2010 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
7-8-2010 

# Leslie 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 : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-3180

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_2010

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 2010 D e c i sion s b y an author i 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

" L e sl ie v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 842. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/842P 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. 08- 3180

_____________ NEV I LLE S YLV ESTE R LESLI E, Pet i t i oner

v. A TTO RN EY G EN ER A L O F TH E U N I TED STA TES, R es pondent

_____________ Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp eal s B I A N o. A 41- 329- 237 I m m i gr at i on J udge: W al t erA
. D ur l i ng

_____________ A r gued M ar ch 10, 2010 B efor e: A M B R O , SM I T H and A L D I SE R T , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed: J ul y8, 2010)2 C A R O L I N E B R O WN S AR A. B. CA M E S ( AR GUE D) CO VI NGT ON AND BU RL I NG 1 2 0 1 P e n n s y l v a n i a A v e n u e , N
. W. W as hi ngt on, D
. C
. 2004 ATTO RN EYS FOR PETI TI ON ER
M I CH AEL F. HER TZ A ct i ng A s s i s t antA t t or neyG ener al , C i vi l D i vi s i on W I LLI AM C. PEACH EY A s s i s t antD i r ect or , O ffi ce of I m m i gr at i on L i t i gat i on J E M C. S P ONZ O ( AR GUE D) U
. S. D epart m entof J us t i ce O ffi ce of I m m i gr at i on L i t i gat i on P. O
. B ox 878, B en Fr ankl i n St at i on W as hi ngt on D
. C
. , 20044
AT T OR NE YS F OR RE S P ONDE NT

_____________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

_____________ A L D IS E R T , C ir c u it J u d g e .3 N evi l l e Sy l ves t erL es l i e pet i t i ons forr evi ew of a f i nal o rd e r of re m o v a l o f th e B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls (“ B o a rd ” ), ar g u in g th a t th e Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e ’s ( “ IJ” ) f a ilu re to advi s e hi m of the avai l abi l i t y of fr ee l egal s ervi ces , as r equi r ed under8 C
. F. R
. § 1240. 10( a) ( 2)

- ( 3) , ent i t l es h im to a new r emoval hear i ng und er U n it ed St at es ex r el

. A cca r di v. Shaughnes s y , 347 U
. S. 260 ( 1954)

. L es l i e addi ti o n al l yar gues t h a th i s s t a tu t o r y a n d d u e p r o c e s s r i g h t s w e r e v i o l a t e d b y a defi ci entN ot i ce t o A ppearfo r th e r emoval hear i ng. Fort he re a so n s th a t f

o llo w , w e w ill g ra n t th e p e tit io n f o r re v iew , v a c a te th e B o a rd ’s d e c is io n , a n d re m a n d f o r a n e w h e a ri n g . I. O n O ct ober 2 , 1 9 9 8 , L es l i e, a nat i ve and c i t i zen of Jam ai ca and a law ful perm anen tres i den tof the U nit ed S t at es, pl ed gui l t yt o t h e fe l onyoffe ns e of c ons pi r acyt o pos s es s and di s t r i but e 50 gr ams or m or e of “cr ack” coca i ne, i n vi ol at i on of 21 U
. S. C
. §§ 841( a) ( 1) and 8 4 6, and w as s ent ence d t o 168 m ont hs ’ i ncar cer at i on. W hil e s ervi ng hi s s ent ence , L es l i e w as i s s ued a N o t i ce t o A ppearbyt he D epart m entof H om el and S e c u r it y (“D e p a rtm e n t”) , ch a rg in g h im w ith b e in g su b jec t to r emoval under s ubs ect i ons 237( a) ( 2) ( A ) ( i i i ) ( aggr avat ed fe l ony convi ct i o n ) a n d 2 3 7 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( B) ( i ) ( c o n t r o l l ed s ubs t ance c o n v ic tio n ) o f th e Im m ig ra tio n a n d N a tio n a lity A c t ( “ IN A ” ), 8 U
. S. C
. § 1227( a) ( 2) ( A ) ( i i i ) & 1227( a) ( 2) ( B ) ( i )

. T he not i ce w as se n t o n F e b ru a ry 2 1 , 2 0 0 8 , b u t d id n o t in c lu d e th e tim e o r d a te of the hea r i ng. ( A pp. 131. ) T he not i ce r efe r r ed t o a “l i s tofIt is no t c lea r fro m th e re c o rd p re c ise ly w h e n L e slie 1 beca m e appr i s ed of the A pr i l 16 hear i ng. A ccor di ng t o t he G overnm ent , “[b] yvi rt u e of hi s det ent i on s t atus , [Lesl i e] w as c o n v e y e d to h is h e a rin g b e f o re th e im m ig ra tio n ju d g e o n A p ril 1 6 , 2 0 0 8 , a n d in f

o rm e d o f

th e n a tu re o f

th o s e p ro c e e d in g s .” (R e s p ’t B r. 1 3 .) 4 q u a lifie d a tto rn e y s a n d o rg a n iza tio n s w h o m a yb e a v a ilab le to r epre sen t y o u atno cos t , ” w hi ch w as t o be pr ovi ded w i t h the not i ce. A l t hough a che ckmar k appea r ed bes i de the box thatr ead “A t t ache d i s a l i s t of orga ni zat i ons and at t orney s w hi ch pr ovi de fr ee l egal s ervi ces , ” the l i s t does not appea ri n the admi ni s t r at i ve re c o rd . (A p p . 1 3 2 .) T he r ecor d cont ai ns a s econd not i ce, dat ed A pr i l 8, 2008. I ts t at es t he dat e, t i m e, and pl ace of Lesl ie’s re m oval hear i ng, butw as del i ver ed to “ Y or k I C E – C l i nt on” i n Y or k, Penns y l vani a. ( A pp. 129. ) T he “Legal Ser vi ces L i s t ” box i s not c h e c k e d . (A p p . 1 2 9 .) O n A p ril 8 , 2 0 0 8 , L e slie w a s s e rv in g h is cr i m i nal s ent ence atC l i nt on C o untyPr i s on i n M cEl hat t an, Pe nn s y l a nia. A c c or di ng t o Le s l i e , he w a s tr a ns po r t e d b yU
. S. I m m i gr at i on and C us t om s E nfor cementoffi cer s fr om C l i nt on C ount y Pr i s on t o Y or k C ount yPr i s on on A pr i l 15 or16, 2008. (A p p . 1 1 8 ; Pe t’ r B r. 7
. ) L esli e a p p ea red b ef o re a n IJ a t Y o rk C o u n ty P riso n o n A p ril 1 6 , 2 0 0 8
. W h e n th e IJ in q u ire d if L e slie 1 w a s s e e k i n g a n a t t o r n e y, h e r e p l i e d , “ I d o n ’ th a v e t h e m o n e y, Si r . ” ( A pp. 115. ) T he I J di d notexpl ai n t he ava i l abi l i t yof fr ee l egal r es our ces , nordi d he as cert ai n w hetherL es l i e had r ece i vedN otonl yi s t hi s m ani fes t ly incorr ect , butt he 2 G overnm ent ’ s fai l ure to as s i s tthe C our ti n eval uat i ng t he s peci fi cs of Pet i t i oner ’ s ar gum ent r equi r ed the C our tt o conduct a s peci al , s ear chi ng anal y s i s of Pet i t i oner ’ s cont ent i ons befor e, d u rin g an d afteroral argum ent. A s t o thatpo rt i on of R u le 31( a) ( 1) , Feder al R ul es of A ppel l at e Pr ocedur e, di r ect i ng an a p p e l l e e o r r e s p o n d e n t t o “ s e r v e a n d f i l e a b r i e f

