FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J UNE 22, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 11 29 0

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Agen cy No. A0 75 -9 77 -6 73 SALIM M OHAMMED ALI, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pet it io ne r, vers 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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J un e 2 2, 2 01 1) Befo re PRYOR an d C OX, Circ ui t J ud ge s, an d P ANNELL , Dis tri ctJu dg e. * PRYOR, Ci rcu itJu dg e: The is su e p res en te d b y

th is pe ti ti on forrev ie w is whet he r anatt orne y

Honora ble Charles A . Pannell, J r., United States District Judge f or the Nor

thern District * of Ge org ia, sitting by

designation.vr en de redin effe ct iv e as si st an ce wh enhe co nc ed ed , at a s eco ndrem ov al he ari ng ,

th atSal im

Mo ha m m edAli ha d s ou gh t t o p ro cu re an imm ig rat io n b en efi t thr ou gh wil lfu l m is rep res en ta ti on of am at eri al factinvi ol at io n o f th e Imm ig rat io n a nd Nati on al it y

Act, 8 U.S.C. §§ 11 82 (a)( 6) (C)( i), 1 22 7( a)(1 )(A). In19 98 , Ali ha d st at edfal se ly on h is ap pl ic at io n fo r pe rm an en t re si de nc e o r ad jus tm en t o f st atus th athe ha d n ev er b eenarre st edor i nd ic te d. In fact , Ali ha d b eenarre st ed , in di ct ed , andco nv ic te d o f ch il d m ol es ta ti on . At hi s fi rs t re m ov al he ari ng , Ali di d no t co nt es t h is m is rep res en ta ti on . The Bo ardaffi rm edanord er fo r Ali ’s rem ov al , an d we d en ie d Al i’s p et it io n fo r rev ie w, Ali v . U.S. Att’y Gen., 4 43 F.3d80 4 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 06 ). AfterAli pro du ceda cert ifi edco py of a p ard on forhi s co nv ic ti on of ch il d m ol es ta ti on , th e Bo ardreo pe ne d Al i’s p ro ceed in gs an d o rd ereda se co nd rem ov al he ari ng . At th athe ari ng , Ali tes ti fie d, co ns is te ntwith h is co nc es si on at th e fi rs t h eari ng , th athi s ea rli er d en ia l o f anarre stor i nd ic tm en t h adbe enfal se . Ali ex pr es se d re m or se an d re qu es te d adi sc ret io na ry waiv er. Afte r th e imm ig rat io n ju dg e d en ie d Al i’s re qu es t fo r di sc ret io na ry rel ie f an d o rd eredAli ’s rem ov al , Ali co nt en de d o n app eal th athi s co un se l atth e se co ndrem ov al he ari ng ha d re nd eredin effe ct iv e as si st an ce b y co nc ed in g h is earl ie r m is rep res en ta ti on . Ali al so arg ue d t ha t h e h adli edat h is sec on d h eari ng ab ou t h is earl ie r li e o n h is ap pl ic at io n. Al i wo ul d h av e d on e wel l t o l earn fro m SirW al te r Sco ttwho 2fam ou sl y

wrot e, “ O, whata tang le d web we weav e, [w]henfir stwe pr act is e to de cei ve !” Si r W al te r Sco tt , Marm io n: A Tale o f Fl od de n F ie ldin Six Can to s 1 77 (Tho m as Bayne ed ., Forg ot te n B oo ks 20 08 ) (1 80 8) . Becau se we co nc lu de th at subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce s up po rts th e fi nd in g b y th e Bo ardof I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s th atth e atto rn ey ’s dec is io n t o c on ced e rem ov ab il it y was areas on ab le strat eg ic de ci si on , we den y

Ali ’s pet it io n fo r rev ie w.

