## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### M ay1,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT BA L T AZ AR AB E L S OS AVAL E NZ UE L A,

P e tit io n e r-A p p e llan t, v. N o. 05- 9582 A LB ER TO R. G O N ZA LES, ATTO RN EY G ENER AL,

R es pondent - A ppel l ee. P E T I T I ON F OR RE VI E W F RO M AN OR DE R O F T HE BOAR D O F I M M I GR ATI ON APP EALS

( D . C . N O . A 90- 709- 068) L au ra L . L ichter, L ichter & A sso ciates, P.C . , D en v er, C o lorad o , fo r P eti ti o n erA p p e llan t. Je n n ife r L . L ig h tb o d y , A tto rn e y(S tep h e n J. F lyn n , S e n io r L iti g a tio n C o u n se l, w i t h heron t he br i efs ) O ffi ce of I m m i gr at i on L i t i gat i on, C i vi l D i vi s i on, U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof J us t i ce, W as hi ngt on, D C , forR es pondent - A ppel l ee. B efo re O’ BRI EN , EBEL , and TY M KOVI CH , C i rcui tJudg es. TY M KOVI CH , C i r cui tJ udge. B al t aza rA bel Sosa - V al enzue l a, a l aw ful perm anentr es i dent , obt ai ned a w a iv e r f ro m re m o v a l af

ter th e D e p a rtm e n t o f H o m e lan d S e c u rity(D H S ) so u g h t to h a v e h i m d e p o r t e d t o h i s n a t i v e M e x i c o . T h e Bo a r d o f I mm i g r a t i o n Ap p e a l s ( BI A)-2-

concl uded thatt he w ai vers houl d nothave be en gr ant ed and or der ed Sosa - V al enzue l a deport ed. T hi s appea l r ai s es tw o i s s ues thathave y ett o be r es ol ved i n ourC i r cui t : ( 1) w hatcons t i tut es a “f i nal or derof r emoval ” forpurpos es of appe l l at e j ur i s di ct i on under8 U . S. C . § 1252( a) ( 1) and § 1101( a) ( 47) ( A ) ; and ( 2) w h e th e r th e B IA h a s th e in d e p e n d e n t au th o rityto iss u e a fin a l o rd e r o f re m o v a l in t he abs ence of a r emoval or derora fi ndi ng of deport abi l i tybyan i m m i gr at i on ju d g e . W e conc l ude ( 1) an i m m i gr at i on j udge mustfi r s tei theri s s ue an or derof r emoval orm ake afi ndi ng of deport abi l i tyt o confe rus w i th appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on; and ( 2) t he B I A does nothave the i ndepende nts t atut oryauthor i tyt o i s s ue an or der o f re m o v a l in th e fir s t in s ta n c e . Si nce the r ecor d i n t hi s cas e di s cl os es no fi ndi ng of deport abi l i tybythe im m ig ra tio n ju d g e , w e a re le f t w ith o u t a re v ie w a b le fin a l o rd e r o f re m o v a l. C o n se q u e n tly , w e lac k ju risd ictio n u n d e r 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 , an d , ac c o rd in g ly D ISM ISS t he ap peal and R E M A N D t o the B IA for further proceedings. I . Backg r ound B a ltaz a r S o sa -V a len z u e la ille g a llye n ter e d th e U n ited S tate s f ro m M e x ico in 1981 att he age of thr ee. H e bec ame a l aw ful perm anentr es i denti n J une of 1992 a s par tof an a m nes t ypr ogr am i m pl ement ed byC ongr es s i n i t s 1986 i m m i gr at i on re fo rm le g is la tio n . In 1 9 9 4 , at a g e 1 6 , S o sa -V a len z u e la p lea d e d g u iltyin C o lo ra d o o f a ttem p t to c o m m i tm u r d e ri n t h e s e c o n d d e g r e e a n d u n l a w f u l p o s s e s s i o n o f

a fi r e a r m b y aT he pr ocee di ngs w er e i ni t i al l ybr oughtbyt he I m m i gr at i on and 1 N atur al i zat i on Ser vi ce, butt hatagenc ycea s ed t o exi s tas of M ar ch 1, 2003 w hen i tw as r epl ace d byt hr ee s epar at e age nci es w i thi n the D epart m entof H om el and S e c u r i t y . Ho me l a n d S e c u r i t yAc to f 2 0 0 2 , P u b . L. No . 1 0 7 - 2 9 6 , § 4 7 1 ; 6 U. S . C. § 2 9 1 . F o r sim p licity , w e re fe r to th e D e p a rtm e n t o f H o m e lan d S e c u rity th ro u g h o u t th is o p in io n . T h e fo rm e r § 2 1 2 (c ) re a d : 2 A lien s la w f