w i t h i n 3 0 d a ys aft e ra p p e l l a n t ’ s [ o rp e t i t i o n e r ’ s ] b r i e f i s s e r v e d , ” we c o n s t r ue t he w ord “bri ef” t o require that the an sw eri ng bri ef ad dress everyr el evant , non- fr i vol ous i s s ue pre s ent ed byt he appe l l antor pet i t i oner . L i t i gant s s houl d al s o be mi ndful of the pr oper co n stru cti o n o f th is t erm w h en co n side ri n g R u le 31 (c)’s di r ect i ve thatan appe l l ee orr es pondent“w ho fai l s t o fi l e a br i ef 5 t he “Legal Ser vi ces L i s t
. ” T he I J or der ed Lesl i e r emoved as an a lie n c o n v i c t e d o f

a n a g g ra v a te d f

e lo n y . (A p p . 1 1 1 -1 1 3 .) L es l i e t i m el yappe aled t o the B oar d, w hi ch i s s ued a d e c is io n o n J u ly 1 1 , 2 0 0 8 , d is m is s in g h is a p p e a l. ( A p p . 1 3 -1 4 .) L es l i e fi l ed a pet i t i on for r evi ew i n our C our t on J ul y 21, 2008, a n d f i l e d a mo t i o n t o s t a yh i s r e mo v a l o n J u l y 2 4 , 2 0 0 8
. On A ugus t14 , 2008, t hi s C our tgr ant ed hi s r eques tfora s t ayof re m o v a l an d a p p o in ted h im c o u n se l. II. T he G o vernm ent ’ s s ol e ar gum enti s t hatw e l ack j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew L es l i e’ s pet i ti on underI N A s ect i on 242( a) ( 2) ( C ) , 8 U
. S. C
. § 1252( a) ( 2) ( C )

. W e di s agr ee. A l t hough 2w ill n o t b e h e a rd a t o ra l ar g u m e n t u n les s t h e c o u rt g ra n ts p e rm is s io n .” “I ti s w el l s et t l ed t hat an appel l ant ’ s fai l ur e t o i dent i fyor ar gue an i s s ue i n hi s openi ng br i ef c ons t i tut es w ai verof that i s s ue on appea l

. ” U ni t ed St at es v. Pel ul l o, 399 F. 3d 197, 222 ( 3d C i r . 2005)

. W e make cl earthatthe ans w er i ng par t y ’ s der el i c t i on, as her e, coul d notcons t i tut e a w ai verbec ause, i n t he fi nal anal y s i s , i ti s fort he C our tt o eval uat e the i s s ues p rese n ted by the a p p ell an t or p eti ti o n er. 6 8 U
. S. C
. § 1252( a) ( 2) ( C ) li m it s ourj ur i s di ct i on overfi nal deci s i ons o rde r i ng r emoval bas ed on the comm i s s i on of an a g g ra v a ted f

e lo n y o r a co n tro lled su b sta n c e o f f e n se , w e r e ta in j ur i s di ct i on overcons t i tut i onal cl ai m s and ques t i ons of l aw . See 8 U
. S .C
. § 1 25 2(a) (2) (D ); see al so P apag eorgi ou v. G on zal es, 413 F. 3d 356, 358 ( 3d C i r . 2005)

. L es l i e mount s a tw o- pr onged a ttac k o n h is rem o v a l h e a rin g . H e a rg u e s f irst th a t h is N o tice to A ppearw as defi ci entunder8 U
. S. C
. § 1229( a) ( 1) ( G ) ( i ) , ther eby deny i ng hi m a meani ngful opp o rt u n ityt o be hea r d. H e ar gues nextt hatt he I J ’ s fai l ur e t o i nform hi m of t he avai l abi l i t yof fr ee lega l service s, in v iolati o n o f 8 C
. F
. R
. § 1 2 4 0
. 1 0 (a)(2)-(3), depr i ved hi m bot h of hi s cons t i tut i onal r i ght t o due pr oces s and h is st atuto ryri g h t t o co u n sel u n d e r 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1 3 6 2
. L esli e’s ap p ea l prese n ts b o th a q u esti o n o f law – w h ethe r an IJ’s fa il u re to co m p lyw ith 8 C
. F
. R
. § 1 2 4 0 .1 0 (a )(2 )-( 3 ) i s g rou n d s fo r a n ew r emoval hear i ng under t he A cca r di doctr i ne, and a c o lo ra b le c o n stitu tio n a l cla im – w h e th e r h is re m o v a l o r d e r is7 i nval i d for i ns uffi ci ent not i ce unde rt he D ue Pr oces s C l aus e and 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 9 (a )(1 )(G )(i). W e h a v e ju risd icti o n o v e r b o th claim s pur s uantt o 8 U
. S. C
. § 1252( a) ( 2) ( D ) , and w e r evi ew bot h i s s u e s d e n o v o , Pa t e l v . As h c r o f t , 2 9 4 F. 3 d 4 6 5 , 4 6 7 ( 3d C ir

. 2 0 0 2 ) (sup erse d ed b ystatu te on o ther g rou n d s). III
. A. W e fi r s taddr es s L es l i e’ s co n te nt i on thathi s r emoval or deri s i nval i d beca us e the I J fai l ed t o compl y w i t h r egul at i ons p ro m u lg a ted b yth e A tto rn e yG e n e ra l to p ro tec t h is rig h t to couns el

. I n par t i cul ar , L es l i e cont ends t hatt he I J vi ol at ed 8 C. F. R. § 1 2 4 0
. 1 0 ( a ) ( 2 )

- ( 3 ) , whi c h d i r e c t s t h a t “ [ i ] n a r emoval pr ocee d ing , t he i m m i gr at i on j udge s hal l ” “[ a] dvi s e the r es pondentof the ava i l abi l i t y of fr ee l egal s ervi ces pr ovi ded by or gani zat i ons and att orney s . . . l ocat ed i n the di s t r i ctw her e the r e mov a l h e a r i n g i s b e i n g h e l d ” a n d s h a l l “ [ a ] s c e r t a i n t h a tt he r es p o n d e n th a s r e c e i v e d a l i s to f s u c h p r o g r a ms [
. ] ” Al t h o u gh al l egat i ons of due pr oces s vi ol at i on s m us tor di nar i l ybe a c c o m p a n ie d b y “ a n in itia l s h o w in g o f s u b s ta n tia l p re

ju d ic e ,” K han v. A t t ’ yG en. , 448 F. 3d 226, 236 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( ci t at i on and qu otat i on m arks om i t t ed), L esl i e con t end s that these pr oce dur al r i ght s ar e pr ot ect ed bythe Fi fth A m endmentand t hat , underA cca r di , 347 U
. S. 260, he nee d nots how pr ej udi ce to inv ali d ate h is r em o v al ord er. I t i s u n d is p u ted th at th e IJ vi ol at ed 8 C

. F. R
. § 124 0
. 1 0 ( a) ( 2)

- ( 3) w hen he fa i l ed to adv i seT h e G o v ern m en t m ak es n o a rg u m en t th at th e IJ 3 compl i ed w i t h t he r egul at i on i n ques t i on. N onethel es s , w e have rev iew ed the r ecor d and w e conc l ude thatt he s um t ot al of the I J ’ s col l oquy w i t h L es l i e r egar di ng hi s r i ghtt o couns el i s as foll ow s: Q
. “M r . L es l i e, y ou have a r i g h t t o be re p re se n ted b ya n a tto rn e ya t n o e x p e n se to t he U ni t ed St at es G overnm ent
. I f y ou w ant a l aw y er , y ou m us tfi nd t he att orney y our s el f. T he C our tm aynotbyl aw appoi nt an att orneyfory ou. D o y ou under s t and?” A
. “Y es . ” Q. “ Ar e y o u s e e k i n g a n a t t o r n e y ?” A
. “I don’ thave the money , Si r . ” Q
. “A l l r i ght

