FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT DEC 15 , 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. 06- 11809 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ A ge nc y N o. A 90- 084- 012 A V E L I N O C E J A , 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

a D 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

_________________________ ( D e c e m be r15, 2006) B efo re T JO F L A T , H U L L an d F A Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:The Home land Security A ct ( “ H SA” ) , e f

f e ctive November

25, 2002, cre ated the D epar tment 1 of Homela

nd Security

(“D HS”) a

nd abolished the I

NS. Pub.L .No. 1 0 7 -2 9 6 , 1 1 6 Stat. 2135. The HSAtrans ferre d I

NS fun cti on s to theDH S. Thisc a sewa s initi ate d whil etheI NS w a s stillin e x i s t en c e . Th i s m e m o , th ere f o re , re f er s t o th eIN S rath er

th anth eD H S a s th ere l e v antag en c y. 2 A ve l i no C e

j a , a na t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of M e xi c o, a nd pr oc e e di ng pr o s e on ap p eal , p et i t i o n s th i s C o u rtfo r rev i ew o f th e B o ard o f Im m i g rat i o n A p p eal s’ ( “B I A ” ) d is m is s a l o f

h is ap p e a l o f

th e im m ig r a tio n ju d g e ’s ( “I J ” ) o r d e ro f r e m o v a l. T he B I A di s m i s s e d C e

j a ’ s appe a l ba s e d upon C e j a ’ s appe a l w a i ve rhe ha d m a de before the IJ . T he i ss ue before thi s C ou rti s w hether C ej a’ s app ea l w ai ver w as know i ng a nd vol unt a ry . F orthe r e a s ons s e tf or th m or e f

ul l y be l ow , w e de ny C e j a ’ s p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. C e j a e nt e r e d the U ni t e d S t a t e s i n M a y 1985 a nd a dj us t e d hi s s t a tus t o tha tof l aw ful perm anentre si denton Jul y 31, 19 91 . O n D ec em ber 15, 19 89 , ho w ever , C e jaw a s c o n v ic te d in C a lif o rn iaf o rp o s s e s s io n o f

c o c a in e w ith th e in te n t to s e ll. O n A ug ust2, 20 05 , the Im m i grat i on and N atural i za t i on S ervi ce (“ IN S ”) i ss ued 1 C e j a a n o t i c e t o ap p e a r( “ NT A” ) , c h a r g i n g h i m wi th r e m o v ab i l i ty u n d e rI NA § 2 3 7 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) , 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 7 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) b e c a u s e , a t th e tim e C e jaa d ju s te d h is st atus, he w as w i thi n a cl as s of i nadm i ss i bl e a l i ens, spec i fi ca l l y, al i ens w ho had be e n c onvi c t e d of

a vi ol a t i on of

a ny l a w orr e gul a t i on of a S t a t e . O n N ove m be r1, 2 0 0 5 , C ej a m o v ed th e IJ t o t erm i n at e h i s rem o v al p ro ceed i n g s o r, al t ern at i v el y, c h a n g e th e v e n u e to S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif o rn ia . I n th is m o tio n , C e jaa r g u e d th a t h isThe date listed on the transcript of Ceja’s hearing before the IJ is August 2, 2005, which was 2 th e dateof his notice to appe ar. H owever, it appea rs that the dateis a mistake bec ause theIJ ’s written order of removal wa s entere d on November 15, 2005. Moreover, Ceja a nd the g overnment indicated in their briefs bef ore theBIA that the dateon the transcript wa s i n co rr ect a nd that the a c tual date of thehe aringand thec ourt ’soral de c isi on

wa s N ov e mber 1 5, 20 06 . Thisalsoc omp or ts with the IJ ’s i ndication during the he aringthat any appeal by