u llya d m itte d fo r p e rm a n e n t re sid e n c e w h o tem p o ra rily pr ocee ded abr oad vol unt ar i l y and not under an or der of depor t at i on, and w ho are r etur ni ng t o a l aw ful unr el i nqui s hed domi ci l e of s even cons ecut i ve y ear s , m ay be admi t t ed i n the di s cr et i on of th e A tt o rney G e n e ra l w ith o u t re g a r d to th e p ro v isio n s o f su b se c tio n (a ) o f

th is se c tio n (o th e r th a n p a ra g ra p h s (3 ) a n d (9 )(C )). N o th in g c o n tain e d in th is subsect i on shal l l i m i t th e a uthori tyof the A t t orneyG eneral t o ex erci se t he d i scr et i on vest ed in him un der sect i on 11 81 (b) of thi s t i t l e. T he fir st s ent ence of thi s s ubs ect i on s hal l notappl yt o an al i en w ho has been convi ct ed of one orm or e aggr avat ed fe l oni es and has s erv ed fo r s uch fel on yor fel on i es a t erm of im pri sonm ent of atl east5 y ears . 8 U . S . C . § 1 1 8 2 (c) (19 9 4 S u p p . II 19 9 6 ). -3- j uveni l e. I n 1997, as a r es ul tof a s ucce s s ful pos t - convi ct i on pet i t i on bas ed on the i neffect i venes s of couns el i n t he ear l i er pl ea deal i ngs , the courtamended Sosa - V al enzue l a’ s gui l t ypl ea t o fi r s tdegr ee a s s aul tand a c r i m e of vi ol ence w i t h a deadl yw eapon. T he amended pl ea, al though ent er ed on D ece m ber15, 1997, w as dat ed nunc pr o tunc, D ece m ber19, 1994. B as ed on Sos a- V al enzue l a’ s fel ony a s s a u lt p le a , D H S b ro u g h t d e p o rt a tio n p ro c e e d in g s in F e b ru a ry o f 1 9 9 7 . 1 In re sp o n se to the d ep o rt ati o n p roc ee d ing s, S o sa-V alen zu ela p eti ti o n ed fo r a w ai verfr om r emoval undert he pr ovi s i ons of § 212( c) of the I m m i gr at i on and N at i onal i t yA ct( I N A ) . B efor e i tw as r epea l ed i n 1996, § 212( c) author i zed the A t t or neyG ener al t o gr antw ai ver s fr om r emoval t o al i ens w ho m etcert ai n cr i t er i a. 2 Sosa - V al enzue l a ar gued thatbyvi r tue of the s t at e court ’ s nunc pr o tunc or der , heT he fol l ow i ng i s t he t ot al i tyof the I J ’ s O ct ober12 m i nut e or der , w i th t he 3 I J ma r k i n g t h e b o x i n f r o n to f t h e s e c o n d o r d e ro p t i o n wi th a n X a s s h o wn b e l o w: D eci s i on of the I m m i gr at i on J udge T he Par t i es appeare d b efor e me on a pr evi ous occa s i on on an appl i cat i on forr el i ef. For m al fi ndi ngs w er e made t hatt he r es pondent had m et al l r equi r ement s , but the deci s i on and or der s w er e deferr ed for a fi ngerpr i ntcl ear ance . T he part i es w er e advi s ed thati f no w or d w as r ece i ved fr om ei ther side bythe dea dl i ne s et , an or dergr ant i ng r el i ef w oul d be ent er ed. T hatdeadl i ne has pas s ed and there has been no obj ect i on t o gr ant i ng t he appl i cat i on.

