A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l yt o gr antthe part i es ’ r eques tfora dec i s i on on the br i efs w i thoutor al arg u m en t. S ee F ed . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (f); 10 th C ir . R . 3 4 . 1 (G ). T h e c ase is th ere fo re or der ed s ubm i t t ed w i thoutor al ar gum ent . T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptunderthe doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t ent w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C ir . R . 3 2 .1 . 

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

### A p ril27,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT J ULI O A CU NA BERN ATE,

P eti ti o n er, v. A LB ER TO G O N ZA LES, A tto rn e yG e n e ra l,

R e sp o n d e n t. N o. 06- 9540 ( N o. A 35- 764- 610) ( P e t i t i o n fo rRe v i e w)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e LU CE RO , C i r cui tJ udge, BARRETT , Seni orC i r cui tJ udge, and M c KAY , C i r cui tJ udge.

Pet i t i onerJ ul i o A cuna Ber nat e, a nat i ve and c i t i zen of C ol om bi a, pet i t i ons fo r re v iew o f

a d e c isio n o f

th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls (B IA ) w h ich h e ld thathe w as i nel i gi bl e t o appl yfora w ai verof i nadmi s s i bi l i tyunderform er § 212( c) of the I m m i gr at i on and N at i onal i tyA ct( I N A ) , 8 U . S. C . § 1182( c) , and- 2-

or der ed hi m r emoved fr om t he U ni t ed St at es . W e have j ur i s di ct i on under 8 U. S . C. § § 1 2 5 2 ( a ) ( 1 ) a n d ( a ) ( 2 ) ( C) a n d d e n yth e p e t i t i o n fo rr e v i e w. P e titio n e r e n te re d th e U n ite d S ta te s in 1 9 7 5 a s a le g a l p e rm a n e n t r e s id e n t. H e w as convi ct ed bya j uryi n 1986 on fede r al drug tr aff i cki ng char ges and s erved ei ght een mont hs of a thi r ty - m onth s ent ence . H e admi t t ed thathe l eftthe U ni t ed St at es ats om e poi ntaft erhe s erved hi s s ent ence and thathe att empt ed t o r eent er in 2 0 0 3 . H e w a s d e tain e d a n d d e ter m in e d to b e in a d m iss ib le b a se d o n h is c ri m in a l c o n v ic tio n . D u rin g im m ig ra tio n p ro c e e d in g s, p e tit io n e r re q u e ste d p e rm iss io n to a p p ly fora w ai verof i nadmi s s i bi l i tyunderform er§ 212( c) of the I N A , w hi ch w as in terp re ted to “ g ra n t[ ] th e A tto rn e yG e n e ra l b ro a d d isc re tio n to a d m it ex c lu d a b le al i ens , ” I N S v. St . C yr , 533 U . S. 289, 294- 95 ( 2001) . B etw een 1990 a nd 1996, how ever , C ongr es s enac t ed thr ee s t atut es “r educ[ i ng] the s i ze of the cl as s of al i ens el i gibl e for such d i scr et i on aryrel i ef. ” Id. at29 7. In 199 0, C on gress el i m i nat ed the pos s i bi l i tyof § 212( c) r el i ef for“any one convi ct ed of a n aggr avat ed fe l onyw ho had s erved a t erm of i m pr i s onm entof atl eas tfi ve y ear s . ” I d. O n A pr i l 24, 1996, C ongr es s adopt ed § 440( d) of the A nt i t err or i s m and E ffe ct i ve D eath Penal tyA ctof 1996 ( A E D PA ) , w hi ch “i dent i fi ed a br oad s etof offe ns e s fo rw hi c h c on vi c t i on s w ou l d p r e c l ud e s uc h r e l i e f. ” St . Cy r , 53 3 U. S. at 29 7 . L ater tha t sam e y ea r, C o n g ress p asse d the Ill eg al Im m igrati o n R efo rm and I m m i gr antR es pons i bi l i tyA ctof 1996 ( “I I R I R A ”) , w hi ch “i nt eral i a, r epea l ed- 3-

§ 212( c) . . . and r epl ace d i tw i th a new s ect i on thatgi ves the A t t orneyG ener al th e a u th o rityto c a n c e l re m o v a l fo r a n a rro w c las s o f in a d m iss ib le o r d e p o rta b le al i ens . . . . ” St . C yr , 533 U . S. at297. T hi s cl as s does noti ncl ude any one p re v io u slyc o n v icte d o f a n “ a g g ra v a ted fe lo n y .” Id . (q u o tatio n o m itt e d ). In sh o rt, aft erA E D PA and I I R I R A , pet i t i oner , w ho w oul d have be en el i gi bl e forr el i ef under§ 212( c) atthe t i m e of hi s cr i m i nal pr ocee di ngs , w as excl uded fr om el i gibi l i tyatthe ti m e of h i s i m m i grat i on proceed i ng s. T he governm entobj ect ed t o pet i t i oner ’ s r eques tt o appl yforr el i ef unde r § 2 1 2 (c ), as se rtin g th a t th is s e c tio n h a d b e e n re p e a led a n d th a t p e tit io n e r c o u ld nott ake a dvant age of St . C yr , i n w hi ch the Supr eme C our thel d thatthe a p p lica tio n o f