. D o y o u w antt o pr ocee d and a n s werq u e s t i o n s o f

th e Cou r tt o d a y ?” A
. “Y eah, beca us e I , I – I ’ d become a N a tio n a l in th is c o u n tr y .” (A p p . 1 1 5 .) 8 L es l i e of the ava i l abi l i t yof f re e leg a l se rv ice s a n d n e g lec ted to con fi rm L esl i e’s recei pt of the l i stof these program s. W e m ust 39 now deci de w hetherthe vi ol at i on of thi s r eg u l at i on ent i t l es L es l i e t o a new r emoval hear i ng w i t hout a s how i ng of pr ej udi ce. B. W e begi n w i t h the l ong- s ett l ed pr i nci pl e th atrul es pr om ul gat ed bya fe der al agenc ythatr egul at e the r i ght s and in ter e sts o f

o th e rs a re c o n tro lli n g u p o n th e a g e n c y . C o lu m b ia B roa d

. S y s. , Inc
. v . U n it ed S ta te s , 3 1 6 U
. S
. 4 0 7 , 4 2 2 (19 4 2 ). T h is d o c trin e w a s f

irst a p p lied in a n im m ig ra tio n c a se in A cca r di , w her e the Supr eme C our tvaca t ed a r emoval or derof t he B oar d beca us e the p roc ed u r es l eadi ng t o the or derdi d not conform t o t he appl i cabl e r egul at i ons . A cca r di , 347 U
. S. at268. T he B oar d, appoi nt ed by t he A t t orney G ener al , oper at ed under r egul at i ons pr om ul gat ed by t he A t t orneyG ener al t hatpr ovi ded, i n par t , t hat t he B oar d “s hal l exer ci s e such di s cr et i on and pow er confe r r ed upon the A tt o rne y G ener al byl aw . ” I d. at266 ( quot i ng appl i cabl e r egul at i ons )

. T he pet i t i oner al l eged t hatthe A tto rn e yG e n e ra l h a d c ir c u la te d a lis t o f “ u n s a v o ry c h a ra c te rs ,” i n clud ing A cca r di , w ho the B oar d t hen s um m ar i l yr emoved w i t houtexer ci s e of i t s di s cr et i on. T he Supr eme C our thel d that as l ong as t he r egul at i o n g rant i ng t he B oar d br oad di s cr et i on r emai ned oper at i ve, t he A t t orney G ener al coul d nots i des t ep the B oar d ordi ct at e i t s deci s i on i n an y m an ner . I d. at266- 267. W i t houtr equi r i ng t he pet i t i oner t o s how pr ej udi ce, t he A cca r di C our tr ever s ed, hol di ng t hatA cca r di w as ent i t l ed t o a new hear i ng befor e the B oar d i f he c oul d pr ove hi s al l egat i ons i n t he d is tr ic t c o u rt . S e e id . a t 2 6 8
.10 A f terA c c a rd i, th e C o u rt c o n tin u e d to re q u ire a g e n c ies to com p l yw i t h t hei rpr om ul gat ed r egul at i ons , w i t houtr equi r i ng peti t i on ers t o m ake a show i ng of p rej ud i ce. In Servi ce v. D ull es, 354 U
. S. 363 ( 1957) , the C our ti nval i dat ed a F o rei gn Ser vi ce O ffi cer ’ s nat i onal s ecur i t ydi s char ge bec aus e the D epart m entof St at e fa i l ed t o com p lyw i t h r egul at i ons gr ant i ng pr ocedur al s afe guar ds

. A cknow l edgi ng thatt he Secr et aryof St at e w as not req u ir ed to ad o p t the re g u lat ion s in q u esti o n , the C o u rt nonethel es s hel d t hat , “havi ng done s o he coul d not , s o l ong as th e R e g u latio n s re m a in e d u n c h a n g e d , p ro c e e d w ith o u t re g a rd to t h em . ” Id. at388. T her e w as no di s cus s i on of pr ej udi ce t o the t erm i nat ed empl oy ee. I d. at 389. T w o y ear s l at er , i n V i t ar el l i v. Seat on, 359 U
. S. 535, 539- 540 ( 1959) , t he C our tdemanded t hat t he D epart m ent of t he I nt er i oradher e t o i t s empl oy ee- di s char ge proced ures w hen t erm i nati ng an em ploy ee on l o y a ltygroun ds, even tho u gh t he Secr et arycoul d have di s m i s s ed the empl oy ee s um m ar i l yon non- l oy al t ygr ounds

. T he C our tor der ed the pet i t i onerr ei ns t at ed w i t hout a s how i ng of pr ej udi ce. I d. at546. T h en , in Y ell in v

. U n it ed S tat es, 3 7 4 U
. S
. 1 0 9 (19 6 3 ), the C o u rt h e ld th a t th e f

a ilu re o f a H o u se C o m m itt e e to c o m p ly w ith its ow n rul e – r equi r i ng the C om m i t t ee to co n side rharm t o t he w i t nes s ’ s r eput at i on w hen dec i di ng whe th e rt o h o l da n exec ut i ve s es s i on – excus ed the w i t nes s ’ s r efus al t o ans w erques t i ons . I d. at123- 124. W it h n o di s cus s i on of pr ej udi ce, nors how i ng of pr ej u d i ce a ppar enton t he r ecor d, the C our thel d t hatthe C o m m itt e e ’s f

a ilu re to c o m p ly w ith its o w n ru le w o u ld cons t i tut e an a ffi r m ati ve def ens e t o t he cha r ge of c r i m i nal cont empt
. I d.11 I n A m er i can F arm L i nes v. B l ack Bal l Fr ei ghtSer vi ce, 3 9 7 U
. S
. 5 3 2 (19 7 0 ), h o w ev er, the C o u rt clarified th at no t eve ry pr om ul gat ed regul at i on i s of s uch a na tur e thata vi ol at i on s houl d i nval i d ate a g en cyac ti o n . T h ere , the C o u rtsh arp lyli m it ed a p p lica tio n o f

th e A c c a rd i d o c trin e w h e n it i m p o se d a n e x p licit pr ej udi ce r equi rem entt o s us t ai n an I nt er s t at e C om m er ce C o m m i s s i o n ( “ I C C ” ) a w a r d o f t e m p o r a r y o p e r a t i n g a u t h o r i t y, not w i thst andi ng t he I C C ’ s fai l ur e t o compl yw i t h r egul at i ons r equi r i ng appl i cant s t o document eff or t s t o obt ai n s ervi ce f

r om o th e r c a rrie rs. Id . at 5 3 8
. D istin g u ish in g A c c a rd i an d V itare lli , the C o u rtch ara cterized the re g u la tio n at i ssu e a s a m ere “p roc edur al rul e[] adopt ed fort he or der l yt r ans act i on of b u s in e s s” in o rd e r to “ a id th e C o m m iss io n in e x e rc isin g its di s cr e t i o n , ” r a t h e rt h a n a ru l e “ i n t e n d e d p r i ma r i l yt o c o n fer i m por t ant pr ocedur al benef i t s upon i ndi v[i ] dual s i n t he fa ce of unfett er ed di s cr et i on. ” I d. at538- 539 ( quot at i on and ci t at i on om i t t ed)