___ _ _ _ O R D E R : I ti s or der ed thatr es pondentbe gr ant ed ca ncel l at i on of rem ov al un der sect i on 24 0A (a) of the Im m i grat i on and N at i o n a lit y A c t. __X __ O R D E R : I ti s o r der ed thatr es pondentbe gr ant ed a w ai verof in a d m iss ib ili tyu n d e r se c tio n 2 1 2 (c ) o f th e Im m ig ra tio n a n d N a tio n a lity A c t. R . a t 7 7 . T he r egul at i on publ i s hed byt he Execut i ve O ffi ce forI m m i gr at i on 4 R evi ew ( of w hi ch the B I A i s a part ) es t abl i s hed the pr ocedur es forl aw ful perm anentr es i dent s w i t h cert ai n cr i m i nal convi ct i ons t o appl yfor§ 212( c) r el i ef undert he ol d rul e. 69 Fed. R eg. 57826 ( Sept . 28, 2004) . R el evantt o thi s cas e, (continued...) -4- w as el i gi bl e fora w ai verbeca us e he metthe r es i dencyr equi r ement s of § 212 and hi s fel onypl ea oc curr ed before § 2 1 2 (c ) w a s re p e a le d in 1 9 9 6 . A ft eran evi dent i aryhear i ng, the i m m i gr at i on j udge ( I J ) gr ant ed Sosa - V al enzue l a’ s w ai veri n a mi nut e or derdat ed O ct ober12, 2004. T he or der onl ys t at ed that“[Sos a- V al enzue l a] be gr ant ed a w ai verof i nadmi s s i bi l i tyunder s ect i on 212( c) of the I m m i gr at i on and N at i onal i tyA ct , ” R . at77; i tm ade no e x p licit fin d in g o f

d e p o rta b ili ty . D H S su b se q u e n tlya sk e d th e IJ to re c o n sid e r h is 3 or der , cont endi ng t hatSosa - V al enzue l a w as no l ongerel i gi bl e fort he § 212( c) w ai verbeca us e of ne w r egul at i ons adopt ed on Sept ember28, 2004 and thatt he nunc pr o tunc or derw as i nval i d. 4(...continued) 4 the re g u lat ion o n lyall o w ed tho se w h o h ad p lead ed g u il tyo r no lo co n tend re befor e A pr i l 1, 1997 t o appl yforr el i ef unde rthe form er§ 212( c) . I n i t s m ot i on t o r econs i der , t he governm entar gued Sos a- V al enzue l a’ s amended pl ea oc curr ed a f ter th is d a te, s o S o sa -V a len z u e la w a s n o t elig ib le fo r re lief. S o sa -V a len z u e la cl ai m s t he r egul at i on s houl d notappl ys i nce i tt ook effecton O ct ober28, 2004, t w o w eeks aft ert he I J ’ s i ni t i al deci s i on t o gr antthe w ai ver . H e ar gued a ltern a tiv e lyth a t th e n u n c p ro tu n c o rd e r m e a n t th e d e a d lin e d id n o t p re c lu d e h is appl i cat i on, even i f the r egul at i on appl i ed t o hi s cas e. -5- T he I J deni ed the mot i on t o r econs i der . H e found the nunc pr o tunc or der w as val i d and notdes i gned t o defe atthe r epea l of § 212( c) , s o the new r egul at i ons di d notappl y . D H S appeal ed t o t he B I A , w hi ch conc l uded Sos a- V al enzue l a w as n o t elig ib le fo r w a iv e r b e c a u se o f a n in ter v e n in g in terp re tatio n o f § 2 1 2 . In its d e c isio n re v e rsin g th e IJ, th e B IA o rd e re d S o sa -V a len z u e la d e p o rte d im m e d iate ly t o M exi co. S o s a -V a le n z u e la a p p e a le d , a n d w e s ta y e d h is re m o v a l p e n d in g a p p e a l. I I . D i s cus s i on W hil e t his case present s a num ber of is sues on a pp eal , w e m ustfi rs t d e te rm in e w h e th e r w e h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n to c o n s id e r S o s a -V a le n z u e la ’s c la im s . We c o n c lu d e th a t w e d o n o t. A . Jur is di ct i onalFr am ew ork f orR evi ew i ng R em ovalP r ocee di ngs O urj ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew r emoval pr ocee di ngs r equi r es a “f i nal or derof r emoval . ” Uanr er or o v. G onz al es , 4 4 3 F . 3 d 1 1 9 7 , 1 2 0 3 ( 1 0 th Ci r . 2 0 0 6 ) ; 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 5 2 (a).I n 1996, w hen the I l l egal I m m i gr at i on R eform and I m m i gr ant 5 Re s p o n s i b i l i t yAc t( I I RI RA ) amended t he r el evants t atut es , t he t erm “or derof r emoval ” r epl ace d “or derof deport at i on” thr oughoutm os t , butnotal l , of the U n ite d S ta te s C o d e . See S ob eranes v. C om f ort , 3 8 8 F .3 d 1 3 0 5 , 1 3 0 8 n .1 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ), Ta n gv . A sh c ro ft , 3 5 4 F . 3 d 1 1 9 2 , 1 1 9 4 n . 3 ( 1 0 th Ci r . 2 0 0 3 ) . T h e t wo t erm s ar e cot erm i nous w hen i nt erpr et i ng the s t atut e. S e c t i o n 1 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 7 ) r e a d s i n i t s e n t i r e ty: 6 ( A ) T he t erm “or der of depor t at i on” m eans the or der of th e sp eci al i nqui r y o fficer , orot hers uch admi ni s tr at i ve off i cert o w hom the A tt or neyG ener al has del egat ed the r es pons i bi l i tyfordet erm i ni ng w h e th e r a n a li e n is d e p o rta b le, c o n c lu d in g th a t th e a lien is d e p o rta b le oror der i ng deport at i on. ( B ) T he or derdes cr i bed unders ubpar agr aph ( A ) s hal l become fi nal u p o n the e arli er o f-- ( i ) a det erm i nat i on byt he B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s aff i r m i ng s uch or der ; or ( i i ) t h e e x p i r a t i o n o f