law s th a t re p e a led § 2 1 2 (c ) w a s im p e rm iss ib lyre tro a c tiv e w ith r es pectt o al i ens w ho had pl eade d gui l tyt o aggr avat ed fe l oni es , i ns t ead of goi ng t o tr i a l , i n r e l i a nc e on t he po s s i bi l i tyof § 2 12 ( c ) r e l i e f, St . Cy r , 53 3 U. S. at314- 26. T he i m m i gr at i on j udge ( I J ) not ed thatr egul at i ons pr om ul gat ed i n l i ght o f S t. C yr did n o t al low h im to co n side r § 2 1 2 (c) reli ef fo r ali en s, li k e p eti ti o n er, wh o we r e fo u n d g u i l tyb ya j u r y , r a th e rth a n b a s e d o n a g u i l typ l e a . Ad mi n . R. at40; s ee a l s o 8 C . F. R . § 1212. 3( h) ; I n r e A zur i n, 23 I . & N . D ec. 695, 698 ( B I A 2005) . T he I J t her efor e deni ed pet i t i oneranyr el i ef. T he B I A aff i r m ed, adopt i ng t he I J ’ s r eas oni ng. Pet i t i onerar gues on appea l thatw e hel d i n H em v. M aur er , 458 F. 3d 1185 ( 10th C i r . 2006) , “thatthe bene fi tof appl y i ng forr el i ef f r om deport at i on under- 4-

s ect i on 212( c) i s avai l abl e t o bot h per s ons w ho[s e] convi ct i ons w er e as a r es ul tof a pl ea ba r gai n as w el l as t hos e per s ons w ho[s e] convi ct i ons w er e as a r es ul tof a v e rd ict a t trial.” A p lt. B r. at 4 . A lth o u g h th is s tate m e n t is c o rre c t as fa r a s it g o e s , o u r h o ld in g in H e m d o e s n o t d ic ta te th e re s u lt th a t p e titio n e r s e e k s . W e hel d i n H em “t hatl i t i gant s w ho pr ocee d t o tr i al butabandon thei rr i ght t o a p p e a l wh e n § 2 1 2 ( c ) r e l i e f i s a v a i l a b l e h a v e o bj e c t i v e l yr e l i e d o n p r e - I I RI RA law ,” w h ich is s u fficie n t to sh o w th a t th e re p e a l o f § 2 1 2 (c ) re lief

is i m p e r m i s s i b l yr e tr o a c t i v e a s t o s u c h a l i e n s . 4 5 8 F . 3 d a t1 1 8 6 , 1 1 8 9 . We r eas oned that , otherw i s e, “[a ] l i ens , l i ke H em, w ho w er e i n a pos i t i on i n w hi ch the avai l abi l i tyof § 212( c) r el i ef w oul d r eas onabl yi nform thei rdeci s i on t o for ego a cons t i tut i onal r i ght[t o appea l t hei raggr avat ed fe l onyconvi ct i ons ] , w oul d s uffe r

‘ new l egal cons equenc es t o event s compl et ed befor e [the s t atut e’ s ] enac t m ent . ’ ” I d. at1200- 01 ( quot i ng L andgr af v. U SI Fi l m Pr oduct s , 511 U . S. 244, 269- 70 ( 1994) ) . Pet i t i oner , how ever , does notaff i r m at i vel yar gue thatanydeci s i on he m ade dur i ng hi s cr i m i nal pr ocee di ngs demonstr at es obj ect i ve r el i ance on the avai l abi l i tyof § 212( c) r el i ef, and the r ecor d r evea l s nothi ng abouthi s cr i m i nal pr ocee di ngs exce ptt he fa ctof hi s convi ct i on. W e do notknow w hetherpet i t i oner to o k a n a p p e a l o r n o t, an d h e c ites n o a u th o rityin d ica tin g th a t ex e rc isin g h is Si xth A m endmentr i ghtt o go t o tr i al , byi t s el f, cons t i tut es a s uffi ci ents how i ng of an obj ect i ve r el i ance i nt er es tt o for ecl os e a r etr oact i ve appl i cat i on of the § 212( c)- 5-

re p e a l. W e th e re fo re c o n c lu d e th a t p e tit io n e r h a s fa iled to d e m o n stra te o bje c tiv e ly re a s o n a b le re lia n c e o n th e c o n tin u e d a v a ila b ility o f § 2 1 2 (c ) r e lie f. T h e p e t i t i o n fo rr e v i e w i s DE NI E D. E n tered fo r th e C o u rt

M onr oe G . M cK ay C i r cui tJ udge