I. BACK GROUND InJu ly 199 1, Al i, a n at iv e an d c it iz enof P ak is ta n, en te redth e Uni te d S ta te s as a no n- imm ig ran t v is it or , andles s t ha n t wo years l at er, a g ran d ju ry in th e Supe rio r Co urt o f Cl ayto n C ou nt y , Geor gi a, in di ct edAli on two co un ts of c hi ld m ol es ta ti on . Ali p le ad edgu il ty andwas s en te nc edto fiv e y ears of p ro ba ti on . The supe rio r co urt g ran te d Al i’s p et it io n fo r di sc ha rg e u nd er the Fir stOffen de r Actof Geo rg ia , Ga. Cod e Ann . § 4 2- 8- 60 , an d o rd eredth at“ [u ]ponful fil lm en t o f th e te rm s o f th is sen te nc e . . . the de fen da ntsh al l s ta nddi sc ha rg edof s ai d o ffen se wit ho utco urt ad

jud ic at io n o f gu il t an d s ha ll be co m pl et el y ex on erat edof g ui lt .” Ali fil edanap pl ic at io n fo r pe rm an en t re si de nc e o r ad jus tm en t o f st atus in Octo be r 19 98 an d a ns wered“No” in res po ns e to th e que st io n wh ethe r he ha d e ve r be en“ arre st ed , cit ed , cha rg ed , in di ct ed , fin ed , or i m pr is on edforbre ak in g o r vi ol at in g a ny law orord in an ce, ex cl ud in g t raff ic vi ol at io ns .” InMay 200 2, t he 3Im

m ig rat io n a ndNatu ral iz at io n S erv ic e is su edto Ali a no ti ce t o app ear a t a rem ov al he ari ng onth e ch arg e th athe was re m ov ab le un de r se ct io n 23 7( a)(2 )(A)(i ii ) of

th e Imm ig rat io n Actas a n a li enco nv ic te d o f anag gr av at ed fel on y , 8 U.S.C. § § 1 10 1 (a )(4 3) (A), 12 27 (a)( 2) (A)(i ii ). In J ul y 20 02 , Ali ap pe aredbe fo re the imm ig rat io n ju dg e an d c on ced edth athe was re m ov ab le as ch arg edinth e n ot ic e to ap pe ar, b uthe ap pl ie d fo r rel ie f fro m rem ov al un de r th e Co nv en ti on Agai ns t To rtu re. The imm ig rat io n ju dg e co nt in ue d the he ari ng to gi ve Ali m or e ti m e to pre pa re h is ap pl ic at io n fo r rel ie f un de r th e Co nv en ti on . The Serv ic e fi le d a dd it io na l ch arg es ag ai ns t Al i u nd er s ect io n 2 37 (a)( 1) (A) of th e Imm ig rat io n Actas a n a li enwho ha d b een co nv ic te d o f a cri m e in vo lv in g m or al tu rp itud e, id . §§ 11 82 (a)( 2) (A)(i )(I), 1 22 7( a)(1 )(A), an d a s an ali enwho so ug htto pro cu re an im

m ig rat io n b en efi t b y

wil lfu ll y mis rep res en ti ng a m at eri al fact , id . §§ 11 82 (a)( 6) (C)( i), 1 22 7( a)(1 )(A). Ali ap pe aredan d a ga inco nc ed ed rem ov ab il it y

ba se d o n b ot h t he earl ie r ch arg e an d t he rece nt ly add edch arg es . The imm ig rat io n ju dg e d en ie d Al i’s ap pl ic at io n fo r pr ot ect io n u nd er the Co nv en ti on an d o rd eredhi m

rem ov edto Pak is ta n. Th e Bo arddi sm is se d Al i’s ap pe al be cau se he was i ne li gi bl e fo r wit hh ol di ng of r em ov al un de r th e Co nv en ti on an d, al te rn at iv el y , Ali ha d fa il edto est ab li sh th atitwas m or e li ke ly tha n n otth athe wou ldbe to rtu redif h e were r em ov edto Pak is ta n. 4InOcto be r 20 03 , Ali fil edanex tra or di na ry m ot io n fo r a n ew tr ia l i n t he Geo rg iaco urt an d a rg ue d t ha t, wh enhe ha d p le ad edgu il ty to ch il d m ol es ta ti on , he ha d t ho ug htth athi s p le a wou ldm ean th athe wou ldha ve “ no cri m in al reco rd , ei th er i n t he ey es of t he Sta te of Ge or gi a o r in th e eyes of th e g ov ern m en t o f th e Uni te d S ta te s.” Th e Geo rg iaco urt g ran te d Al i’s m ot io n a ndlat er g ran te d t he m ot io n o f th e d is tri ctatt orne y to no ll e p ro ss e th e m ol es ta ti on ch arg es be cau se of