t h e p e r i o d i n whi c h th e a l i e n i s p e r mi t t e d t o s e ek revi ew of suc h o rderbyt he B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp eal s. -6- T he C ode does notexpr es s l ydefi ne an or derof r emoval , butdefi nes an “or der of depor t at i on” as “the or der. . . concl udi ng thatt he al i en i s depor t abl e or 5 or der i ng depor t at i on. ” 8 U . S. C . § 1101( a) ( 47) ( A ) . A n or derof deport at i on becomes “fi nal ” w hen ( 1) t he B I A aff i r m s t he or deron appea l , or( 2) t he per i od for see k ing B IA rev iew h as e x p ir ed . 8 U . S . C . § 1 1 0 1 (a)(47 )(B ). 6 B ot h par t i es cont end thatw e have j ur i s di ct i on overt hi s appea l . A l though D H S agr ees w e have no j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew t he appe al abs enta fi nal or derof r emoval , i tar gues one exi s t s . D H S poi nt s t o tw o s our ces fora fi nal or derunder 8 U . S. C . § 1252( a) ( 1) : ( 1) t he I J ’ s t w o or der s gr ant i ng and affi r m i ng the § 212( c) w ai ver ; and ( 2) t he B I A or derof r emoval of Sosa - V al enzue l a af t eri trul ed on appea l . Sosa - V al enzue l a ar gues , i n contr as t , t hatj ur i s di ct i on can be found eve nT he now r epea l ed § 212( c) al s o al l ow ed the I J

— i n cas es w her e an a l i en 7 w a s re tu rn in g to th is c o u n try

— to a llo w re e n tryw ith o u t re g a rd to the gr ounds of admi s s i bi l i t y , 8 U . S. C . § 1182( a) , t hus s ugges t i ng thata form al or derof depor t at i on w as an unnec es s arys t ep i n the pr oces s . T he r egul at i ons t o appl yfor § 212( c) r el i ef r equi r e onl yt he s ubm i s s i on of a Form I - 191, A ppl i cat i on for Ad v a n c e P e r mi s s i o n t o Re tu r n t o Un r e l i n q u i s h e d Do mi c i l e . 8 C. F . R. § 1 2 1 2 . 3 (a). T h e fo rm req u ir es n o co n ce ssion o f d ep o rt ab il ity , b ec au se th e fo rm and § 212( c) r el i ef w er e i ni t i al l ym eantt o appl yt o al i ens w i th perm anent re s id e n c e s ta tu s s e e k in g to re tu rn to th e U n ite d S ta te s . -7- w i t houta fi nal or derof r emoval under§ 1252( a) ( 2) ( D ) , w hi ch al l ow s j udi ci al r evi ew of “c ons t i tut i onal cl ai m s orques t i ons of l aw . ” W e tu rn to e a c h a rg u m e n t. B . F i nalO r derof

R em oval D H S cont ends t hatt he I J ’ s gr antof a § 212( c) w ai ver , oral t ernat i vel y , t he B IA ’s r e m o v a l o rd e r, co n stitu te a fin a l o rd e r o f re m o v a l. W e c o n c lu d e th e yd o n o t. 1. The IJ’s § 21 2(