Ceja would havehad to been filed by Dec ember

15, 2006, which wa s 30 days after the day of the he aring . 3 proceedi ng s s ho ul d h ave been t erm i nat ed because he w as no tac tual l y deport abl e, o r , in th e a lte rn a tiv e , th a t h is c a s e s h o u ld h a v e b e e n m o v e d to C a lif o rn iaf o rh im to p u r s u e h i s c l a i m th a th e wa s e l i g i b l e f o ra wa i v e ro f

i n a d m i s s i b i l i ty u n d e rI NA § 212( c ) , 8 U . S . C . § 1182( c ) ( r e pe a l e d 1996) . T he I J ne ve rrul e d on thi s m ot i on. O n N ov em ber 15, 20 05 , C ej a app ea re d b ef ore a n IJ f

or a hear i ng w i th regard t o hi s r e m ova l pr oc e e di ngs . A s w orn i nt e rpr e t e rtr a ns l a t e d the he a r i ng f r om 2 E ngl i s h t o S pa ni s h. C e

j a , w ho w a s notr e pr e s e nt e d by c ouns e l , a dm i tt e d tha the w a s c onvi c t e d of

the above - m e nt i one d of f e ns e i n D e c e m be r1989. T he I J f ound th a t, b a s e d u p o n C e

ja ’s a d m is s io n s , h e w a s r e m o v ab le a s c h a r g e d in th e N T A . C ej a i nd i ca t ed thathe di d n othave a fe arof t orture or pers ec ut i on up on hi s r eturn to M e x ic o . T h e I J th e n r e n d e r e d h is o r a l d e c is io n , in w h ic h th e I J d e te rm in e d th a t, because C ej a w as no tel i gi bl e t o adj usthi s s t atus atthe t i m e he s ou gh tsuch adj ustm ent , he di d n otprop er l y obt ai n l aw ful perm anentre si dentst atus. T he IJ f ur the rf ound tha tr e m ovabi l i ty ha d be e n e s t abl i s he d by c l e a ra nd c onvi nc i ng evi dence, and thatC ej a w as i nel i gi bl e f or the m i ni m um form of re l i ef , vo l un t ary4

d e p a r tu r e , b e c a u s e o f

h is 1 9 8 9 c o n v ic tio n . T h u s , th e I J o r d e r e d C e jar e m o v e d to M e xi c o. A f

t e rthe I J ’ s r e ndi t i on of

i t s or a l de c i s i on, the f

ol l ow i ng di s c us s i on oc c urr e d: I J : S ir , I ’v e ju s t o r d e r e d y o u d e p o r te d to M e x ic o . I f y o u d is a g r e e w ith thi s de c i s i on, y ou ha ve a r i ghtt o appe a l ory ou c a n a c c e ptthe or de rof r e m o v a l. C e ja : H o w lo n g w o u ld it ta k e to ap p e a l? I J : I w i l l r e s e rve y ourr i ghtt o appe a l . T ha tappe a l w i l l be due D e c e m b e r1 5 th , 2 0 0 5 . T h e B o a r d o f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls w ill i m m e di a t e l y r e vi e w y ourf i l e a nd w i l l do the i rbe s tt o ha ve a de c i s i on back t o you w i thi n si x m on ths t o a ye ar . Ce j a : N o , I ’ d r a th e rs i g n th e d e p o r t a t i o n . H o w l o n g w i l l i tt a k e f o rme t o be s e ntt o M e xi c o? I J : W e l l , s i nc e y ou w a i ve d i ta nd i t ’ s now a f i na l or de r , the G ove rnm e ntw i l l the n m ove y ou a s s oon a s pos s i bl e . Y ou m a y not rem ai n , yo u m ay n o tretu rn t o th e U n i t ed S t at es fo r 2 0 years. Ce j a : Th a t ’ s f

i n e , th a t ’ s f

i n e . N o p r o b l e m. IJ : A nd you m ayno tre turn t o the U ni t ed S t at es w i tho utprop er doc um e nt a t i on. C ej a: T hat ’ s f

i ne. IJ : A l so because of thi s drug con vi ct i on , i tm aym ea n thatyou m ay never be al l ow ed t o ent erthe U ni t ed S t at es i n the future. C ej a: D oesn’ tm att er , I j ustw antt o g o b ac k t o m y hou se . I J : A ll r ig h t. T he I J ’ s w r i tt e n or de rof r e m ovabi l i ty w a s e nt e r e d on N ove m be r15, 2005, a nd5

in d ic a te d th a t C e

jaw a iv e d h is r ig h t to ap p e a l. O n N ove m be r18, 2005, C e j af i l e d a not i c e of