“ th e ci rcu m st an ces of t he cas e, th e ag e o f th e cas e, th e st atus of t he de fen da nt , and th e to ta l i m

pl ic at io ns of aretria l.” Ali fil edwith t he Bo arda m ot io n t o re op enhi s re m ov al pro ceed in gs . The Bo ardde ni edth e m ot io n b ecau se Ali ha d fa il edto est ab li sh by suf fic ie ntev id en ce th athe no lo ng er h ada co nv ic ti on forimm ig rat io n p ur po se s. The B oa rdals o reas on edth at , eve n i f Ali ha d p res en te d s uf fic ie ntev id en ce o f pa rd on , he wo ul d no ne th el es s b e rem ov ab le be cau se of t he mis rep res en ta ti on on hi s ap pl ic at io n fo r pe rm an en t re si de nc e o r ad jus tm en t o f st atus . W e d en ie d Al i’s p et it io n fo r rev ie w andhe ldth atth e Bo arddi d n otab us e it s di sc ret io n wh enitde ni edAli ’s m ot io n t o re op enth e rem ov al pro ceed in gs . Ali, 44 3 F .3dat 8 14 . W e ag reedwith t he Bo ardth at , eve n i f Ali ha d p res en te d su ffi ci en t ev id en ce tha t h e n o l on ge r ha d aco nv ic ti on , he was no ne th el es s rem ov ab le “ as an‘ al ie n wh o, b y frau d o r wil lfu ll y

m is rep res en ti ng a m at eri al fact ,’ 5so ug htto pro cu re an im m ig rat io n b en efi t.” Id . at 8 12 (qu ot in g 8 U.S.C. § 11 82 (a)( 6) (C)( i)) . W e rea so ne d t ha t, “ [a]ltho ug h Al i n ow d en ie s tha t h is m is rep res en ta ti on was wi ll fu l, h e co nc ed edas m uc h a t h is rem ov al he ari ng .” Id . InSep te m

be r 20 06 , Ali , rep res en te d b y ne w cou ns el , Soc he atCh ea, fi le d wit h t he Bo ardan ot he r m ot io n t o re op enAli ’s rem ov al pro ceed in gs an d s ub m it te d a certi fie d c op y

of apa rd on of Al i b y

th e St at e o f Geo rg ia . Ali d idno t co nt es t the ch arg e o f wil lfu l m is rep res en ta ti on , bu t i ns te adarg ue d t ha t h e was eli gi bl e fo r di sc ret io na ry

rel ie f fro m

rem ov al un de r se ct io n 2 37 (a)( 1) (H) o f th e Imm ig rat io n Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1 22 7( a)(1 )(H). The B oa rdgra nt edAli ’s m ot io n a ndco nc lu de d th atth e p ard on “ waiv e[d ] hi s re m ov ab il it y as a n a li enco nv ic te d o f anag gr av at ed fel on y .” The B oardals o “ reco gn iz e[d ] th at[Ali ] was als o fo un d re m ov ab le un de r se ct io n 2 37 (a)( 1) (A) o f th e Act. . . . Howev er, i n l ig htof h is un co nd it io na l pa rd on , [Ali ] no w see ks th e o pp ortuni ty to ch al le ng e th os e ch arg es of r em ov ab il it y an d t o app ly for rel ie f fro m rem ov al .” The B oa rdrem an de d t he cas e to th e imm ig rat io n ju dg e fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs . InMay 200 8, Al i, re pr es en te d b y Ch ea, ap pe aredbe fo re the imm ig rat io n jud ge . At the co m

m en cem en t o f th e h eari ng , th e g ov ern m en t wi th dr ew th e ch arg es of r em ov al ba se d o n an a gg rav at edfel on y . Che a co nc ed edth atAli was rem ov ab le un de r se ct io n 2 37 (a)( 1) (A) o f th e Imm ig rat io n Actforth e wil lfu l 6m is rep res en ta ti on , 8 U.S.C. § § 1 18 2( a)(6 )(C) (i) , 12 27 (a)( 1) (A). Ch ea i nf orm ed th e imm ig rat io n ju dg e th atAli wou ldno t s eekrel ie f un de r th e Co nv en ti on , bu t in st eadhe wou ldsee k o nl y di sc ret io na ry

