## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N os. 10

- 1354 & 11

- 1243 J ORGE S O LIS -C HAVEZ, P etitio ner, v. E R I C H. H OLDER, J R ., A tto rneyGenera l ofthe U ni ted S tat es, R es pond ent .

Peti tion s for Re vie wof Or de r s of the B o ard of Immigration App eals
. No . A 037-116- 580
A RGUED O CT OB ER 1, 2010

— D ECI DE D O CT OB ER 25, 2011

Befo re P OSNER, K ANN E , a nd S YKES, C ircu it Judges . S YKES, Cir cu i tJudg e . J or ge So l i s- Ch avez is a nati ve of Guat emal a who ha s be en a l awful per m anen t r es i den t i n the U ni ted S tat es si nc e 19 80. In 200 7 he f aced r em ova l as a re sul t of a 1989 I l l i noi s convi cti on f or sex u al a b use of a m i nor . H e ini ti al l y a rgued that he was not subj ect to r emov alb ec au se the j udg e w ho c o nv i ct ed an d s en tence d him i ssued a j ud i ci alr eco m m end at ion a gainst deport ati on ( “J RA D ”). I fval i d, a J RA D prohibi ts the De-2 N os. 10

- 1354& 11

- 1243 par tmentofH o m el an d S ec ur i ty( “DHS” ) fr o m us i ngac o nv i c t i o n a s a b a s i s f o r r e mo v i n g a n a l i e n . H e r e , th e J R AD w ou ld h av e p ro vid ed a c om p let e d efe n s e t o rem ov al. B u t b efo re th e Im m igr at ion Ju d g e ( “IJ” ) ren d er ed a d ec isi o n, S o l i s- Cha ve z’ s att o r ne y c o nc ede d, wi th o utc o nsul ti ng hi s cl i ent, thatthe J RA D w as i nval i d because it wa s en te r ed o ut si de th e 30

- daypo st se nt en cing w i nd ow speci fi ed i n the J RA D statute. Shor tl y ther eafter, So l i s- Ch avez re tained new co unsel a n d s o u g h tt o r e v i v e th e J R AD c l a i m. T h e B o a r d o fI mm i gr ati on Ap peal s ( “BI A ”) hel d that prior counselhad wa i v e d th e i s s u e . S o l i s - C h a v e z p e t i t i o n e d f o rr ev i e w. At or alar gu m ent we sugg est ed that counsel ’ s co ncessi on be f o r e th e IJ was u ninf o r m ed an d S o l i s- Cha ve z m i g ht see k t o re open h is c ase bas ed on ineffecti ve ass i sta nce o fc o uns el
. Sol i s- Cha ve z pr o m ptly move d t o r eo pen, b ut th e BI A deni ed th e m o ti o n. The Bo ar d he l d tha t the conces si on was notprej u d ici albec ause the J RA D w as u nti m el y a nd ther ef or e inval i d. So l i s- Ch avez ag ai n petiti o ne d f o rr ev i ew, a nd we con so l i dat ed th e pet i ti o ns f o rde ci si o n. W e no w gr ant the peti ti on s an d rem and to the BI A f or furtherpro ceedi ngs. The J RA D w as va li d. A l though i t was ent er ed abou t a m onth o utsi de the 30- day p o s t s e n t e n c i n gw i n d o w, th e s t a t e - c o ur t r e c o r d c o n fi r ms that the j ud ge unequ ivo c al l y ind i cate d her i ntent to r et ain j ur i sdi ct i o n fo rthe ex p r es s pur po se o fc o ns i der i ng a JRA D, and the r eco m m endati on was ther eafterente re d wi th o uto pp osi ti o n fr o m i m m i g r at i o n a utho r i ti es o rthe st at e p ro se c u t o r . T h e JR A D st at u te (rep ea led in 1 99 0) isN os. 10

- 1354& 11

- 1243 3
s i l e n to n w h e th e rn o n c o mpl i a n c e w i th th e 3 0
- d a y t i me l i m i t i s a defect that str i ps the cour t of a u thor i ty to enter th e re c om m en d at ion
. D o la n v . U nited Sta tes , 130 S. Ct. 25 33 ( 20 10 ) , s ug g es ts tha t th e m i ss ed deadline do es no t ex tin gui sh the co urt’ s a uthor i ty