appe a l t o the B I A , a r gui ng, i nt e ra l i a , tha thi s w a i ve rof hi s r i ghtt o appe a l the I J ’ s or de rw a s notvol unt a ry a nd i nt e l l i ge ntbe c a us e he w a s c oe r c e d by the I J . C e j aa l s o a s s e r t e d tha thi s w a i ve rof h is r ig h t to ap p e a l w a s e s p e c ia lly q u e s tio n ab le in lig h t o f h is m o tio n to te rm in a te hi s r em ov al proceedi ng s, w hi ch C ej a f i l ed on N ov em ber 1, 20 05 and “ the IJ i gn ored. ” T h e B I A d is m is s e d C e

ja ’s ap p e a l, f

in d in g th a t C e

jaw a iv e d h is r ig h t to appe a l . S pe c i f

i c a l l y , the B I A f

ound tha tC e

j a ’ s w a i ve rw a s va l i d be c a us e : ( 1) the re m ov al hear i ng w as tra nsl at ed i nt o S pani sh for C ej a’ s benef i t ; (2) C ej a a dm i tt ed thathe had b ee n con vi ct ed of po ss es si on of cocai ne; (3) there w as no evi dence that the I J c oe r c e d C e

j a t o w a i ve hi s r i ghtt o appe a l by i nf orm i ng C e

j atha ti tc oul d t a ke s i x m onths t o one y e a rt o r e s ol ve hi s appe a l ; a nd ( 4) the I J m a de no s t a t e m e nt r e g a r d in g w h e th e rC e

jaw o u ld b e d e ta in e d p e n d in g th e r e s o lu tio n o f h is ap p e a l. T h e B I A a ls o n o te d th a t, d e s p ite C e ja ’s a r g u m e n t th a t h e h a d s u b m itte d a m o tio n in w hi c h he a r gue d tha the w a s nots ubj e c tt o r e m ova l a nd tha tthe I J ha d not a ddr e s s e d tha tm ot i on, C e j a di d notpur s ue tha tm ot i on be f or e the I J a nd, furtherm ore, he adm i tt ed thathe w as conv i ct ed of po ss es si on of cocai ne. C e jaa r g u e s o n ap p e a l th a t th e B I A a n d I J v io la te d h is d u e p r o c e s s r ig h ts b e c a u s e h is ap p e a l w a iv e rw a s n o t k n o w in g a n d v o lu n ta ry . H e s p e c if ic a lly6

c ont e nds tha tthe I J m i s r e pr e s e nt e d the t i m e w i thi n w hi c h the B I A w oul d c onc l ude a n ap p e a l o f

h is c a s e b e c a u s e th e I J to ld C e jath a t it w o u ld ta k e ap p r o x im a te ly s ix m o n th s t o o n e y e a r , wh i c h t i m e - f r a m e i s c o n tr a ry t o 8 C . F . R . § 1 0 0 3 . 1 ( e ) ( 8 ) . He a s s e r t s tha tthe B I A ’ s f

i ndi ng tha tthe I J ne ve rt ol d C e j atha the w oul d be i ncar ce ra t ed du ri ng an appeal i gn ores the fa ctthatthe IJprevi ou sl y had deni ed C e j a ’ s m ot i on f

orbond. H e a l s o m a i nt a i ns tha thi s m ot i on t o t e rm i na t e orc ha nge venu e, i n con

j un ct i on w i th the IJ ’ s m i sr epre se nt at i on of the appeal t i m e, e s tab lis h e s th a t h is ap p e a l w a iv e rw a s n o t k n o w in g a n d v o lu n ta ry . A s a th r e s h o ld m a tte r , w e m u s t d e te rm in e w h e th e rw e h a v e ju r is d ic tio n to ent ert ai n C ej a’ s pet i t i on for r evi ew . W e have no j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew a f i nal or de rof r e m ova l i f

the a l i e n i s i na dm i s s i bl e orr e m ovabl e by r e a s on of ha vi ng c o mmi tt e d a v i o l a t i o n o f a St a t e l a w . I N A § 2 4 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( C) , 8 U . S. C. § 1 2 5 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( C ) ; I N A § 2 1 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) , 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 8 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) . C e jaa d m itte d a t h is re m ov al hear i ng thathe w as conv i ct ed of com m i tt i ng a c on trol l ed subst ance of f e ns e . W e r e t a i n j ur i s di c t i on, how e ve r , t o c ons i de rc ons t i tut i ona l c l a i m s or q u e s tio n s o f

