FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT AUG 29 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ 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- 10077 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ A ge nc y N o. A 91- 606- 350 S A U L C O N T R E R A S - R O D R I G U E Z , 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

_________________________ ( A u gu s t 29, 2006) B efo re T JO F L A T , B L A C K an d K R A V IT C H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: S a ul C ontr e r a s - R odr i gue z pe t i t i ons f orr e vi e w of

the B oa r d of

I m m i gr a t i onOn November 25, 2002, President B ush signe d into law the Homeland Security Act of 1 2002, Pub. L . No. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2125. The Ac t cre ated a new Department of H omeland Security (“D HS”), a

bolished the I

NS, and transf

erred the I

NS’s functions to the new department. B e c a us ethi s c a sec omm enc e d whil etheI NS w a s in

e xistenc e , w ere fer to th eI NS rather t

ha n to the DHS. 2 A p p e a ls ’s ( “B I A ” ) a f

f irm a n c e o f

th e I m m ig r a tio n J u d g e ’s ( “I J ” ) d e n ia l o f h is m ot i on t o r e ope n r e m ova l pr oc e e di ngs . W e c onc l ude tha tthe I J a nd B I A e rr e d by h o l d i n g th a tth e y l a c k e d j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e rth e m o t i o n t o r e o p e n . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we gr a ntthe pe t i t i on a nd r e m a nd t o the B I A w i th i ns truc t i ons t o a ddr e s s the p e titio n e r ’s n o tic e a r g u m e n t. I . Ba c k g r o und C on tre ra s- R od ri gu ez , a nat i ve and ci t i ze n o f M exi co, ent er ed the U ni t ed S t a t e s i n 1988 a nd be c a m e a l a w f ul pe rm a ne ntr e s i de nti n 1989. I n 1996, he p le a d e d g u ilty to a c h a r g e o f b a tte ry a n d r e c e iv e d a tw e lv e - m o n th s e n te n c e . I n la te 1 9 9 8 o re a r ly 1 9 9 9 , C o n tr e r a s - R o d r ig u e z f ile d a n ap p lic a tio n f

o rn a tu r a liz a tio n , in w h ic h h e d is c lo s e d h is c o n v ic tio n a n d lis te d h is a d d r e s s a s B e e c h la n d C ir c le . C ontr e r a s - R odr i gue z c ont e nds tha the not i f i e d the I m m i gr a t i on & N a tur a l i z a t i on S e rvi c e ( “ I N S ” ) of

hi s a ddr e s s c ha nge t o S . G r i m e s S tr e e t . O n S e pt e m be r28, 1 2 0 0 0 , th e I N S se n t a n o ti ce o f n atu ra li za ti o n in terv iew to C o n trer as -R o d rig u ez ’s n e w a d d r e s s o n S . G r im e s S tr e e t. In 20 01 , the IN S i ss ued a no t i ce t o app ea r, char gi ng C on tre ra s- R od ri gu ez3

w i th r e m ovabi l i ty unde rI N A § 237( a ) ( 2) ( a ) ( i i ) ba s e d on hi s c onvi c t i on. T he n o tic e o r d e r e d C o n tr e r a s - R o d r ig u e z to ap p e a rf o ra h e a r in g b e f

o r e a n I J a t ad a te and t i m e t o b e det erm i ned. In Ja nu ary 200 2, the IN S se ntC on tre ra s- R od ri gu ez a not i c e tha ta he a r i ng i n hi s c a s e ha d be e n s c he dul e d f orJ ul y 23, 2002. T he g o v e rn m e n t c o n c e d e s th a t th e n o tic e to ap p e a ra n d th e h e a r in g n o tic e w e r e s e n t to th e a d d r e s s lis te d o n th e ap p lic a tio n f o rn a tu r a liz a tio n , B e e c h la n d C ir c le . C o n tr e r a s - R o d r ig u e z d id n o t ap p e a rf o rth e h e a r in g , a n d th e I J o r d e r e d h im r e m ove d i n abs e nt i a be c a us e the r e w a s s uf f i c i e nte vi de nc e of

the pr i orc onvi c t i on t o est abl i sh hi s r em ov abi l i ty. T he IJal so no t ed thatthe fa i l ure t o app ea r w ai ved a n y c la im s f

o rd is c r e tio n a ry r e lie f

C o n tr e r a s - R o d r ig u e z m a y h a v e r a is e d . C o n tr e r a s - R o d r ig u e z w a s a rr e s te d a n d d e p o r te d in 2 0 0 3 . In 20 04 , C on tre ra s- R od ri gu ez m ov ed t o reopen the proceedi ng s, ar gu i ng that he had n otre ce i ved n ot i ce of the depo rt at i on hear i ng because the no t i ce had b ee n m a ile d to th e w r o n g a d d r e s s . H e e x p la in e d th a t h e h a d in f o rm e d th e I N S o f