— a tl e a s twh e r e , a s h er e, th e j ud ge tim ely ann ou nc ed her inten t to cons ider a J RA D and co nti nued the case f orthatpurpose. A ccor dingl y, co ncedingthe J RA D’s i nvali dity was gr avely pr ej ud i ci alto S ol i s- Ch avez ’ s defense ag ai nst re m ova l
. The BI A m ust d et er m i ne o n re m and w hether counsel ’ s co ncessi on a m ounts to a d en ial ofdue proc ess , as requir ed f orcl ai m s o fi neffecti ve ass i sta nce o fco unsel i n i m m i gr ati on pro ceedi ngs. W e a lso d i re ct the BI A to clarify tw o i ssu es it f ail ed to add ress in Soli s-C ha vez’s fi r stpe ti ti o n.
I . B a c kg r o und I n 198 0 S ol i s- Ch avez ent er ed the U ni ted S tat es fro m Gu ate m al a a s a l aw ful perm anent r esi dent. In 198 7 he w as ar re ste d and charge d i n Co ok C ou nty, I l l i noi s, with agg ra vate d cri m i nalse xual abuse ofa vi cti m unde r 13 f oral l ege dlyto uchin g a gi rl ’ s butt ock s. S ol i s- Ch avez ple aded not guil ty and was convi cted f ol l owing a o ne- day be nc h t r i ali n J an ua r y 1 98 9. On M ar ch1 6, 1 98 9, the j udg e se nt en ce d hi m t o 2 4 m o nths ’ pr o ba ti o n. At tha t ti m e fede r ali m m i g r at i o n l aw i nc l ude d the J RA D provi si on, wh i ch al l owed the sentenci ng j ud ge to i ssue a s tat em en t at sente nci ng o r w i thi n 30 days ther eafteri nd i cating tha t the defendant’s co nvi cti on4 N os. 10

- 1354& 11

- 1243
c ou ld n otbe u se d by im m igr at i o n a u th or itie s a s a ba sis for d ep or ta tio n . A lth ou gh ca lled a “r ec om m en d at i on ,” t h e c o m m an d of a JR A D w as m an d at or y. See 8 U. S
. C. § 1 25 1(b )(2) (rep ea led 19 90 ); Ja nv ier v. U nited Sta tes , 79 3 F.2d 449 , 452 (2d Cir. 1986). A t s entencing the j ud ge sai d Sol i s- Ch avez was a goo d candidate f ora JR A D because unli ke m ostse xual as sa u lts , “ t h e v ict im in t h is m at te r w as n oth ar m ed in any s ubstanti alway. ” Bef or e the j ud ge coul d fo rm ally consi der a J RA D, how eve r, S ol i s- Ch avez was re quir ed to gi ve noti ce t o i m m i gr ati on a uthor i ti es so they could re gis te r an y op p os itio n . Solis-C h av ez ’s a tt or n ey sa id he would not ify the a uthor i ti es, and the j ud ge schedule d a hea ring o n A pri l13 f orany posts ente nci ng i ssues , i ncl ud i ng the J RA D. The j ud ge sai d she would “g o ahead and concl ud e the se ntenci ng por tio n o fthi s ca se” bu t w ou l d “cer tainl y k eep thi s m att ero n [ the] cal l ” t o p e r m i tS o l i s - C h a v e z ’ s c o u n s e lt o p r o c e e d wi th th e J R AD no ti ce . S he sa i d th e ca se pr es en te d “a nov el si tu at i o n” an d t h a t sh e “ an tic ip at [ed ] fu rt h er p ro c ee d in gs on th is m att er . ” W i th the se com m ents the c ourtco nti nued S ol i sC h av ez ’s b on d an d “re ta in [ed ] j u ris d ict ion for 3 0 d ay s.” O n A p ril 1 3 t h e jud ge w as in t h e m id d le of a j u ry tria l. W hen the cl er k c al l ed So l is- Ch avez ’ s ca se du ring a bre ak i n the proce edi ngs, hi s a tto rneywas not prese nt. A t that m o m en t th e j udg e co ul d not reca l lthe pur po se o fthe hear i ng, sa yi ng o nl y that the ca se w as “up t oday f orpost
sente nci ng m oti ons; wh atevertho se w er e g oi ng to be, I ha v e n o i d e a . ” B e c a u s e o f h e r o n g o i n g t r i a l , t he j ud ge coul d not w ai t fo r So l i s- Ch avez ’ s atto rneyto ar ri ve,N os. 10