c) O rders. D H S’ s fi r s tar gum enti s t hatt he I J ’ s § 212( c) w ai vergr ant ed on O ct ober12, 2004 ( and i t s N ovember30, 2004 deci s i on r eaffi r m i ng the w ai ver ) s uffi ce a s an or derof r emoval s i nce theynece s s ar i l y“conc l ud[e] t hatt he al i en i s depor t abl e” u n d er § 1 1 0 1 (a)(47 )(A ). R esp . B r. at 25 . T h e g isto f it s arg u m en t i s tha t th e IJ w oul d notgr anta w ai verof deport at i on unl es s he fi r s tconcl uded the al i en w as re m o v a b le . T he pr obl em w i t h t hi s cont ent i on i s t hatnow her e, i n ei thergr ant i ng the w a iv e r o r re a ffirm in g it, d o e s th e IJ m a k e a n e x p re ss fin d in g th a t S o sa -V a len z u e la w as depor t abl e oror derhi m depor t ed. I ns t ead, t he I J ’ s or der s m er el yappr ove a w ai verof i nadmi s s i bi l i t yunder§ 212( c) of the I N A . W hi l e i ti s l i kel yt he I J m ade 7I n i t s or der , t he B I A concl uded: “The m ot i on t o r econs i deri s gr ant ed, 8 t he I m m i gr at i on J udge’ s O ct ober12, 2004, or dergr ant i ng a s ect i on 212( c) w ai ver is v a c a ted , an d th e re sp o n d e n t is o rd e re d re m o v e d f ro m th e U n ited S tate s to M exi co. ” R . at3. -8- o r i n tend ed to m ak e su ch a find ing , the re co rd w e h av e d iscl o ses n o n e. T h e B IA has noti dent i fi ed anyw her e i n t he pr ocee di ngs ( nordo w e have the tr ans cr i ptfr om t he § 212 pr ocee di ngs ) w her e a f i ndi ng of deport abi l i tyw as m ade, and nei theror der pr ovi des an expr es s bas i s forourj ur i s di ct i on. I n s um , t he I J ’ s § 212( c) w ai verdet erm i nat i on on t hi s r ecor d i s not

— by itse lf

— a su b stitu te fo r a fin d in g o f d e p o rta b ili tyu n d e r § 1 1 0 1 (a )(4 7 ). W ith o u t a s h o wi n g t h a tt h e I J i n fa c tr e a c h e d th e q u e s t i o n o f d e p o r t a b i l i ty , we c a n n o ta s s u me s uch a f i ndi ng and w e l ack j ur i s di ct i on. 2 . Th e B IA ’s O rd e r o n Ap p e a l. E ven w i t ho ut an exp res s fi nd i ng of d epo rt abil i tyfrom the IJ, D H S al so cont ends t he B I A ’ s r emoval or der i t s el f confe r s j ur i s di ct i on. W e di s agr ee. 8 S ta tu to r y Sc h e m e . A s a thr es hol d m at t er , t he s t atut or ys cheme does notgr ant t he B I A t he i ndepende ntauthor i tyt o conductr emoval pr ocee di ngs . R emoval pr ocee di ngs ar e author i zed bys t atut e and i n the fi r s ti ns t ance ar e conduc t ed onl yby im m ig ra tio n ju d g e s . R emoval pr ocee di ngs ar e governed by§ 1229a. T he pl ai n l anguage of the sta tu te p o in ts to th e p rim a ryro le o f th e IJ in d e ter m in in g re m o v a b ili ty . F irst, it p rov ides that “[ an IJ] sh a llconductpr ocee di ngs fordeci di ng the i nadmi s s i bi l i t yor depor t abi l i t yof an a l i en. ” 8 U . S. C . § 1229a( a) ( 1) ( emphasi s added) . I tt hen adds

“ [ u ]n les s o th e rw ise sp e c ified in th is c h a p ter , a p ro c e e d in g u n d e r th is s e c tio n sh a ll-9-

be the s ol e and ex cl us i ve pr ocedur e fordet erm i ni ng w hetheran al i en maybe admi t t ed t o t he U ni t ed St at es or , i f the al i en has been a dm i t t ed, r emoved fr om t he U n ite d S ta te s .” Id . § 1 2 2 9 a(a )(3) (em p h asis ad d ed ). F inally , an d ev en m o re e x p licitly , § 1 2 2 9 a (c )(1 )(A ) p ro v id e s th a t “th e [ IJ] sh a ll d e c id e w h e th e r a n a lien is re m o v a b le f

