2008 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 7-11-2008 

# P hi llip s 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 . 04-4509

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_2008

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 2008 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 " P hi ll ips v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 855. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/855NOT 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. 04- 4509

___________ LEO N EM A N U EL PH I LLI PS, Pet i t i oner

v. ATTO RN EY G ENER AL O F THE UN I TED STATES

________________________ Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof the U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof J us t i ce B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( B I A N o. A 37 453 263) Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le A lb e rto J. R ief k o h l

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

J ul y2, 2008 R E N D E L L , G R E E N B E R G and V A N A N T W E R PE N , C i r cui tJ udges ( Fi l ed: J ul y11, 2008)

___________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

___________ P E R C UR I AM L eon Phi l l i ps 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 vaca t i ng the I m m i gr at i on J udge’ s ( “I J ”) gr antof a di s cr et i onaryw ai verfr om d e p o rta tio n u n d e r 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 8 2 (c ), f o rm e r § 2 1 2 (c ) o f

th e Im m ig ra tio n a n d N a tio n a lity2

Ac t . 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. Phi l l i ps i s a nat i ve and c i t i zen of J amai ca. H e ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es i n 1980 as a l aw ful perm anentr es i dentw hen he w as ni ne y ear s ol d. I n 1992, Phi l l i ps w as convi ct ed i n N ew J er s eys t at e courtof pos s es s i on of m ar i j uana w i th i nt entt o di s tr i but e w i thi n 1, 000 f e e t o f a sc h o o l. In 1 9 9 3 , the Im m ig ra tio n a n d N a tu ra liza tio n S e rv ice iss u e d a n o rd e r to s how caus e cha r gi ng thatPhi l l i ps w as s ubj ectt o deport at i on beca us e he w as convi ct ed of vi ol at i ng a l aw r el at i ng t o a contr ol l ed s ubs t ance and bec aus e he w as convi ct ed of a n a g g ra v a ted f

e lo n y , as d e f

in e d b yth e Im m ig ra tio n a n d N a tio n a lityA c t. Phi l l i ps conce ded hi s convi ct i on, buthe deni ed thathe w as deport abl e as char ged and moved t o t erm i nat e the pr ocee di ngs . O n M ay5, 1995, the I J deni ed Phi l l i ps ’ m ot i on t o t erm i nat e, rul i ng thatPhi l l i ps w as notan aggr avat ed fe l on beca us e he w as not s ent ence d t o fi ve orm or e y ear s i n pr i s on, buthol di ng thathe w as deport abl e forvi ol at i ng a l aw r el at i ng t o a contr ol l ed s ubs t ance , otherthan a s i ngl e off ens e i nvol vi ng pos s es s i on f o r o n e ’s o w n u s e o f

3 0 g ra m s o r l e s s o f

m a ri ju a n a . Phi l l i ps appl i ed fora w ai verfr om deport at i on underform er§ 212( c) of the I m m i gr at i on and N at i onal i tyA ct . O n M ay9, 1995, the I J hel d a hea r i ng on the mer i t s of the a p p li ca ti o n . O n S ep tem b er 2 5 , 1 9 9 6 , the IJ issu ed a “ M em o ran d u m T em p o rary O r der ” hol di ng Phi l l i ps ’ pr ocee di ngs i n abey ance pendi ng a dec i s i on bythe A t t orney G e n e ra l o r th e S u p re m e C o u rt a d d re ss in g w h e th e r th e A n tit e rro rism a n d E f f e c tiv e D e a th P e n a lty A c t o f