. A ppl y i ng t he “ge ner al pr i nci pl e” thatan age ncym ay al w ay s r el ax i t s ow n “pr ocedur al rul es , ” the C our thel d thatt he act i on w as “notr evi ew abl e exc eptupon a s how i ng of s ub s t ant i al pr ej udi ce t o t he compl ai ni ng par t y . ” I d. at538, 539. C our t s have t aken di ver s e appr oache s t o r econc i l i ng t he t e n s i o n b e t we e n Ame r i c a n F a r m Li ne s a n d Ac c a r d i , s o me i m pos i ng exp li ci tpr ej udi ce r equi r ement s , s ee, e. g. , U ni t ed St at es v. C al der on- M edi na, 591 F. 2d 529, 531 ( 9th C i r . 1 9 79) (“ V io latio n o f

a re g u latio n re n d e rs a d e p o rta tio n u n law f u l o n ly if t he vi ol at i on pr ej udi ced i nt er es t s of t he al i en w hi ch w ere pr ot ect ed byt he r egul at i on. ”) , and other s expl i ci t l yr ejec t i ng a12 pr ej udi ce r equi r ement , s ee, e. g. , M ont i l l a v. I N S, 926 F. 2d 162, 169 ( 2d C i r . 1991) (“F o rthes e r eas ons , w e hol d t hatan al i en cl ai m i ng t he I N S has fai le d t o adher e t o i t s ow n r egul at i ons r egar di ng the ri g htt o couns el i n a deport at i on hear i ng i s not re q u ire d to m a k e a sh o w in g o f p re ju d ice b e f

o re h e is e n tit led to re lief.”). T h e re q u ire m e n t v e l n o n o f p re ju d ice is a t ti m e s s im p ly announce d t hr ough j udi ci al fi atand att i m es expl i ci t l yr eas oned, bas ed oft en on t he natur e of the r i ghti m pl i cat ed bythe r egul at i on. See, e. g. , W i l s on v. C om m ’ r of Soc. Sec. , 378 F. 3d 541, 547 ( 6t h C i r . 2004) (r ecogni zi ng di s t i nct i on betw een regul at i on s that con fer i m po rt ant pr oced ural ben efi t s and those adopt ed mer el yf

o ri n t e rn a l oper at i ng pr ocedur es ) ; L opez v. Fed. A v iatio n A d m in ., 3 1 8 F .3 d 2 4 2 , 2 4 7 (D .C . C ir. 2 0 0 3 ) (“ [ T ]h is cour t has been car eful t o di s t i ngui s h betw een pr oced u ral rul es benef i t t i ng t he age ncy( A m er i can Farm L i nes ) an d pr ocedur al rul es benef

i t t i ng t he par t y otherw i s e l eft unpr ot ect ed byagenc y rul es ( V i t ar el l i ) , as w el l as cas es i n w hi ch the age ncy has fai l ed to ex erc ise d iscreti o n req u ir ed b yit s reg u lat ion s (A cc ard i)

. ”); M ar t i nez- C amar go v. I N S, 282 F. 3d 487, 491 (7th C i r . 2002) ( adopt i ng pr ej udi ce s t andar d beca us e i t “ s t r i kes the pr oper bal ance betw een r ecogni zi ng the nee d foradmi ni s t r at i ve agenc i es t o fol l ow t hei r ow n rul es w i t h the pr act i cal r eal i t yt hat noteveryagenc yvi ol at i on i m pact s an al i en’ s s ubs t ant i ve ri g h ts”). T h is C o u rt h as ne v er ex p li cit ly fo rm u lat ed a f ram ew o rk fordet erm i ni ng w hen j udi ci al r el i ef f ora r egul at oryvi ol at i on m us tbe pr emi s ed upon a s how i ng of pr ej udi ce. See Ponce- L ei va13 v . A s h c ro f

t, 3 3 1 F .3 d 3 6 9 , 3 8 5 ( 3 d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) ( R e n d e ll, J ., di s s e nt i ng )

. W e l a s t a dd r e s s e d thi s qu e s t i on i n Chon g v . I N S, 264 F. 3d 378, 389 ( 3d C i r . 2001) , w her e w e r equi r ed the pet i t i onert o s how pr ej udi ce t o obt ai n a new rem o v al hear i ng bas ed on the IJ ’ s vi ol at i on of 8 C

. F. R
. § 3. 7, w hi ch r equi r es an I J ’ s N ot i ce of

C er t i fi cat i on t o the B oar d t o i nform par t i es t hat t heyhave the r i ghtt o m ake r epr es ent at i ons befor e the B oar d. W e c h a ra c ter ize d 8 C .F .R . § 3 .7 a s p ro c e d u ra l an d a g re e d w ith t he C our tof A ppeal s forthe Second C i r cui t t hatthe r egul at i on w as “‘ notgr ounded i n an y u n d erly ing f undament al cons t i tut i onal ors t atut oryr i ght

. ’ ” I d. at390 ( quot i ng W al dr on v . IN S , 1 7 F
. 3 d 5 1 1 , 5 1 8 (2d C ir

. 1 9 9 3 ))

. T h e W aldro n co u rt carved out a new rul e for r i ght s t hat ar e “mer el yp rov is i ons cr eat ed byagenc yr egulati ons , ” W al dr on, 17 F. 3d at518, by es t abl i s hi ng an expl i ci tfr amew or k fordet erm i ni ng w hen re g u lato ryv io latio n s a re re v e rsib le e rro r: [ W ] h e n a re g u latio n is p ro m u lg a ted to p ro tec t a fundament al r i ghtderi ved fr om t he C ons t i tut i on o r a f e d e ra l sta tu te, an d th e IN S f a ils to a d h e re to it, th e c h a llen g e d d e p o rt a ti o n p ro c e e d in g is i nval i d and a r eman d to the agenc yi s r equi r ed. T hi s ma ywel l b e s o e v e n whe n th e r e g u l a t i on r equi r es m or e than w oul d t he s peci f i c p r ovi s i on of t he C ons t i tut i on or s t atut e t hat i s t he s our ce of the r i ght

. O n t he otherhand, w her e an I N S r egul at i on does notaff

ectfu n d ament al r i ght s der i ved fr om th e C o n stitu tio n o r a f

e d e ra l sta tu te, w e b e liev e itW e m u st ta k e th is o p p o rtu n ityto re c tifya m ista k e in 4 Ch o n g , wh e r e we d i r e c t l y q u o t e a n e r r o n e o u s s t a t e me n tf r o m a Four t h C i r cui tcas e – M or gan. See C hong, 264 F. 3d at389- 90 ( quot i ng U n it ed S tat es v . M o rga n , 1 9 3 F
. 3 d 2 5 2 , 2 6 6 (4th C ir