ro m th e U n ited S tate s.” T h e sta tu te th u s e x p licitlyv e sts th e p o w e r to conductr emoval pr ocee di ngs w i th the I J i n the fi r s ti ns t ance . T he l i m i t ed natur e of th e B IA ’s p o w e rs o n th e first q u e stio n o f re m o v a b ili tyn a tu ra llyfo llo w s f ro m its p o sitio n a s a n “ a p p e llate b o d y ” w ith th e a tten d in g lim itatio n s o n its “ a b ili tyto engage i n fac t - fi ndi ng, ” w hi ch underthe s t atut orys cheme has been l eftt o the im m ig ra tio n ju d g e s . See Tor r es de la C r uzv. Maur er , ___ F. 3d ___, N o. 06- 9515, 2 0 0 7 W L 9 7 0 1 6 6 (1 0 th C ir . A p ri l 3 , 2 0 0 7 ). T h e o n lysta tu to rym e n tio n o f th e B IA in th e re m o v a l p ro c e ss is fo u n d in 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 1 (a )(4 7 ), w h ich p ro v id e s a n o rd e r o f re m o v a l b e c o m e s “ fin a l” o n ly

“ u p o n th e e a rlier ” o f

(1 ) “ a d e ter m in a tio n b yth e B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls a ffirm in g su c h o rd e r” ; o r (2 ) “ th e e x p ira tio n o f th e p e rio d in w h ich th e a lien is perm i t t ed t o s eek r evi ew of s uch or derbythe B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s . ” 8 U . S. C . § 1101( a) ( 47) . T he r emoval pr oces s thus cont empl at es a s equent i al pr ocee di ng w her e the det erm i nat i on of deport abi l i tyi s m ade byi m m i gr at i on j udges a n d th e n re v ie w e d b yth e B IA . S e e No rieg a -L op ez v . A sh c ro ft , 335 F. 3d 874, 883–84 ( 9t h C i r . 2003) ( fi ndi ng thatthe s t atut es and r egul at i ons do notal l ow t he B IA to is s u e a fin a l o rd e r o f re m o v a l in th e a b s e n c e o f s u c h a n o rd e r b yth e IJ ).-10-

I n s hor t , i f C ongr es s i nt ended forthe B I A t o det erm i ne deport abi l i tyi n t he fi r s ti ns t ance , i tw oul d have s ai d s o, and ext ended the author i tyt o conductr emoval pr ocee di ngs t o t he B I A . T he s t atut e does nots o pr ovi de. C a s e L a w a n dR eg u la tio n s . N o r d o th e c a se law a n d re g u latio n s s u g g e st a di ffe r enti nt erpr et at i on of the pl ai n m eani ng of the s t atut es . D H S cont ends the s t atut es s houl d be r ead t o ext end pl enaryauthor i tyt o the B I A bas ed on ( 1) a s er i es o f im m igrati o n ca ses th at pre d ate the cu rren t st atuto rysch em e; an d (2) the B IA ’s del egat ed author i t yt o acton behal f of the A t t or neyG ener al i n r emoval pr ocee di ngs . A gai n, w e di s agr ee. T u rnin g firstto the fe d era l case law , n o thing su g g ests § 1 2 2 9 a c o n fe rs ju ri s d ic tio n o n th e B IA to o rd e r d e p o rt a tio n a b s e n t I J fin d in g s o f re m o v a b ility. D H S poi nt s t o s ever al Supr eme C our tand ci r cui tcas es i tcl ai m s s uppor tthe concl us i on t he B I A m ayi s s ue an or derof r emoval i n the fi r s ti ns t ance abs entan under l y i ng I J or der . B uti n eac h of thos e ca s es a fi ndi ng of deport abi l i tyhad al r eadybeen e xpr es s l ym ade bythe I J . Forexampl e, i n IN S v. A gu i rre-A gu i rre , 526 U . S. 415 ( 1999) , w hi l e the Supr eme C our tuphel d a B I A deci s i on or der i ng an al i en deport ed af

t ert he B I A vaca t ed an I J deci s i on, the al i en had a l r eadyconce ded d e p o rt a b ility b e fo re th e IJ h e a ri n g . Id . a t 4 2 2 . T he s ame i s t rue of the ci r cui tcas es D H S r el i es on. I n Solano- C hi cas v. G onz al es , 440 F. 3d 1050 ( 8t h C i r . 2006) , forexampl e, the Ei ghth C i r cui thel d t hat w her e an I J has al r eadyi s s ued an or derconcl udi ng thatan al i en i s deport abl e i n t he cour s e of w ai verpr ocee di ngs , t he B I A ’ s s ubs equentcanc el l at i on of the w ai verT he fi nal ci r cui tcour tcas e ci t ed byD H S does notappl yher e. I n P alm er 9 v . I NS , 4 F. 3d 482 ( 7t h C i r . 1993) , no s ugges t i on w as m ade thatt he B I A or der ed d ep o rt ati o n af