la w r a is e d in a n a lie n ’s p e titio n f o rr e v ie w . I N A § 2 4 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( D ) , 8 U . S . C . § 1252( a ) ( 2) ( D ) ; s e e a l s o B a l ogun v. U ni t e d S t a t e s A tt orne yG e n. , 425 F . 3d 1 3 5 6 , 1 3 5 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . H e r e , C e jar a is e s a c o n s titu tio n a l c la im th a t h is appe a l w a i ve rw a s notknow i ng a nd vol unt a ry , a nd, thus , hi s r e m ova l he a r i ng v io la te d h is d u e p r o c e s s r ig h ts . A c c o r d in g ly , w e r e ta in ju r is d ic tio n to e n te r ta in7

C ej a’ s pet i t i on for r evi ew t o the ext entthathe chal l enges the val i di ty of hi s app ea l w ai ver. W e r evi ew an al i en’ s c on st i tut i on al cl ai m de no vo . A l i v. U ni t ed S t at es A tt orney G en. , 44 3 F . 3d 80 4, 80 8 (11 th C i r. 20 06 ). C o n c e rn in g a n a lie n ’s w a iv e ro f h is r ig h t to ap p e a l a n I J ’s o r d e ro f r e m o v a l, the S up re m e C ou rthas det erm i ned that , w here an appeal w ai ver i s not“ consi dere d or i nt el l i gent , ” the al i en’ s deport at i on proceedi ng vi ol at es du e proces s. U ni t ed S t a t e s v. M e ndoz a - L ope z , 481 U . S . 828, 839- 40, 107 S . C t . 2148, 2156, 95 L . E d. 2d 77 2 (19 87 ). T hi s C ou rtand the B IA have anal yz ed al i ens’ appeal w ai vers un der a know i ng a nd vol unt a ry s t a nda r d. S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. H ol l a nd, 876 F . 2d 1533, 15 37 (11th C i r. 19 89 ); In R e R od ri gu ez -D i az , 22 I. & N . D ec . 13 20 , 13 22 (B IA 2 0 0 0 ) ; I n Re Pa t i n o , 2 3 I . & N . D e c . 7 4 , 7 6 ( BI A 2 0 0 1 ) . I n l i g h to f th e Su p r e me C ou rt ’ s dec i si on i n M endo za -L op ez and the B IA ’ s use of a kno w i ng and v ol un t ary st andard, w e w i l l re vi ew the re cord t o d et erm i ne w hether a n al i en’ s app ea l w ai ver w a s k n o w in g a n d v o lu n ta ry , c o n s id e r e d , o rin te llig e n t. B a s e d upon the r e c or d i n C e j a ’ s c a s e , the I J di d notc oe r c e C e j ai nt o w a i vi ng hi s r i ghtt o appe a l . I n f a c t , the I J i ni t i a l l y r e s e rve d C e j a ’ s r i ghtt o appe a l a nd de e m e d the r i ghtw a i ve d onl y a f t e rC e j ai ns i s t e d tha the w oul d “ r a the rs i gn the d e p o r t a t i o n . ” Ce

j a a r g u e s o n ap p e a l th a tth e I J mi s r e p r e s e n t e d th e t i me - f r a me w i th i n w h i c h a n ap p e a l t o th e BI A w o u l d b e p e n d i n g . A c c o r d i n g t o 8 C. F. R. § 1 0 0 3 .1 ( e ) ( 8 ) , “a f

te rc o m p le tio n o f

th e r e c o r d o n ap p e a l . . . th e [ B I A ] . . . s h a ll8

i s s ue a de c i s i on on the m e r i t s a s s oon a s pr a c t i c abl e , w i th a pr i or i ty f orc a s e s or cust od y app ea l s i nv ol vi ng det ai ned al i ens. ” T he re gu l at i on spec i fi ca l l y provi des th a t th e B I A “s h a ll d is p o s e o f a ll ap p e a ls a s s ig n e d to a s in g le B o a r d m e m b e rw ith in 9 0 d a y s o f