rel ie f fro m

rem ov al un de r se ct io n 23 7( a)(1 )(H) o f th e Imm ig rat io n Act , 8 U.S.C. § 12 27 (a)( 1) (H). At the ne w rem ov al he ari ng be fo re the imm ig rat io n ju dg e, Ch ea as ke d Al i whe th er h e h adbe entru th fu l i n h is ap pl ic at io n fo r pe rm an en t re si de nc e o r ad jus tm en t o f st atus , andAli adm it te d t ha t h e h adno t b een tru th fu l “ [a]bo utth e arre stis su e. Ther e, th ere was a qu es ti on th ere wh ic h c le arl y ask s h av e y oube en arre st ed . . . . I rep li edth atI was n otarres te d.” Che a as ke d Al i wh athe ha d le arn ed , andAli res po nd ed , “ I ha ve lea rn edfro m th atin ci de ntth at , nu m

be r on e ne ve r to li e an d num

be r two be tru th fu l ab ou t ev erythi ng an d youkn ow, al way s ta ke two co ns ul ta ti on s fo r an yth in g t ha t you n eedto pu t o n p ap er y oune edto tak e two co ns ul ta ti on s. I l earn edon e th in g v ery im po rta ntth at , y oukn ow, n otto m ak e a m is ta ke ag ai n.” Che a as ke d, “ Wha t m is ta ke is th at ? ” an d Al i re sp on de d,

“ Mi st ak e o f pu tt in g a nyth in g, fa ls ifyin g a nyth in g.” Near t he en d o f th e h eari ng , th e imm ig rat io n ju dg e o bs erv edth atAli ’s

“ [i]m m ig rat io n h is to ry

is frau gh t wi th m is rep res en ta ti on s . . . bef or e th e Co urt, be fo re the U.S. Cou ns el orEm ba ss y , at t he po rt o f en try, . . . onth e [ap pl ic at io n fo r pe rm an en t re si de nc e o r ad jus tm en t o f st atus ,] an d b efo re [the imm ig rat io n ju dg e]

7ata pr io r he ari ng .” Inres po ns e, Ali ask edth e imm ig rat io n ju dg e to be len ie ntan d

ex pr es se d re m or se : “ I ha ve , I adm itI ha ve do ne wron g, I a dm itto th e fac t tha t I ha ve li edon th atap pl ic at io n, I a dm itto all th e al le ga ti on s t ha t [h av e] been gi ve n to m e. All I am

see ki ng is m ercy andfor gi ve ne ss .” InJu ly 200 8, Al i h ire d h is th irdatt orne y , Mat th ew W eb er, wh o fi le d a m ot io n t o wi th dr aw Ch ea’s co nc es si on of r em ov ab il it y . In Au gu st20 08 , th e imm ig rat io n ju dg e is su eda writ te n d eci si on an d ru le d t ha t Al i was rem ov ab le un de r se ct io n 2 37 (a)( 1) (A) o f th e Imm ig rat io n Actforpro curin g a dm is si on to th e Uni te d S ta te s b y

frau d o r wil lfu l m is rep res en ta ti on , 8 U.S.C. § § 1 18 2( a)(6 )(C) (i) , 12 27 (a)( 1) (A). The i m

m ig rat io n ju dg e que st io ne d Al i’s s in ceri ty andcred ib il it y an d c on cl ud edth at , un de r th e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces , Ali was u nd es erv in g o f di sc ret io na ry

waiv er o f rem ov al . The i m m ig rat io n ju dg e o rd eredAli rem ov edto Pak is ta n. Ali to okto he artth e ad ag e “ if a t fi rs t you d on ’t su ccee d, t ry , try agai n,” an d ag ai n app eal edto th e Bo ardin Janua ry 20 09 . Ali a rg ue d t ha t the imm ig rat io n jud ge ha d c le arl y

erre d wh enhe ord eredAli ’s rem ov al . Ali lat er al so fil eda m ot io n t o re m an d a ndterm in at e p ro ceed in gs du e to in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l. Ali arg ue d t ha t Ch ea h adren de redin effe ct iv e as si st an ce wh enhe ha d co nc ed edth atAli ’s m is rep res en ta ti on on th e ap pl ic at io n fo r pe rm an en t re si de nc e 8orad

jus tm en t o f st atus was wi ll fu l. Ali arg ue d t ha t, i f Ch ea h adno t m ad e th at co nc es si on , th e g ov ern m en t wo ul d h av e b een un ab le to pro ve th atAli ha d b een rem ov ab le . Ali a tt ach edto hi s m ot io n alet te r fro m Ch ea re sp on di ng to th e accu sa ti on s o f in effe ct iv e as si st an ce. Inth e le tt er, Ch ea ex pl ai ne d t ha t h e h ad co nc ed edth atAli was re m ov ab le forth e wil lfu l m is rep res en ta ti on ch arg e b ecau se