. 1 9 9 9 )). W e sta ted in C h o n g : A l t hough t he A cca r di doctr i ne or i gi nal l ycont emplat ed t hatan age ncy ’ s fai l ur e t o compl yw i t h i t s ow n rul es a u t o ma t i c a l l ywo u l d nul l i f yi t s a c t i o n s , t h e S u p r e me C o u rt sin c e h a s “ re q u ire d th a t cla im a n ts d e m o n stra te prej ud i ce res ult i ng from t he viol at i on un l ess ‘ [t ] he rul es w er e noti nt ended pr i m ar i l y to confe ri m por t ant pr ocedur al benef

i t s upon ind i vi dual s i n t he fa ce of ot herw i s e unfe t t er ed di s cr et ion’ orunl es s ‘ an age ncy r equi r ed byrul e t o exer ci s e i ndepende ntdi s cr et i on has f a i l e d t o d o s o . ’ ” M o r g a n , 1 9 3 F
. 3 d a t 2 6 7 ( q u o t i n g Am. F arm L ines v . B lack B all F reigh t Se rv . , 3 9 7 U
. S
. 532, 5 3 8 -39 (19 7 0 )).
14 is b e st to in v a lid a te a c h a llen g e d p ro c e e d in g o n ly upon a s how i ng o f pre

j udi ce t o t he r i ght s s ought t o be pr ot ect ed bythe s ubj ectr egul at i on. Id. (cit ati o n o m itted). C hong s t ands forth e p rop os i t i on thata vi ol at i on of a r egul at i on t hat does not pr ot ect fundament al cons t i tut i onal or s t atu tory ri ght s i s r ever s i bl e err oronl yw i t h a s how i ng of p r e j u d i c e . S e e C h o n g , 2 6 4 F
. 3 d a t 3 8 9

- 3 9 0
. A l t h o u g h we

4I d. (em ph ases added ). T he M o rgan case’ s fi rs tuse of “un l ess” r ender s i t s char act er i zat i on o f the A m er i can Farm L i nes l ang u age err oneous . U nderA m er i can Farm L i nes , 397 U
. S. at 538- 539, rul es i nt ended t o pr ovi de “pr ocedur al benef it s upon i ndi v[i ] dual s i n t he fa ce of ot herw i s e unfe t t er ed di s cr et i on” ca n be “ e x e mpt
. . . f

r o m t h e g e n e r a l p r i n c i p l e ” th a ta p r ej udi ce s how i ng i s r equi r ed. T he ca s e A m erican Far m L i nes ci t es for thi s proposi t i on , V i t arel l i , 35 9 U
. S
. 53 5, con fi rm s this i nt erpr et at i on. A s pr evi ous l ydi s cus s ed, i n V i t ar el l i , pr ocedur al rul es forfede r al agenc ydi s char ge pr ocee di ngs w er e vi ol at ed. O r di nar i l y , t he age ncyh ad u n fett er ed di s cr et i on t o di s char ge empl oy ees ; how ever , t he age n cy had i ns t i tut ed “pr ocedur al safegu ards” w here the ag ency ’s reas on for d isc harge w as a conce r n for na t i onal s ecur i t y . I d. at540. G i ven the ci r cumst ance s , t he C our ts t at ed t hat “s crupul ous obs ervance of depart m ent al pr ocedur al s afe guar ds i s cl ear l yof part i cul ar i m por t ance . ” I d. T he C our tdi d notm ent i on anypr ej udi ce r equi r ement , but i ns t ead hel d t hat t he em pl oy ee’ s di s m i s s al for n ati o n a l secu ri tyrea so n s w as il lega l give n the a g en cy ’s p ro c e d u ra l v io la tio n s . Id . a t 5 4 5
. 15 m i ght i nfer t hat C hong adopt ed t he compl et e fr amew ork set for th byt he Second C i r cui t i n W al dr on v. I N S, w e bel i eve that C h o n g c a n n o t se rv e a s a c lea r-c u t p re c e d e n t f o r c a se s in th is C our tw here the vi ol at i on of the r egul at i on i m pi nges on fundament al r i g h ts der i ved fr om the C ons t i tut i on ora fe der al s t atut e, beca use itconce i vabl ym i ghtbe cons i der ed obi t er d ictu m . N o n e th e les s, C h o n g is a n im p o rta n t ste p p in g sto n e in16 th e d e v e lo p m e n t o f

th e law , an d it e n c o u ra g e s u s in th is c a se to form ul at e a fr amew or k t o s erve as gui dance on the nec es s i t yof p roo f o f p rejud ice v el no n in b o th circu m stan ce s, to w it , w h ere an age ncyr egul at i on ( 1) is n otgr ounded i n anyunder l y i ng f u n d a m e n tal c o n s titu tio n a l o r sta tu to ryrig h t an d (2 ) a f f e c ts fundament al r i ght s der i ved fr om the C ons t i tut i on ora fe der al s t atut e. T he t eac hi ngs of C hong have furni s hed the ans w ert o the fi r s ts etof ci r cumst ance s . T he r es ol ut i on of thi s cas e r equi r es us t o furni s h t he ans w ert o the s econd. W e ar e p ers uaded by W a ld ro n , an d h o ld th a t v io latio n s o f re g u latio n s p ro m u lg a ted to pr ot ectfundame n t a l s t a tu t oryorcons t i tut i onal r i ght s need notbe ac co m pani ed bya s how i ng of pr ej udi ce t o w arr antj udi ci al r el i ef. W e bel i eve thatt hi s rul e compor ts w i t h A cca r di and A m er i can Farm L i nes . A cca r di t eac hes that s o me reg u la tory v io latio n s a re so se rio u s a s to b e re v e rsib le e rro r w ith o u t a s how i ng of pr ej udi ce, and A m er i can Farm L i nes , 397 U
. S at 539, exempt s fr om t hi s pr i nci p l e thos e pr ocedur al r egul at i ons “ado pted for the o rder l yt ransact i on of b usi ness.” W i t h these pr ece pt s i n m i nd, w e bel i eve a pr ej udi ce rul e thatdi s t i ngui s hes betw een r egul at i ons gr ounded i n fundament al cons t i tut i onal or s t atut or y r i ght s and age ncy - cr eat ed bene fi t s s ucce s s ful l ycarves o u t th e p roc ed u ral reg u la ti o n s ex em p ted b yA m erican F arm L ines w h il e h o n o ri n g A cc ard i’ s insist en ce that so m e re g u lat o ry viol at i on s ar e so ser i ou s as t o m eri t j ud i ci al rel i ef. W e agree al so t ha t , a b s e n tp r e

j u d i c e , whe n a v i o l a t i o n o f i mmi g r at i on re g u latio n s im p lica tes les s th a n f u n d a m e n tal rig h ts, w h o les a le17 re m a n d p lac e s a n “ u n w a rra n ted a n d p o ten ti a llyu n w o rk a b le b u rd e n o n th e a g e n c y ’s a d ju d ic a ti o n o f

im m ig ra tio n c a s e s .” W al dr on, 17 F. 3d at518. W e tak e a d d it ion al gu idan ce f ro m S u p rem e C o u rt t eac hi ngs empha sizi n g the i m port ance of the r ootof the r egul at i on i n ques t i on w hen det erm i ni ng appr op r i at e j udi ci al r el i ef f orr egul at or yvi ol at i ons . I n M or t on v. R ui z, 415 U
. S. 199, 2 3 5 (1 9 7 4 ), th e C o u rt re q u ire d th e B o a rd o f In d ian A f

f a irs to compl yw i t h i t s ow n i nt ernal pr ocedur es r equi ri n g publ i cat i on o f a ll d ir ec ti v es re g ard ing assistan ce -eli g ibil ityreq u ir em en ts. In so d o in g , th e C o u rt n o ted th a t “ [ w ]h e re th e rig h ts o f in d iv id u a ls a r e a f f e c t e d , i ti s i n c u mb e n t u p o n a g e n c i e s t o f o l l o w th e i ro wn p roc edur es . T hi s i s s o even w her e the i nt ernal pr ocedur es are pos s i bl ym or e r i gor ous than otherw i s e w oul d be r equi r ed. ” I d. ( cit ing D ul l es , 354 U
. S. at388, and V i t ar el l i , 359 U
. S. at539- 540)