h is ne w a ddr e s s a nd tha tthe I N S w a s a w a r e of the ne w a ddr e s s be c a us e i tm a i l e d a n o tic e o f h is n a tu r a liz a tio n in te rv ie w to th e n e w a d d r e s s . T he gove rnm e ntr e s ponde d tha tthe I J l a c ke d j ur i s di c t i on t o r e ope n the pr oc e e di ngs be c a us e C ontr e r a s - R odr i gue z ha d be e n r e m ove d. T he gove rnm e nt a l s o not e d tha ti tha d r e a s on t o be l i e ve tha tC ontr e r a s - R odr i gue z ha d r e - e nt e r e d theWe do n ot add re ss t he seissue s b e c a

us etheg ov ernment did not discus s th e m in its 2 appellatebrief. Af ter C ontrera s- Rod

ri gue z fi le d his n oti c eof

a pp e al, t hisc ourt ins tr uc te d th epa

rtie s to 3 brief three jurisdictional questions, which wereto be ca rried with the case . Be causethe answers to those questions do not affe ct our holding , we do not address the questions or a nswers. 4 U ni t ed S t at es i l l egal l y a ft erhi s deport at i on and thatC on tre ra s- R od ri gu ez had att em pt ed t o o bt ai n a re pl ac em entcopy of hi s r egi stra t i on ca rd, w hi ch i s e vi dence of an al i en’ s s t atus as a l aw ful perm anentre si dentw i th a ri gh tt o l i ve and w ork perm anent l y i n the U ni t ed S t at es , af t erhi s deport at i on . T he re qu es tfor a r e pl a c e m e ntc a r d w a s de ni e d be c a us e C ontr e r a s - R odr i gue z w a s no l onge ra l a w f ul p e rm a n e n t r e s id e n t. 2 T he I J de ni e d the m ot i on t o r e ope n, c onc l udi ng tha ti tl a c ke d j ur i s di c t i on b e c a u s e C o n tr e r a s - R o d r ig u e z h a d b e e n r e m o v e d f r o m th e U n ite d S ta te s . C ontr e r a s - R odr i gue z appe a l e d t o the B I A , a s s e r t i ng tha tthe I J c oul d r e ope n the pr oc e e di ngs a ta ny t i m e unde r8 C . F . R . § 1003. 23( b) ( 4) ( i i ) , a nd tha tthe r e w e r e due proces s c on ce rns i n h i s deport at i on proceedi ng because he had no tre ce i ved n ot i ce o f th e h e a r in g . T h e B I A a f f irm e d th e I J ’s o r d e ra n d d is m is s e d th e ap p e a l. C o n tr e r a s - R o d r i g u e z n o w p e t i t i o n s th i s c o u r tf o rr e v i e w. 3 II . S tan d ard of R evi ew W e r e v ie w th e B I A ’s d e c is io n “e x c e p t to th e e x te n t th e B I A e x p r e s s ly a dopt s the I J ’ s de c i s i on. ” C ha c on- B ot e r o v. U . S . A tt orne y G e n. , 427 F . 3d 954,We do not review themerits of the in absentia order of removal beca

use it does not 4 appea r from the rec ord that Contrera s-Rodriguez appealed that issue to the B IA. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a) (2)(D); Sundar v. I NS, 328 F.3d 1320, 1323 (11th Cir. 2003). Under 8 U. S.C. § 1 25 2 a nd theREALID A c t § 1 06 (a), wealsoretain j urisdic tio n to 5 review a final order o f t

heB IA to de terminewh e ther t hepetition er i s “ an alien whois re mov a ble by rea son of havingcommitted” an ag gravated fe lony . Balogun v. U .S. Attorney Gen., 425 F .3d 1356, 1359 (11th Cir. 2005); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2) (C). The pa rties do not dispute that Contrera s-Rodriguez was an alien who was removable by rea son of havingcommitted an ag gravated fe lony . There fore , we lack jurisdiction on that basis. 5 95 7 n . 3 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ). W hen the B IA adop t s the IJ ’ s dec i si on , w e a l so re vi ew th e I J ’s d e c is io n . A l N a jja rv . A s h c r o f

t, 2 5 7 F .3 d 1 2 6 2 , 1 2 8 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) . W e r e v i e w th e d e n i a l o f

a mo t i o n t o r e o p e n f

o rab u s e o f

d i s c r e t i o n . A l i v . U . S. A tt o rn ey G en . , 4 4 3 F . 3 d 8 0 4 , 8 0 8 (1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 6 ). T o th e ex t en tC o n trerasR o d r ig u e z r a is e s a c o n s titu tio n a l c h a lle n g e , w e r e v ie w th a t c h a lle n g e d e n o v o . I d . I I I . D i s c u s s i on T hi s app ea l ra i se s tw o q uest i on s: (1) w hether w e have j uri sdi ct i on ov er C on tre ra s- R od ri gu ez ’ s pet i t i on for r evi ew ; and (2) w hether the IJprop er l y deni ed the m ot i on t o r e ope n. 4 W e r et ai n j uri sdi ct i on t o add re ss qu es t i on s of l aw and con st i tut i on al que s t i ons . 8 U . S . C . § 1252( a ) ( 2) ( D ) ; A l i , 443 F . 3d a t809. T hi s j ur i s di c t i on 5 e x te n d s to th e r e v ie w o f th e d e n ia l o f