ter de n y ing the a li en ’s w aive r req u est. T h e B IA o v erturn ed the IJ’s g ra n t o f § 2 1 2 (c ) r e lie f, b u t th e re is n o in d ic a tio n th a t it th e n o rd e re d re m o v a l. M o re v e r, t h e a lie n h a d c o n c e d e d d e p o rt a b ility. Id . at484. D H S al s o poi nt s t o t w o B I A deci s i ons w her e B I A or der ed deport at i on w ith o u t a n u n d e rl y in g fin d in g o f d e p o rt a b ility. Mat t erof Woj tkow , 18 I & N . D ec. 1 1 1 (B IA 1 9 8 1 ); Mat t e rof L- , 6 I& N . D e c . 6 6 6 (B IA 1 9 5 5 ). W h ile b o th deci s i ons ar e cons i s t entw i t h an as s er t i on of br oad B I A author i tyt o or der dep ort at i on , neither add res ses the st atutoryfram ew ork est abli shed b yC on gress now i n pl ace , w hi ch pl ace s t he “s ol e and e xcl us i ve pr ocedur e” forconduct i ng r emoval pr ocee di ngs w i t h an I J . W e thus fi nd them unper s uas i ve. -11- le a v e s th e IJ ’s o ri g in a l o rd e r o f re m o v a l in p la c e . Id . a t 1 0 5 4 ; s ee als o D elgadoR eynua v . G onz al es , 450 F. 3d 596, 601 ( 5th C i r . 2006) ( “[W ] her e the B I A r ever s es an I J ’ s gr antof di s cr et i onaryr el i ef a nd gi ves effectt o the I J ’ s or i gi nal or derof r emovabi l i t y , t he B I A has m er el yel i m i nat ed ‘ i m pedi m ent s t o r emoval ’ and effec t ed th e o rig in a l re m o v a l o rd e r.”) ; Lazo v . G onz al es , 4 6 2 F . 3 d 5 3 , 5 4

– 5 5 (2d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ); D elP i l arv. U. S. A t t ’

y G en. , 326 F. 3d 1154, 1156 ( 11th C i r . 2003) . A nd, even m or e r ece nt l y , i n G uevara v. G onz al es , 4 7 2 F .3 d 9 7 2 (7 th C ir. 2 0 0 7 ), th e S e v e n th C i r cui tuphel d t he B I A ’ s or derof r emoval , butonl yi n a ca s e w her e the I J al r eady fou nd t he ali en rem ov able based up on several fel on ycon vict i on s. 9 T h ese circu itca ses s tand fo r a p rop o sit ion w ith w h ich w e a g ree . If the IJ m akes a fi ndi ng of r emovabi l i t y , t hatfi ndi ng s at i s fi es § 1101( a) ( 47) ’ s defi ni t i on of a n o rd e r o f

d e p o rta tio n . In th o se c irc u m sta n c e s, th e B IA c a n o rd e r re m o v a l if itW e thus di s agr ee w i t h the N i nth C i r cui t ’ s hol di ng i n Mol i na- C am acho v. 10 A sh c ro ft , 393 F. 3d 937 ( 9t h C i r . 2004) ( fi ndi ng thateven w i th a conc l us i on of r emovabi l i t ybyan I J , t he B I A m us ts t i l l r emand fora form al or derof d ep o rt ati o n ). T h at de cisi o n fa il s to a p p lythe p lai n lang u ag e o f § 1 1 0 1 (a)(47 ), w h ic h d e fin e s a n o rd e r o f d e p o rt a tio n to in c lu d e a n IJ ’s fin d in g o f d e p o rt a b ility. W e have l ocat ed no othercas e thatagr ees w i th Mol i na- C am acho . -12- re v e rse s th e IJ’ s d e ter m in a tio n o f w a iv e r. B u t— a t lea st o n th is re c o rd