1 9 9 6 , e f f e c tiv e A p ri l 2 4 , 1 9 9 6 , p re c lu d e d P h illip s f ro m s e e k in g a w a iv e r.T he r emand or derand the J une 27, 1997, deport at i on or derar e noti ncl uded i n the 1 admi ni s tr at i ve r ecor d. A l though t he B I A r eturned the r ecor d t o the I J on M ar ch 31, 2000, to s u p p ly th e J u n e 2 7 , 1 9 9 7 , d e c is io n , it w a s a p p a re n tly n o t p ro v id e d . 3 O n J une 27, 1997, the I J or der ed Phi l l i ps ’ deport at i on, concl udi ng thathe w as i nel i gi bl e fora w ai verundera r ece ntdeci s i on bythe A t t orneyG ener al . Phi l l i ps appea l ed, ar gui ng thathe w as el i gi bl e fora w ai verand thathi s appl i cat i on s houl d have b e e n c o n sid e re d o n th e m e rits. It ap p e a rs th a t th e B IA re m a n d e d th e m a tter to th e IJ to c o n sid e r P h ill ip s’ a p p lica tio n o n th e m e rits a f ter th e S u p re m e C o u rt d e c id e d I.N .S . v . S t. C yr, 5 3 3 U . S . 2 8 9 (20 0 1 ), u n d er w h ich P h il li p s w as e li g ible fo r a w aive r. 1 In 2 0 0 3 , a f

te r a h e a ri n g , th e IJ g ra n te d P h illip s ’ a p p lic a tio n f o r a § 2 1 2 (c ) w a iv e r. T h e IJ f o u n d P h illip s ’ s itu a tio n in 2 0 0 3 “ c o m p le te ly d if f e re n t” f ro m h is s itu a tio n in 1 9 9 5 . T he I J expl ai ned thatPhi l l i ps w as now m arr i ed, had a da ught erand a s t epdaught er , had s t eadyempl oym ent , and had be en r ehabi l i t at ed compl et el y . T he I J r ecogni zed that P h il li p s w as a rrested in 1 9 9 7 fo r po sses sion o f m arij u an a, bu t st ated that the c h arg es w ere di s pos ed of unde rN ew J er s ey ’ s di s or der l yoffe ns e s t atut e, and thathe had a voi ded any otherpr obl ems. T he I J s t at ed thatPhi l l i ps has been a l aw ful perm anentr es i dents i nce he w as ni ne y ear s ol d, thathe had no f ami l yi n J amai ca, and thathe had matur ed and u n d e rsto o d h is o b lig a tio n s a s a n a d u lt. T h e IJ a lso n o ted th a t P h ill ip s w a s try in g to o b tain lega l cus tod yo f h is da u g h ter, w h o se m o ther w as u n stab le. T h e IJ e x p resse d co n ce rn aboutthe ca r e of Phi l l i ps ’ daught eri f he w er e r emoved. T h e G o v ern m en t app ea led, an d the B IA v ac ated the g ran t of a w aive r. T h e B IAO n e b o a rd m e m b e r d iss e n ted , sta tin g th a t P h ill ip s s h o w e d su f f icie n t eq u iti e s to 2 over come hi s convi ct i ons , and thats he w oul d aff i r m the I J ’ s favor abl e exe r ci s e of di s cr et i on. 4 found thatthe r ecor d s uppor t ed the I J ’ s det erm i nat i on thatPhi l l i ps had bee n r ehabi l i t at ed, b u t co n c lu d e d th a t th e e q u iti e s in th e c a se w e re n o t su f f icie n tlyu n u su a l o r o u tsta n d in g to outw ei gh the s er i ous negat i ve fa ct or s of Phi l l i ps ’ cr i m i nal convi ct i on forpos s es s i ng drugs w i th the i nt entt o s el l them neara s chool and hi s s ubs equentconvi ct i on forpos s es s i on of m ar i j uana. T hi s pet i t i on forr evi ew fol l ow ed.