a m o tio n to r e o p e n . A li, 4 4 3 F .3 d a t 8 0 9 n .2 . C ontr e r a s - R odr i gue z a r gue s tha the r a i s e d a c ons t i tut i ona l c ha l l e nge t o the gove rnm e nt ’ s f

a i l ur e t o pr ovi de hi m w i th not i c e of the de por t a t i on he a r i ng. T he6

g o v ern m en tresp o n d s th atC o n treras-R o d ri g u ez d i d n o tex h au sth i s d u e p ro cess c l a i m be c a us e he f

a i l e d t o r a i s e the c l a i m s be f or e the I J orB I A . A r e vi e w of the r e c or d, how e ve r , c ontr a di c t s the gove rnm e nt ’ s a r gum e nt . T hus , w e ha ve j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e v i e w th e c o n s t i tu t i o n a l c l a i m. U nde r8 U . S . C . § 1229a ( b) ( 5) , a n a l i e n w ho ha s be e n gi ve n not i c e of p r o c e e d i n g s a n d f

a i l s t o ap p e a r“ s h a l l b e o r d e r e d r e mo v e d i n ab s e n t i a i f [ th e I N S] es t abl i shes by cl ea r, un equi vo ca l , and con vi nci ng evi dence thatthe w ri tt en no t i ce w as so prov i ded and thatthe al i en i s r em ov abl e. ” 8 U . S . C . § 1 22 9a(b)( 5)(A ); P at el v . U .S . A tto rn e y G e n ., 3 3 4 F .3 d 1 2 5 9 , 1 2 6 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) ( h o ld in g th a t th e r e is no j uri sdi ct i on t o reopen p roce edi ng s a ft erthe al i en has been re m ov ed). H ow ever , the order of re m ov al m aybe re sc i nd ed, i nt eral i a, “ up on m ot i on t o re- op en fi l ed at a n y tim e if

th e a lie n d e m o n s tr a te s th a t th e a lie n d id n o t r e c e iv e n o tic e .” 8 U .S .C . § 1229a ( b) ( 5) ( C ) ; 8 C . F . R § 1003. 23( b) ( 4) ( i i ) . I n r e vi e w i ng the m ot i on t o r e ope n, the c our t ’ s r e vi e w i s l i m i t e d t o “ ( i ) the va l i di ty of the not i c e pr ovi de d t o the a l i e n, ( i i ) the r e a s ons f

orthe a l i e n’ s nota tt e ndi ng the pr oc e e di ng, a nd ( i i i ) w he the rornot th e a lie n is r e m o v ab le .” 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 9 a ( b ) ( 5 ) ( D ) . W e ha ve nota ddr e s s e d the i nt e rpl a y be tw e e n § 1003. 23( b) ( 4) ( i i ) a nd the pr e c e de nthol di ng tha tthe I J a nd B I A l a c k j ur i s di c t i on t o r e ope n the pr oc e e di ngs o n ce th e al i en h as b een rem o v ed . W e b el i ev e P at el i s i n ap p o si t e, h o w ev er, b ecau se7

a m ot i on t o reopen i n absent i a procee di ng s c an be m ade a tany t i m e i f the al i en ca n sh o w th ath e d i d n o trecei v e n o t i ce. 8 C . F . R . § 1 0 0 3 . 2 3 (b )(4 )(i i ). C o n seq u en t l y, w e h o l d th atth e IJ an d B IA ret ai n j u ri sd i ct i o n t o reo p en th e p ro ceed i n g s t o ad d ress w h e th e rC o n tr e r a s - R o d r ig u e z r e c e iv e d s u f f ic ie n t n o tic e o f

th e r e m o v a l h e a r in g . N e i the rthe I J northe B I A a ddr e s s e d C ontr e r a s - R odr i gue z ’ s not i c e c l a i m or m ade a ny fa ctual fi nd i ng s r egar di ng the cl ai m , and i ti s notou r r ol e t o m ake s uch f a c tua l f i ndi ngs . I N S v. V e ntur a , 537 U . S . 12, 16 ( 2002) ( hol di ng tha t“ [ a ] c our tof appeal s i s notgeneral l y e m po w er ed t o con du cta de nov o i nq ui ryi nt o the m att er b e in g r e v ie w e da n d to r e a c h its o w n c o n c lu s io n s b a s e do n s u c h a n in q u iry . . . . R ather, the prop ercourse , exce pti n rar e c i rc um st ance s, i s t o rem and t o the agency fo r ad d i t i o n al i n v est i g at i o n an d ex p l an at i o n . ”). A cco rd i n g l y, w e g ran tC o n trerasR o d r ig u e z ’s p e titio n a n d r e m a n d to th e B I A f o rf u r th e rp r o c e e d in g s c o n s is te n t w ith thi s opi ni on. P E T I T I ON GR AN T E D A ND C AS E R E MAND E D.