— th a t d id 10 nothappen i n t hi s cas e. F inally , D H S ’s t erti aryarg u m en t th at ag en cyreg u lat ion s su p p o rtthe B IA ’s pl enarypow eri s equal l yunper s uas i ve. D H S ar gues t hatt he A t t orneyG ener al has d e l e g a t e d a u t h o r i t yt o t h e BI A t o ma k e i n i t i a l fi n d i n g s o f d e p o r t a b i l i ty . 8 C. F . R. § 1 0 0 3 .1 (2 0 0 4 ). T h e re g u latio n g e n e ra llye m p o w e rs th e B IA in tw o w a y s: (1 ) it “s hal l funct i on as an appe l l at e bodychar ged w i th the r evi ew of thos e admi ni s t r at i ve a dju d ica tio n s u n d e r th e A c t th a t th e A tto rn e yG e n e ra l m a yb yre g u latio n a ss ig n to i t , ” § 1003. 1( d) ; and ( 2) “a pa nel orB oar d m embert o w hom a ca s e i s as s i gned may t ake a nyact i on cons i s t entw i t h thei rauthor i t i es undert he A ctand the r egul at i ons as is a p p ro p ri a te a n d n e c e s s a ry fo r t h e d is p o s itio n o f th e c a s e ,” § 1 0 0 3 .1 (d )( ii) . T he r egul at i on i s of l i t t l e hel p. N ow her e does i texpr es s l yori m pl i edl ygr ant t he B I A anyauthor i t yt o acti n the s hoes of the I J i n conduct i ng r emoval pr ocee di ngs i n t he fi r s ti ns t ance . M or e i m por t ant l y , t he s t atut or yr emoval pr ocee di ngs l ai d outi n 8 U . S. C . § 1229a and the fi nal i typr ovi s i ons l ai d outi n 8 U . S. C . § 1101( a) ( 47) ( A ) pl ai nl ypl ace w i th the I J t he i ni t i al r es pons i bi l i tyof o rd e ri n g d e p o rt a tio n o r m a k in g a fin d in g o f d e p o rt a tio n . I n s um , an or derof r emoval byt he I J i s r equi r ed befor e the B I A m ayor der re m o v a l. T h is m a yin c lu d e a n e x p re s s o rd e r o f re m o v a l o r, m o re g e n e ra lly, a-13-

fi ndi ng of deport abi l i t y . N ei t heroccurr ed i n thi s cas e. C ons equent l y , no fi nal o rde r of rem o v al y et ex ist s, an d w e lac k ap p ell ate jurisdicti o n u n d er § 1 2 5 2 (a). C . Jur is di ct i on t o R evi ew C ons t i t ut i onalC lai m s orQ ues t i ons of Law S o sa -V a len z u e la c o n ten d s th a t ev e n w ith o u t an o rd e r o f re m o v a l w e still have j ur i s di ct i on beca us e the R E A L I D A ctpr ovi ded us j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew

“ c o n s titu tio n a l c la im s o r q u e s tio n s o f la w ” a n d c ite s to 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (a )( 2 )( D ). T he sub sect i on reads: N o th in g in . . . an yo th e r p ro v isio n o f th is A c t ( otherthan this s ect i on ) w hi ch l i m i t s orel i m i nat es j udi cial re v i ew , s hal l be cons trued as pr ecl udi ng r evi ew of cons t i tut i onal cl ai m s or ques t i ons of l aw r ai s ed upon a p e tit io n fo r re v iew filed w ith a n a p p ro p ria te c o u rt o f a p p e a ls in acc or dance w i t h t hi s s ect i on. 8 U . S. C . § 1252( a) ( 2) ( D ) . T he s t atut e onl yal l ow s r evi ew of s uch ques t i ons w hen “thi s s ect i on” does notpr ecl ude s uch r evi ew , namel yt he fi nal or derof r emoval re q u ir e m e n ts la id o u t in § 1 2 5 2 (a )( 1 ). W e addr es s t hi s pr eci s e ques t i on i n Ham i l t on v. G onz al es , ___F. 3d___ N o. 05- 9560, 2007 W L _____ ( 10t h C i r . M ay1, 2007) . T her e, w e hel d that § 1 2 5 2 (a )(2 )(D ) is n o t an in d e p e n d e n t g ra n t o f a p p e llate ju risd ictio n , b u t still re q u ir e s a fin a l o rd e r o f re m o v a l. Id. T h u s, S o sa-V alen zu ela’s co n tention su ffers fr om t he s ame i nfi r m i t yw e di s cus s ed above

— the abs ence of a f i nal or derof re m o v a l. Fort hes e r eas ons , s ubs ect i on 1252( a) ( 2) ( D ) does notpr ovi de j ur i s di ct i on in d e p e n d e n t o f

a fin a l o rd e r o f

re m o v a l.-14- I I I . C oncl usi on F in d in g n o fin a l o rd e r o f re m o v a l, w e a re w ith o u t ju risd ictio n to re v iew th is cas e. W e r emand t o t he B I A t o r emand t o the I J fora fi ndi ng on depor t abi l i t yand d is p o s itio n o f

a n yo th e r o u ts ta n d in g is s u e s in th e c a s e .