“ itis cle ar tha t the pa rd on do es no t d efea t the frau d c ha rg e b ecau se th e fac t i s t ha t th e arr es t, p le a an d p ro ba ti on were n otdi sc lo se d o n [t he ap pl ic at io n fo r pe rm an en t res id en ce o r ad

jus tm en t o f st atus ]. ” Ch ea al so ex pl ai ne d t ha t Al i’s p rev io us at to rn ey ha d a lre ady

co nc ed edth atAli was re m ov ab le forth e wil lfu l m is rep res en ta ti on when Ali so ug htrel ie f un de r th e Co nv en ti on at t he fir strem ov al he ari ng . The Bo ardaffi rm edth e d eci si on of t he imm ig rat io n ju dg e an d d is m is se d Ali ’s app eal . The Bo ardex pl ai ne d t ha t, b es id es Ch ea’s co nc es si on be fo re the imm ig rat io n ju dg e, Ali ha d t es ti fie d a ndha d “ adm it te d t ha t h e m ad e se ve ral m is rep res en ta ti on s, an d t ha t h e [h ad ] li edon th e . . . adjus tm en t o f st atus ap pl ic at io n.” The Bo ardco nc lu de d t ha t Ch ea h adm ad e a s tra te gi c d eci si on no t t o co nt es t the m is rep res en ta ti on ch arg es an d h adno t re nd eredin effe ct iv e as si st an ce. The Bo ardex pl ai ne d, “ Perh ap s the res po nd en t an d c ou ns el co nc lu de d t ha t the ch an ce o f su cces s o n t he waiv er wo ul d b e im pr ov edif t he y

di d n otco nt es t 9rem ov ab il it y . The p reci se st rat eg ic reas on is no t i m po rta nt . Wha t i s s ig ni fic an t i s th atth e res po nd en t h adth e o pp ortu ni ty to co nt es t the ch arg e an d h e d idno t.” II . STANDARD OF REVIEW Two s ta nd ard s g ov ernou r rev ie w of t hi s p et it io n. We con st ru e a m ot io n t o rem an d tha t s eek s t o i nt ro du ce n ew ev id en ce as a m ot io n t o re op en , Cha cku v . U.S. Att ’y

Gen., 5 55 F.3d12 81 , 12 86 (11 thCir . 20 08 ), an d we r ev ie w th e d en ia l of a m ot io n t o re op enforanab us e o f di sc ret io n, Gb ay a v . U.S. Att’y Gen., 3 42 F.3 d 1 21 9, 1 22 0 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 3) . “ Factua l d et erm in at io ns are re vi ewedun de r th e subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce t es t.” Di al lo v. U.S. Att ’y Gen., 5 96 F.3d13 29 , 13 32 (11 th Ci r. 20 10 ). “ Und er the subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce t es t, we v ie w th e rec or d e vi de nc e in th e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e ag en cy ’s dec is io n a nddra w all reas on ab le in fere nc es in fav orof t ha t d eci si on .” Adef em i v . Ash cro ft, 3 86 F.3d10 22 , 10 27 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 4) (enbanc ). “ [E]venif t he ev id en ce co ul d s up po rt m ul ti pl e co nc lu si on s, we m

us t af firm th e ag en cy ’s dec is io n u nl es s t he re i s n o re as on ab le ba si s fo r th atde ci si on .” Id . at 1 02 9. II I. DI SCUSSI ON

“ [T]o est ab li shth e in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l i n t he co nt ex t o f a de po rta ti on he ari ng , an a li enm us t es tabl is h t ha t h is or h er co un se l’s p erfo rm an ce was de fic ie ntto th e p oi ntth atitim pi ng edth e ‘fun da m en ta l fa irn es s’ of t he 10he ari ng .” MejiaRo dr ig ue z v . Ren o, 1 78 F.3d11 39 , 11 46 (11 th Cir . 19 99 )

