Un i t e d S t a t e s c i t i z e n wi f e . He a l s o ma d e r e f

e r e n c e t o I NA § 2 0 4 , 8 U . S . C . § 1 1 5 4 , w h ich in clud es p rov isi o n s fo r spo u sal v isa p eti ti o n s. T h e B IA d ism iss e d th e a p p e a l, ag re e in g w ith th e IJ th a t G o rd o n d id n o t h a v e d e riv a tiv e c iti z e n sh ip and conc l udi ng thathe w as i nel i gi bl e forotherr el i ef. G or don then fi l ed a pe t i t i on for r e v i e w.3 II W e h a v e ju risd ictio n p u rsu a n t to 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (a ). B e c a u se th e B IA iss u e d its ow n opi ni on, w e r evi ew i t s deci s i on r atherthan thatof the I J . See Li v. A t t ’ yG en. , 400 F. 3d 157, 162 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . H ow ever , w e al s o l ook t o the dec i s i on of the I J t o the ext entthatthe B I A defe r r ed t o oradopt ed the I J ’ s r eas oni ng. See C havarr i a v. G onzal ez, 446 F. 3d 508, 515 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . W e r evi ew agenc yfac tual det erm i nat i ons for s ubs t ant i al evi dence , and w i l l uphol d a fa ctual det erm i nat i on “unl es s the evi dence not onl ys uppor t s a contr aryconcl us i on, butcompel s i t . ” Zhang v. G onzal es , 405 F. 3d 150, 155 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . B eca us e G or don i s pr ocee di ng pro se , we co n stru e h is plead ing s li b era ll y . S ee H aine s v . K ern er, 40 4 U . S . 5 1 9 , 5 2 0 -21 (19 7 2 ). G or don does notappea rt o chal l enge the A gency ’ s det erm i nat i on thathi s 2007 d ru g c o n v ic tio n , w h ic h c o n s titu te d a n a g g ra v a te d f e lo n y , s e e IN A § 1 0 1 (a )( 4 3 )( B ), 8 U. S . C. § 1 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 3 ) ( B) , r e n d e r e d h i m i n e l i g i b l e f o rd i s c r e t i o n a ryr e l i e f. S e e I NA § 2 4 0 A( a ) ( 3 ) , 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 2 9 b ( a ) ( 3 ) ( c a n c e l l a t i o n o f r e mo v a l ) ; I NA § 2 1 2 ( h ) , 8 U. S . C. § 1 1 8 2 ( h ) ( wa i v e ro f

i n a d mi s s i b i l i ty ) ; 8 C. F . R. § 2 1 2 . 3 ( f ) ( r e l i e f u n d e rf o r me rI NA § 2 1 2 (c )). N o r d o e s h e d isp u te th a t h e d id n o t o b tain d e riv a tiv e c iti z e n sh ip th ro u g h h is m other . R ather , G or don ar gues that : ( 1) he w as ent i t l ed t o der i vat i ve ci t i zens hi p thr ough his w i fe; (2) the B oard err ed in holdi ng “t hat i tl acked j uri sdi ct i on t o en t ert ai n [h i s] c o n stitu tio n a l cla im ” ; (3 ) th e sta tu te g o v e rn in g re m o v a l o f a lien s is u n c o n stitu tio n a l; ( 4) r emoval cons t i tut es “doubl e puni s hm ent ”; ( 5) he w as deni ed due pr oces s ( butdoes note lab o ra te) ; an d (6 ) re m o v a l co n stitu tes c ru e l an d u n u su a l p u n ish m e n t u n d e r th e E ig h th

A m e n d m e n t. B ec au se a rgu m en ts 3 thro u g h 6 w ere n o t r aised b ef o re the B IA , theyare unexhaus t ed and w e l ack a uthor i tyt o cons i derthem. See Li n v. A t t ’ yG en. , 543 F. 3d 1 1 4 , 1 1 9 -21 & n . 6 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). W ith reg ard to h is w ife’s c it izen sh ip, th e B o ard re a so n e d th a t G o rd o n p ro v id e d n o e v id e n c e th a t h is w if e h a d f iled a v isa p e tit io n o n h is behal f and, even i f s he had, G or don coul d notobt ai n the bene fi tof s uch a pe t i t i on beca us e he i s i nadmi s s i bl e and i nel i gi bl e foranyw ai ver . W e agr ee. A s t o G or don’ s ar gum entthatthe B oar d err ed i n hol di ng thati tl acke d j ur i s di ct i on t o cons i derhi s “cons t i tut i onal cl ai m , ” i ti s uncl earw hatcons t i tut i onal cl ai m G or don ref ers to: th e o n lyissue the B IA h eld th at i t l ac k ed au tho ri tyto ac t on w as w h at th e B o ard cons trued t o be a r eques tforhum ani t ar i an r el i ef. T he B I A can gr antonl ythos e form s of r el i ef f r om r emoval thatar e expr es s l yauthor i zed byC ongr es s and del egat ed bythe A t t orneyG ener al . See B eharr yv. A s hcr oft , 329 F. 3d 51, 59 ( 2d C i r . 2003) ( ci t i ng M att er o f M e d in a , 1 9 I& N D e c . 7 3 4 , 7 4 1 -4 2 , 7 4 6 (B IA 1 9 8 8 )). H e re , the B IA re a so n e d th a t it l acke d the pow ert o gr antequi t abl e r emedi es orgener al hum ani t ar i an r el i ef. G or don does noti dent i fy– and w e ar e notaw ar e of – a nyr emedyw i thi n the B I A ’ s pow erforw hi ch he w oul d have be en el i gi bl e. Ac c o r d i n g l y , 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.

4