. T he C our t l at er obs erved i n U ni t ed St at es v. C ace r es , 440 U
. S. 741, 749 ( 1979) , t hat“[a ] cour t ’ s dutyt o enfor ce a n agenc y r egul at i on i s m os tevi dentw hen compl i ance w i t h t he r egul at i on i s m andat ed byt he C ons t i tut i on orfede r al l aw . ” O urrul e, di sp en s i ng w i t h t he pr ej udi ce r equi r ementforvi ol at i ons of reg u lat ion s tha t p rotec t fu n d am en tal co n sti tuti o n al or statutory rig h ts, c o m p o rts w ith b o th M o rto n ’s f o c u s o n in d iv id u a l rig h ts a n d Ca c e r e s ’ s a c k n o wl e d g m entthatr egul at i ons m andat ed bythe C ons t i tut i on orfede r al l aw comm and s t r i ctcompl i ance . A d d iti o n a lly , w e n o te th a t o u r sis ter C o u rts o f A p p e a ls h a v e g e n e r a l l yr e q u i r e d s t r i c t e rc o mpl i a n c e wi t h r e g u l a t i ons18 bor n of s t atut or y or cons t i tut i onal r i ght s . See B att l e v. FA A , 393 F. 3d 1330, 1336 ( D
. C
. C i r . 2005) ( “‘ [A ] court ’ s dut yt o enfor ce an age ncyr egul at i on[, w hi l e] m os tevi dentw hen compl i ance w i t h t he reg u lat i on i s m andat ed byt he C ons t i tut i on orfede r al l aw , ’ em braces as w el l agen cyregul at i on s th atare notso r equi r ed. ” ( quot i ng C ace res, 440 U
. S. at749) ( quot at i on and cit ati o n o m itted); W aldro n v . IN S , 1 7 F
. 3 d 5 1 1 , 5 1 8 (2 d C ir

. 1993); A rza ni pourv. I N S, 866 F. 2d 743, 746 ( 5th C i r . 1989) (“ T h e f a ilu re o f a n a g e n c yto f

o llo w its o w n re g u latio n s is n o t, h o w e v e r, a p e r se d e n ial o f d u e p ro c e ss u n les s th e re g u latio n is r equi r ed byt he cons t i tut i on ora s t atut e. ”)

. T hi s rul e bal ance s t he i nher entt ens i on betw een the w el l

- est ab li s hed def er ence due admi ni s t r at i ve agenci es , s ee, e. g. , C hevr on v. N atur al R es . D ef. Cou n c i l , I n c . , 4 6 7 U. S. 8 3 7 ( 1 9 8 4 ) , a n d j u d i c i a l o v e r s i g h tof agency i m pl ement at i on of r egul at i ons . “[A ] n admi ni s t r at i ve agenc yi s nota s l ave o f it s rul es , ” Sun O i l C o. v. Fed. Pow er C om m ’ n, 256 F. 2d 233, 239 ( 5th C i r . 1958) , but “[t ] he not i on of fai rpl ayani m at i ng [the Fi fth A m endment ] pr ecl udes an age ncy fr om pr om u lgating a r egul at i on aff ect i ng i ndi vi dual l i ber t yor i nt er es t , w hi ch the rul e- m aker m ay t hen w i t h i m puni t yi gnor e or d isr egar d as i ts ees fi t
. ” M ont i l l a, 926 F. 2d at164. W e bel i eve t hata rul e di s t i ngui s hi ng r egul at ory r i ght s t hat ar e s t atut or i l yor cons t i tut i onal l ygr ounded fr om thos e thatar e born pur el yof re g u la tio n s c o m p o rt s w ith th e s e p re c e p ts
. Al t h o u g h we a g r e e t h a tp r e j u d i c e n e e d n o tb e s h o wn w hen al l eged r egul at oryvi ol at i ons i m pl i cat e funda m ent al s t atut or yorcons t i tu t i o nal r i ght s , w e r ej ectL es l i e’ s as s ert i on t hat19 t he pr opers t andar d i s set for t h i n M ont i l l a, 926 F. 2d at169, w her e the C our tof A ppeal s fort he Second Ci r cui thel d thatan a lien a lleg in g a re g u lato ry v io latio n b y th e IN S n e e d sh o w o n ly t hatt he s ubj ectr egul at i on w as fort he al i en’ s benef i t and t hatt he I N S fai l ed t o compl yw i t h i t
. L es l i e fa i l s t o not e that , j us tfour y ear s aft er M ont i l l a, t he cour ti n W al dr on, 17 F. 3d 511, eff ect ed an af fi r m at i ve r etr eatfr om t he s t r ong l anguage in M ont i l l a, l i m i t i ng t hat ca se “to i t s expr es s t erm s . ” I d. at517. W al dr on decl ar ed thatM ont i l l a “maynotbe i nt erpr et ed as s ugges t i ng an abs ol ut e ‘ no pr ej udi ce’ s t andar d w henev era cha l l enged r egul at i on i s for t he benefi t of an al i en. A nys uch i nt erpr et at i on i s unw arr ant ed gi ven the l i m i t ed hol di ng i n M o nt i l l a. ” I d. ( emphasi s i n or i gi nal ) ( quot at i on m arks om i t t ed)

. A l t hough a su b seq u en t case , P icca v . M u k ase y , 5 1 2 F
. 3 d 7 5 (2d C ir

. 2 0 0 8 ), r el i ed hea vi l yon M ont i l l a’ s l anguage , w e ar e unper s uaded that Pi cca r es t or ed M ont i l l a’ s fr amew or k. T he Pi cca courtappl i ed M ont i l l a’ s appr oach onl yaft erdet erm i ni ng t hatt he r i ghtati s s ue conce r ned “f

undamen tal n ot i ons of fa i rpl ayunder l y i ng the conce ptof due pr oces s , ” and not i ng W al dr on’ s concl us i on that an al i en’ s r i ght t o couns el “der i ve[s ] fr om t he Si xth A m endment r i ghtt o couns el i n cr i m i nal cas es and the Fi fth A m endmentr i ght t o due pr ocess in civi l cas es . ” I d. at78 ( quot i ng M ont i l l a, 926 F
. 2 d at 16 7 , an d W aldro n , 1 7 F
. 3 d at 51 7 ). Fort he s ake of

emphasi s w e r epea t : w e hol d thatw hen an agenc ypr om ul gat es a r egul at i on pr ot ect i ng fundament al sta tu to ryo r c o n stitu tio n a l rig h ts o f p a rties a p p e a rin g b e f

o re it, th e a g e n c ym u st c o m p lyw ith th a t re g u latio n . F a ilu re to c o m p ly20 w i l l m er i ti nval i dat i on of the cha l l enged agenc yact i on w i t hout re g a rd to w h e th e r th e a lleg e d v io latio n h a s s u b sta n tially p re ju d ic e d th e c o m p la in in g p a rt y . C. W e tu r n n o w t o t h e q u e s t i o n wh e t h e rr e g u l a t i o n 8 C. F
. R. § 1 2 4 0 .1 0 (a )(2 )-(3 ), w h ich w a s in d isp u tab lyv io late d in th is c a se , p ro tec ts a f

u n d a m e n tal s tatu to ryo r c o n stitu tio n a l rig h t, su c h th a t w e m a yo rd e r a n e w re m o v a l p ro c e e d in g w ith o u t a show i ng of p rej ud i ce. W e ho l d thati tdo es. R egul at i on 8 C
. F. R
. § 1240. 10( a) ( 2)

- ( 3) r equi r es t hat

“ [ i]n a re m o v a l p r o c e e d in g , the im m ig ra tio n ju d g e sh a ll” “[a ] dvi s e the r es pondentof t he avai l abi l i t yof fr ee l egal s ervi ces pr ovi ded byor gani zat i ons and att orney s . . . l ocat ed i n t he di s t r i ctw her e the r emoval hear i ng i s bei ng hel d [,]” and “[a ] s cert ai n t hatt he r es pondent h as r ece i ved a l i s tof s uch pr ogr ams[. ] ” 8 C
. F. R
. § 1240. 10( a) ( 2)

- ( 3)

. T hi s r egul at i on der i ves fr om 8 U
. S. C
. § 1362, w hi ch pr ovi des t hat“[i ] n any r emoval pr ocee di ngs befor e an i m m i gr at i on j udge .