(quo ti ng Bart ho ldv. INS, 5 17 F.2d68 9, 6 91 (5th C ir. 1 97 5) ). Ali m us t al so es tabl is h p reju di ce, wh ic h “ ex is ts when th e p erfo rm an ce o f co un se l i s s o in ad equa te th atth ere i s a r eas on ab le pro babi li ty tha t b utforth e at to rn ey ’s erro r, th e o ut co m e o f th e p ro ceed in gs wou ldha ve be endi ffer en t.” Dak an e v . U.S. Att’y Gen ., 39 9 F .3d12 69 , 12 74 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). Ali arg ue s t ha t Ch ea’s p erfo rm an ce was de fic ie ntbe cau se Ch ea co nc ed ed th atAli was re m ov ab le as an a li enwho so ug htto pro cu re an imm ig rat io n b en efi t by will fu ll y

m is rep res en ti ng a m at eri al fact , 8 U.S.C. § § 1 18 2( a)(6 )(C) (i) , 12 27 (a)( 1) (A), bu t we d is ag ree. Subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce s up po rts th e fi nd in g b y th e Bo ardth atCh ea m ad e a rea so nabl e st rat eg ic de ci si on when he co nc ed ed rem ov ab il it y

forAli ’s m is rep res en ta ti on . The Bo ardreas on edth atit s ea rli er o rd er

“ m ad e cl ear t ha t [Al i] cou ldco nt es t re m ov ab il it y un de r se ct io n 2 37 (a)( 1) (A) o f th e Act, b ut[Ali ], rep res en te d b y co un se l, el ect edno t t o d o s o.” An at to rn ey do es no t ren de r in effe ct iv e as si st an ce wh enhe de cl in es to m ak e anarg um en t tha t the at to rn ey “ reas on ab ly bel ie ve d was . . . do om edto fai l.” Kn owl es v. Mi rzayance , 55 6 U.S. --, -- , 12 9 S . Ct. 1 41 1, 1 42 0 (2 00 9) . The Supr em e Co urt “ ha s n ev er requi redde fen se co un se l t o p ur su e ev ery cl ai m or d efen se , reg ard le ss of i ts m eri t, vi ab il it y , or re al is ti c ch an ce fo r su cces s,” i d., n oris anatt orne y “ requi redto ha ve a 11ta ct ic al reas on—ab ov e an d b ey on d areas on ab le ap pr ai sa l o f a cl ai m ’s di sm al

pr os pe ct s fo r su cces s— fo r rec omm en di ng th ata weakcla im be dro pp ed al to ge th er,” i d. at--, 12 9 S . Ct. at14 22 . Any chal le ng e Ali co ul d h av e m ad e to hi s re m ov ab il it y ba se d o n t he m is rep res en ta ti on ch arg e wou ldha ve be enfut il e. Thi s C ou rt h adalr eady rul ed th atAli was re m ov ab le for a wil lfu l m is rep res en ta ti on , Ali , 44 3 F .3dat 8 12 , and th e at to rn ey

who ha d re pr es en te d Al i athi s fi rs t h eari ng ha d c on ced edth atAli was rem ov ab le forth e ch arg e o f m is rep res en ta ti on . Mor eo ve r, athi s s eco ndrem ov al he ari ng , Ali free ly adm it te d t ha t h e h adno t b een tru th fu l “ ab ou t the arre stis su e” on th e ap pl ic at io n fo r pe rm an en t re si de nc e o r ad jus tm en t o f st atus . Ali adm it te d th atitwas “ co m

pl et el y wron g t o h id e so m ethi ng th atactua ll y oc cu rred .” Ali st at edth athe “ ha [d ] le arn ed. . . ne ve r to li e” an d t o n ev er m ak e th e m is take of

“ fal si fy in g a nyth in g.” Ali “ adm it [te d] to th e fac t tha t [h e] ha[d ] li edon th [e] ap pl ic at io n” an d s ai d, “ I adm itto all th e al le ga ti on s t ha t h a[v e] been gi ve n t o m e.” Ali no w arg ue s tha t h is tes ti m on y be fo re the imm ig rat io n ju dg e sh ou ldbe st ric ke n, b uthe cit es no auth or it y th atwou ldall ow t hi s C ou rt t o s tri ke hi s te st im on y fro m th e rec or d. Al i’s p at te rnof l ie s h as for cedhi m to tak e a p os it io n th atlac ks an y

leg al supp ort. Iness en ce, Ali no w ass ert s t ha t h e li edto th e imm ig rat io n ju dg e whe n h e te st ifi edth athe ha d l ie d o n t he ap pl ic at io n. Bu t the 12pr ob le m