2 W e m u s t f

ir s t a d d re s s o u r j u ri s d ic tio n to e n te rt a in P h illip s ’ p e titio n f o r r e v ie w . T he G overnm entar gues thatw e l ack j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew the B I A ’ s di s cr et i onarydeni al o f a w aive r. P h illip s , h o w e v e r, d o e s n o t c h a lle n g e th e d is c re tio n a ry d e n ia l o f re lie f. R ather , he r ai s es tw o l egal ar gum ent s forourr evi ew . A l though the G overnm entfur ther ar gues thatw e l ack j ur i s di ct i on beca us e Phi l l i ps i s a cr i m i nal al i en, w e have j ur i s di ct i on t o cons i derPhi l l i ps ’ cons t i tut i onal cl ai m s and ques t i ons of l aw . See K amar a v. A t t or ney G ener al , 420 F. 3d 202, 210 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . T he G overnm ent ’ s m ot i on and r enew ed m ot i on t o di s m i s s the pet i t i on forr evi ew forl ack of j ur i s di ct i on ar e deni ed. Phi l l i ps pr i m ar i l yar gues i n hi s pet i t i on forr evi ew thathi s convi ct i on i s notan aggr avat ed fe l ony . A l though t he I J des cr i bed Phi l l i ps as an aggr avat ed fe l on i n hi s 2003 deci s i on on the w ai verappl i cat i on, as not ed above , on M ay5, 1995, the I J rul ed that P h ill ip s is n o t an a g g ra v a ted f e lo n b e c a u se h e w a s n o t se n ten c e d to f iv e o r m o re y e a rs in pr i s on. A . R . at339- 42. T he I J hel d thatPhi l l i ps i s deport abl e forvi ol at i ng a l aw r el at i ngI ti s al s o notcl earthatw e w oul d have j ur i s di ct i on t o ent ert ai n Phi l l i ps ’ ar gum entt hat 3 he i s notan aggr avat ed fe l on beca us e he mayhave w ai ved the i s s ue i n the admi ni s tr at i ve p roc ee d ing s. P h il li p s d o es n o t app ea r t o h av e c h all en g ed h is de p o rt ab il ityaf ter th e IJ issue d it s Ju n e 2 7 , 1 9 9 7 , o rde r of d ep o rt ati o n . H e o n lyarg u ed that h e w as e li g ible fo r a w aive r. P h il li p s d id raise a n issue as to h is de p o rt ab il ityin resp o n se to the G o v ern m en t’ s appea l of the I J ’ s gr antof a w ai ver . T he G overnm entar gued thatthe i s s ue w as not pr oper l ybefor e the B I A , and the B I A di d notaddr es s the i s s ue i n i t s deci s i on. 5 t o a c o n tr o l l e d s u b s t a n c e , o th e rth a n a s i n g l e o f f e n s e i n v o l v i n g p o s s e s s i o n f o ro n e ’ s o wn u s e o f 3 0 g ra m s o f

le s s o f m a ri ju a n a . T he I J r eaf

fi r m ed thi s rul i ng atthe M ay9, 1995, m erit s h ea ri n g . A . R . at 16 8 -70 . T h e a d m inistrati v e re co rd d o es n o t r ef lect th at th e IJ amended t hi s deci s i on. I n anyevent , w e nee d notdeci de w hetherPhi l l i ps ’ convi ct i on c o n s t i tu t e s a n a g g r a v a t e d f e l o n y . P h i l l i p s wa s f

o u n d d e p o r t a b l e p u r s u a n tt o 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 5 1 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( B) ( n o w § 1227( a) ( 2) ( B ) ) fora contr ol l ed s ubs t ance vi ol at i on, and he doe s no tdis pu t e t hat he i s depo rt able on t his basi s. 3 Phi l l i ps al s o ar gues thatthe B I A i m pr oper l yr evi ew ed the I J ’ s deci s i on de novo, a n d th a tth e B I A s h o u l d h a v e a p p l i e d a c l e a r l ye rr o n e o u s s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w . We d i s a g r e e . T h e a p p l i c a b l e r e g u l a t i o n s p r o v i d e th a tth e BI A m a yr e v i e w q u e s t i o n s o f l a w, di s cr et i on, and j udgm entand al l ot heri s s ues i n appea l s fr om deci s i ons of i m m i gr at i on ju d g e s d e n o v o . 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 . 1 (d)(3 )(i i) . A lth o u g h a c learlyerro n eo u s stan d ard a p p lie s to th e IJ ’s f

a c tu a l f in d in g s , 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .1 (d )(3 )(i) , the B I A di d notdi s agr ee w i th the I J ’ s fac tual fi ndi ngs . R ather , the B I A concl uded thatPhi l l i ps had nots how n t hat unus ual orout s t andi ng equi t i es offs etthe s er i ous nes s of hi s convi ct i ons and w arr ant ed a d iscreti o n aryg ran t of

a w aive r. 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.