. . J une 21, 2010, t he per s on conce r ned s hal l have t he pr i vi l ege o f b ei ng r epr es ent ed ( atno expens e t o the G overnm ent ) bys uch couns el . . . a s h e s h a ll c h o o s e .” It is a l s o m a n d a t e d b y8 U .S .C . § 1229a( b) ( 4)(A ), w h ich c o m m an d s the A tt o rne yG en era l t o adopt r egul at i ons ens ur i ng t hatan ali en “s hal l have the pr i vi l ege of bei ng r epr es ent ed, atno expens e t o the G overnm ent , bycouns el of the al i en’s c h o o s i ng w ho i s author i zed t o pr act i ce i n s uch21 pr ocee di ngs . ” I ti s pl ai n tha t8 C
. F. R
. § 1240. 10( a) ( 2)

- ( 3) pr ot ect s an al i en’ s r i ghtt o couns el atr emoval hear i ngs , w h i ch is m a n if e stlya sta tu to ryrig h t. T his st atutoryand regul at oryri gh tt o co u n sel i s al so d e riv a tiv e o f

th e d u e p r o c e ss rig h t to a f u n d a m e n tallyf

a ir h ea ri n g . S ee B o rge s v . G o n za les, 4 0 2 F
. 3 d 3 9 8 , 4 0 8 (3d C ir

. 2005) ; I avor s ki v. I N S, 232 F. 3d 124, 128 ( 2d C i r . 2000) ( not i ng t hatt he “s t atut or y r i ght [of al i ens ] t o be r epr es ent ed bycouns el att hei row n expens e” i s “an i nt egr al par t of t he pr ocedur al due proc es s t o w hi ch the al i en i s ent i t l ed” ( quot at i on and ci t at i on om i t t ed) ) ; s ee a l s o W al dr on, 17 F. 3d at 517. A l i ens i n r emoval proceed i ng s ar e enti t l ed to Fifth A m end m ent D ue P rocess pr ot ect i on, w hi ch guar ant ees t hem a fundam ent al l yfai rr emoval hear ing

. S ee X u Y ong L u v. A s hcr oft , 259 F. 3d 127, 131 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ; s ee al s o D akane v. A t t ’ y G en. , 399 F. 3d 1269, 1273 ( 1 1 t h Ci r . 2 0 0 5 ) ; Ro s a l e s v . Bu r e a u o f I mmi g r a t i o n & Cu s t o ms E nfor cement , 426 F. 3d 733, 736 ( 5th C i r . 2005)

. A pr ocee di ng m aybe funda m ent all y u n fai ri f an a l i en i s pr event ed fr om r eas onabl ypr es ent i ng hi s cas e, B ernal

- V al l ej o v. I N S, 195 F. 3d 56, 63 ( 1s t C i r . 1999) , and w e have hel d t hatt he r i ghtt o couns el i s “s o fundament al t o t he pr ocee di ng’ s fai rnes s thata deni al of th a t r ig h t c o u ld ri s e to th e le v e l o f f u n d a m e n ta l u n f

a ir n e s s .” U n it ed S tat es v . C h arlesw ell , 4 5 6 F
. 3 d 3 4 7 , 3 6 0 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 6 ). T herefore, al t ho ug h the Fifth A m end m ent does no tm a n d a te gover nm en t
- a p p oi nt ed couns el for al i ens at r emoval pr ocee di ngs , i ti ndi s put abl yaff or ds an al i en the r i ght t o couns el of hi s orherow n choi ce a thi s orherow n expens e. B or ges , 402S e e a ls o 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 8 2 (a )( 9 )( A )( iii) ; 8 C .F .R . § 5 2 1 2 .2 (a ) (p ro v id in g th a t A tto rn e yG e n e ra l m a yc o n se n t to rea d m issi o n tw en tyy ea rs af ter ag g ra v ated -fe lon yrem o v al).
22 F. 3d at408; s ee a l s o, e. g. , B r ow n v. A s hcr oft , 360 F. 3d 346, 352 n. 5 ( 2d C i r . 2004) ; B al t aza r - A l caz arv. I N S, 386 F. 3d 940, 944 (9 th C ir. 2 0 0 4 ). L ik e th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls f

o r th e N in th C irc u it, w e “ w a rn [ ] t h e [ g o v e rn m e n t] n o t to tr e a t [ th a t r ig h t] c a s u a lly.” O ran tes-H ern an d ez v . T h o rnb u rgh , 9 1 9 F
. 2 d 5 4 9 , 5 5 4 (9th C ir

. 1 9 9 0 ) ( q u o ta tio n a n d c ita tio n o m itte d ). T he r i g h tt o c o u ns el i s a part i cul ar l yi m por t antpr ocedur al sa f e g u a rd b e c a u se o f

th e g ra v e c o n se q u e n c e s o f re m o v a l. In th is cas e, w h ere r emoval i s pr edi cat ed on the comm i s s i on of an aggr avat ed fe l ony , s ee 8 U
. S. C
. § 1227( a) ( 2) ( A ) ( i i i ) , the dr aconi an and uns par i ng r es ul tof rem oval i s near - t ot al p r e c l u s i o n f

r o m r e a d m i s s i o n t o t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s , w i t h o n l y a r e mo t e p o s s i b i l i t yo f

r e tu r n a f

t e r t we n t y y e a r s . Un d e r 8 U. S
. C. § 1182( a) ( 9) ( A ) ( i i ) , an al i en rem oved af t erconvi ct i on of an aggr avat ed fe l onyi s i nadmi s s i bl e “a tanyt i m e[. ] ” R emoval 5 “vi s i t s a gr eathar ds hi p on the i ndi vi dual and depr i ves hi m of the r i ghtt o s tay an d li v e and w or k i n thi s l and of f r eedom. T hat depo r t a t i o n i s a p e n a l t y
– a t t i me s a mos t s e r i o u s o n e – cannot b e d o u b t e d

. ” Br i d g e s v . Wi x o n , 3 2 6 U. S
. 1 3 5 , 1 5 4 ( 1 9 4 5 )

. As Ju d g e R e n d e ll h a s c a u tio n e d , “[ w ]e m u st a lw a y s ta k e c a re to re m e m b e r th a t, u n lik e in e v e ry d a yc iv il p ro c e e d in g s, th e lib e rty of an i ndi vi dual i s at s t ake i n depor t at i on pr ocee di ngs . ” Ponce-O urconc lusion ac co rds w ith P icca v . M u k ase y , 5 1 2 F
. 3d 6 75 ( 2 d C ir

. 2008) , hol di ng thatthe r egul at i on s peci fi cal l yat i s s ue t oday s houl d be enfor ced a gai ns tt he governm entw i t hout re g a rd to p re

ju d ice b e c a u se it co n c e rn s th e r ig h t to c o u n se l, w hi ch i s bot h ens hr i ned i n s t atut e and c ons t i tut i onal l yder i ved. I d. at7 8