c o m p le tio n o f

th e r e c o r d o n ap p e a l, o rw ith in 1 8 0 d a y s a f te ra n ap p e a l is a s s i gne d t o a thr e e - m e m be rpa ne l . ” 8 C . F . R . § 1003. 1( e ) ( 8) ( i ) . H ow e ve r , the r e gul a t i on m a ke s c l e a rtha tthe above t i m e l i m i t“ r e f l e c t [ s ] a n i nt e rna l m a na ge m e nt di r e c t i ve i n f

a vorof t i m e l y di s pos i t i ons , ” butdoe s not“ c r e a t e a ny s ubs t a nt i ve or pr oc e dur a l r i ght s e nf

or c e abl e be f

or e a ny i m m i gr a t i on j udge orthe B oa r d, ori n a ny co u rt o f law o r e q u ity.” 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .1 (e )( 8 )( v i). T h u s, ev en th o u g h th e I J’s r e s p o n s e th a t th e B I A w o u ld b e g in p r o c e s s in g C e ja ’s f ile “im m e d ia te ly ” a n d w o u ld “d o th e irb e s t to h a v e a d e c is io n b a c k to y o u w ith in s ix m o n th s to a y e a r ” w a s in c o n f lic t w ith th e r e c o m m e n d e d tim e lim its s e t f o r th in th e r e g u la tio n , it w a s n o t a m i s r e pr e s e nt a t i on be c a us e the t i m e l i m i t s a r e onl y i nt e rna l di r e c t i ve s a nd do not n e c e s s a r ily r e p r e s e n t th e r e a lity o f th e B I A ’s ap p e a l p r o c e s s in g p r o c e d u r e s . T o the e xt e nttha tC e

j a a r gue s tha thi s appe a l w a i ve rw a s i nva l i d i n l i ghtof h is p e n d in g m o tio n to te rm in a te h is r e m o v a l p r o c e e d in g s o r , a lte rn a tiv e ly , to c h a n g e v e n u e s o th a t h e c o u ld r a is e a c la im f o r§ 2 1 2 ( c ) r e lie f

, C e ja ’s a r g u m e n t is w i thoutm e r i t . A tC e

j a ’ s r e m ova l he a r i ng, the I J e xpl i c i t l y a s ke d hi m w he the rhe had b ee n con vi ct ed of po ss es si on of a c on trol l ed subst ance , and C ej a r es po nd ed thathe had. T he IJthen i nform ed C ej a that , as a r es ul tof hi s a dm i ss i on , he w as9

r e m o v ab le a s c h a r g e d in th e N T A . A t th a t p o in t C e jac o u ld h a v e , a n d a r g u ab ly s houl d ha ve , r a i s e d hi s c ont e nt i on tha the w a s notr e m ovabl e a s c ha r ge d, a s he a r gue d i n hi s m ot i on t o t e rm i na t e orc ha nge ve nue . H ow e ve r , C e j adi d notc ont e nd a s s u c h a n d th u s c o n c e d e d r e m o v ab ility . B e c a u s e h e d id n o t c h a lle n g e h is re m ov abi l i ty bef

ore the IJathi s hea ri ng , es peci al l y w here the IJhad n otye trul ed on hi s m ot i on , C ej a aband on ed hi s c l ai m thathe w as no tre m ov abl e a s c harged. In a ny e ve nt , hi s a dm i s s i ons a tthe he a r i ng w e r e i nc ons i s t e ntw i th the pos i t i on tha the m ai nt ai ned i n h i s m ot i on , and, thu s, hi s m ot i on do es no tsupp orthi s a rgum entthat h is ap p e a l w a iv e rw a s in v a lid . A c c o r d in g ly , b e c a u s e th e I J ( 1 ) in f o rm e d C e

jao f h is r ig h t to ap p e a l, ( 2) e xpl a i ne d the c ons e que nc e s of the appe a l w a i ve ra nd C e j a ’ s de por t a t i on, a nd ( 3 ) d id n o t c o e r c e o rm is in f o rm C e jar e g a r d in g th e w a iv e r , th e B I A d id n o t e rrin fin d in g th at C eja’s a p p ea l w aiv erw as k n o w in g an d v o lu n tary . T h u s, C eja’s r e m ova l pr oc e e di ng di d notvi ol a t e hi s due pr oc e s s r i ght s . C e j a ’ s pe t i t i on f

or rev i ew i s DE NI E D.