with t ha t as se rti on is th atAli ’s earl ie r co nc es si on s ab ou t the m is rep res en ta ti on on hi s ap pl ic at io n s up po rt the de ci si on of t he Bo ard . Ch ea’s s tra te gi c d eci si on to co nc ed e Ali ’s rem ov ab il ity was re as on ab le . Alt ho ug h Al i was rem ov ab le for hi s ea rli er m is rep res en ta ti on , he was st il l el ig ib le fo r di sc ret io na ry

waiv er o f rem ov ab il it y

un de r se ct io n 2 37 (a)( 1) (H) o f th e Im m ig rat io n Act , 8 U.S.C. § 12 27 (a)( 1) (H). As the Bo ardob se rv ed , “ [p ]erhap s [Ali ] an d c ou ns el co nc lu de d tha t the ch an ce o f su cces s o n t he waiv er wo ul d b e im pr ov edif t he y

di d n otco nt es t re m ov ab il it y .” Inth e li gh t o f th e rec or d, wh ic h in cl ud edAli ’s earl ie r co nc es si on s, Ch ea co ul d h av e rea so nabl y co nc lu de d t ha t Ali ’s bes t ch an ce t o a vo idrem ov al was t o e xp res s re m or se ab ou t the m is rep res en ta ti on with t he ho pe th atth e imm ig rat io n ju dg e wou ldlo okm or e fav or ab ly on h is reque stfordi sc ret io na ry rel ie f. Thatth e st rat eg y

di d n otwork do es no t m ean th atitwas unr eas on ab le . Ali arg ue s t ha t Ch ea’s d eci si on no t t o c on te stAli ’s rem ov ab il it y was n ota st rat eg ic de ci si on , bu t s ub st an ti al ev id en ce s up po rts th e co ntrary fin di ng by the Bo ard . Ali c on te nd s t ha t the let te r fro m Ch ea p ro ve s t ha t Ch ea tho ug htth atth e rem an d fr om

th e Bo arddi d n otpe rm itAli to ch al le ng e rem ov ab il it y un de r se ct io n 23 7( a)(1 )(A) o f th e Act . Che a st at edin hi s l et te r th atAli was abl e to ch al le ng e rem ov ab il it y

on rem an d t o t he imm ig rat io n ju dg e, bu t “ th is on ly deal s wi thth e 13ag gr av at edfel on y ch arg e[] bec au se th e p ard on vi ti at es th is ch arg e. Howev er, i t i s cl ear t ha t the pa rd on do es no t d efea t the frau d c ha rg e b ecau se th e fac t i s t ha t the arre st , pl ea[,] andpro ba ti on were n otdi sc lo se d o n [Al i’s ap pl ic at io n].” Ch ea’s le tt er al so ex pl ai ne d tha t “ [t]he ch arg e o f rem ov ab il it y [fo r] fraudor wi ll fu l m is rep res en ta ti on of f

actwas d eci de d m any

y ears ag o” be cau se Ali ’s form er at to rn ey “ adm it te d the all eg at io ns on be ha lf o f Mr. Al i” an d s ou gh t p ro te ct io n fro m rem ov al un de r th e Co nv en ti on . The Bo ardreas on ab ly con st ru edCh ea’s le tt er t o e xp la in th atan y

ch al le ng e to th e ear li er co nc es si on of m is rep res en ta ti on wou ldha ve be enfut il e. See Ad efem i, 3 86 F.3dat 1 02 9. Eve n i f we were t o a ccep t Al i’s ar gu m en t tha t Ch ea re nd eredde fic ie nt pe rfo rm an ce wh enhe co nc ed edth atAli was re m ov ab le , Ali wou ldno t b e ab le to pr ov e p reju di ce. The re i s n o “ reas on ab le pro babi li ty tha t b utforth e at to rn ey ’s erro r, th e o ut co m e o f th e p ro ceed in gs wou ldha ve be endi ffer en t.” Dak an e, 39 9 F.3 d a t 1 27 4. In th e li gh t o f th is reco rd , any effo rt b y Ali to co nt es t tha t h e was rem ov ab le forwil lfu l m is rep res en ta ti on wou ldha ve fai le d. IV. CONCLUSI ON Ali ’s pet it io n fo r rev ie w is DENIE D .

14