- 7 9 ; s e e a l s o Ca s t a n e d a - Del g a d o v . I NS, 5 2 5 F. 2d 1 2 95, 1300 ( 7t h C i r . 1975) ( “[T] he r i ghtt o be r epr es ent ed by couns el of th eirchoi ce gr ant ed t o al i ens i n deport at i on pr ocee di ngs bys t atut e and r egul at i ons i s t o o i m por t antand 23 L ei va, 331 F. 3d at381 ( R endel l , J
. , di s s ent i ng) ( quot at i on o m itte d ). C om poundi ng t he gr ave cons equenc es of r emoval , m any al i ens s ubj ect to removal pr ocee di ngs ar e unfa m i l i arw i t h the co m p lex a d

jud ica to ry pro ce ss b yw h ich im m igrati o n law s are enfor ced. M anycour t s have r ecogni zed that“ouri m m i gr at i on s t atut or yfr amew or k i s not or i ous l ycompl ex. ” E. g. , N
- A

- M v. H ol der , 587 F. 3d 1052, 1058 (10 th C i r . 2009) ; s ee a l s o I N S v. N at ’ l Ct r . f

o r I mmi g r a n t s ’ Ri g h t s , I n c . , 5 0 2 U. S. 1 8 3 , 195 (19 9 1 ) (r ef

ere n cing o u r “c o m p lex re g im e o f im m igrati o n law ”). T he compl exi t y of re m oval pr ocee di ngs r ender s t he al i en’ s r i ght to c o u n se l p a rticu lar lyv ital to h is a b ili tyto “ re a so n a b ly p re s e n t[ ] h is c a s e .” B e rn a l- V a lle jo , 1 9 5 F .3 d a t 6 3
. R e g u latio n 8 C .F .R
. § 1 2 4 0 .1 0 (a )(2 )-(3 ) w a s m a n if e stly des i gned t o pr ot ectan al i en’ s fundament al s t at u t oryand cons t i tut i onal r i ghtt o couns el ata r emoval hear i ng. 6fundament al a r i ghtt o be ci r cumscribe d bya harm l es s err or ru le .” ). 24 R ecogni zi ng t he di ffi cul t yal i ens m i ghthave in l ocat i ng and acc es s i ng couns el , t he r egul at i on r efl ect s the age ncyvi ew tha t som e al i ens m ayon l y be abl e t o obtai n co un sel t hroug h low -cost orfr ee l egal s ervi ces . W e can t hi nk of no bett erdemonstr at i on o f th a t d if

f icu lty th a n L e slie ’s u n re p re se n ted a p p e a ra n c e a t h is rem o v al he aring a n d h is st atem en t th at he co u ld n o t aff o rd couns el

. H er e i tw as par amount t hatt he I J co m p l yw i t h § 1240. 10( a) ( 2)

- ( 3) ’ s m andat e t o “[a ] dvi s e t he re s pondent of the avai l abi l i t yof fr ee l egal s ervi ces ” and t o “[a ] s cer tai n t hatthe resp o n d en t has rec eive d a li st of su ch p rog ram s [ .]” T h e IJ’s fai l ure t o app ri se L esl i e of t he avail abil i t y of f ree l egal s ervi ces, as r e q u i r e d u n d e rt h e r e g u l a t i o n s , r e n d e r s i n v a l i d t he su b seq u en tl yen tered rem o v al o rde r, w ith o u t r eg ard to L esli e’s abi l i t yt o demonstr at e s ubs t ant i al pr ej udi ce. I V. L es l i e cont ends addi t i onal l ythathe i s ent i t led to a new re m o v a l h e a rin g b e c a u se h is N o tice to A p p e a r w a s d e f icie n t, i n vi ol at ion o f hi s due pr oces s r i ght s and the appl i cabl e s t atut e. P u r s u a n t to 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 9 (a )(1 )(G )(i), a n a lien is e n tit led to w r i t t en not i ce of r emoval pr ocee di ngs s peci fy i ng, among ot her t hi ngs , “[t ] he ti m e and pl ace atw hi ch the pr ocee di ngs w i l l be h e ld .” F ro m th e re c o rd p re se n ted , w e c a n c o n c lu d e th a t L e slie w a s tr a n sp o rte d f

ro m C lin to n C o u n tyP riso n to Y o rk C o u n ty25 Pr i s on on A pr i l 15 or A pr i l 16 and w as pr es entforhi s A pr i l 16 hear i ng atY or k C ount y Pr i s on. H e r ece i ved, at m os t , one dayof n o tice a s to th e tim e a n d p lac e o f h is re m o v a l h e a rin g , a n d th is not i ce w as perhaps eff

ect ed onl ybyphy s i cal t r ans por tfr om one insti tuti o n to an o ther. B ec au se w e g ran t L esli e’s p eti ti o n o n the b asis o f th e IJ’s vi ol at i on o f 8 C
. F. R
. § 1240. 10( a) ( 2)

- ( 3) , w e nee d notdeci de w h e th e r this blat antl yt ardyn o tice w a s c o n stitu tio n a llyd e f icie n t. Par enthe ti cal l y , w e not e thatw e fi nd i tdi ffi cul tt o bel i eve that a not i ce, i s s ued under 8 U
. S. C
. § 1229( a) ( 1) ( G ) ( i ) , w oul d s at i s fy t h e Du e P r o c e s s C l a u s e wi t h o u ta f f o r d i n g a n a l i e n a d e q u a t e t i me and oppor tuni t yt o pr epar e ar gum ent s on hi s orherow n behal f. B ec a u s e we g r a n t t h e p e t i t i o n o n o t h e r g r o u n d s , i t i s not nece s s aryt o rul e s peci fi cal l yi n thi s cas e thats ubs um ed i n the r equi r em en tof not i ce i s a cr i t i cal t i m el i nes s el ement
. See A b d u l a i v . As h c r o f

t , 2 3 9 F. 3 d 5 4 2 , 5 4 9 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 1 ) ( al i ens fac i ng r emoval ar e e n ti t l ed t o due pr oces s , w hi ch i ncl udes o p p o rt u n ity to m a k e a rg u m e n ts o n th e iro w n b e h a lf ). V. B ec au se th e reg u lat ion at issu e, req u ir ing the IJ to in fo rm Pet i t i onerof the ava i l abi l i t yof fr ee legal s ervi ces , pr ot ect s the f u n d a m e n tal rig h t to c o u n se l at re m o v a l h e a rin g s, w e w ill enfor ce i tw i t houtr egar d t o the exi s t ence vel non of pr ej udi ce re su lti n g f

ro m its v io latio n . It i s im p e ra tiv e th a t th e IJ c o m p ly s crupul ous l yw i t h t hes e r egul at i ons , pr om ul gat ed t o ens ur e theW e r ecogni ze the contr i but i on of pr o bono s ervi ces 7 r ender ed byappoi nt ed couns el fo r th e Pet i t i oner , and not e our f o r m a l a p p r e c i a t i o n f

o rc o u n s e l s ’ a d v o c a c y. 26 fu n d am en tal fa irn ess o f th e p ro ce ss b yw h ich a li en s are r emoved. A s i t i s undi s put ed t hat t he I J ent er ed Lesl i e’ s r emoval o r d e ra f t e rf a i l i n g t o c o mp l ywi t h th e r e q u i r e me n t s o f 8 C. F
. R. § 1 2 4 0 .1 0 (a )(2 )-(3 ), w e w ill g ra n t th e p e tit io n f o r re v iew , v a c a te th e o rd e r o f

th e B o a r d , a n d re m a n d f o r f u rth e r p ro c e e d in g s in acc or dance w i t h t he for egoi ng. 7