- 1354& 11

- 1243 5
so she c ontinued the case unti lM ay 23. On that date

— 68 days a ftershe sente nced So l i s- Ch avez

— the j ud ge enter ed a J RA D w ithout opposi ti on fro m the pros ecuto r orthe i m m i gr ati on a uthor i ti es. S o l i s- Cha ve z se r ve d hi s pr o ba ti o n wi th o uti ncident and avoi ded further cri m i nalchar ges . In 200 4 he fi l ed a n a t ur a l i z a t i o n a pp l i c a t i o n a nd s ub s e quentl y p a s s e d a ci ti zenshi p test . Th re e y ear s l ate r, however, S ol i s- Ch avez l e a r n e d th a th i s a p p l i c a t i o n h a d s t a l l e d b a s e d o n c o mpli cati ons w i th hi s ba ckg ro und chec k. DH S subsequentl y arres ted S ol i s- Ch avez and char ged hi m with tw o gr ounds ofr em ovabi l i ty: (1) as an al i en co nvi cted o f ana g g r av at ed fel o ny, 8 U. S
. C. § 1 22 7( a) ( 2) ( A)( i i i ) ; a nd (2) a s a n alien co n vic te d ofa c rim e o f ch ild ab u se , i d. § 1 227( a) ( 2) ( E)( i). Both char ges were base d on the 1989 co nv i ct i o n. S o l i s- Cha ve z admi tt ed th e f ac tu al al l eg at i o ns a nd conced e d r e mov ab i l i t y o n the b a s i s o fthe fi r s tc ha rg e but notthe seco nd
. H e a l so m ove d t o ter m i nate the pr oceedi ngs b ase d on the J RA D. Bu t w h en t h e par ti es disc ov er ed th at th e JR A D h a d n o t b ee n en te re d w ith in 30 days o fse ntenci ng, S ol i s- Ch avez’ s a tto rneyco nceded i ts i nv al i di ty . The r ea fte r, c o uns el f o cus ed o n o th era r g um ents, i ncl ud i ng a re que st t h at the IJ st ay re m ova lpro ceedi ngs t o al l ow Sol i s- Ch avez ’ s natural izat i on a pp l i cat i o n t o go forw ar d . Th e IJ fou n d Solis -C h av ez rem ov ab le o n b o th c ha r g e s , he l d tha t the J RAD a r g ume nt was w ai ved, and rej ecte d the r em ai ni ng ar gum ents. So l i s- Ch avez appeal ed to the BIA. Represe nt ed by new c ou n se l, So lis-C h av ez arg u ed th at th e JR A D w as va lid despit e i ts unti m el i ness. H e al so re i ter ate d the ar gum ents6 N os. 10

- 1354& 11

- 1243
co nc erni ngthe c r i m e- o f

- ch i l d- ab us e ch ar g e an d the na t ur a l i z a t i o n a pp l i c a t i o n. T he BI A di s mi s s e d the a ppeal
. The Boa rd e xpli ci tl y decl i ned to re ach the m er i ts ofthe J RA D is sue, fi nd i ng tha t S olis- Ch avez ’ s co unsel ha d wa i v e d i t b e f o r e th e IJ
. T h e B I A a d d r e s s ed an d rej ecte d som e o fthe other ar gum ents but neve r ad d re sse d Sol i s- Ch avez ’ s co ntenti on that he coul d not be depor ted o n the basi s o fa cri m e o fchi l d abuse o r th at rem ov al p ro c ee d in gs sh ou ld b e s ta ye d to allow h im to pr es s hi s na tu r al i za ti o n a ppl i ca ti o n. S o l i s- Cha vez p eti ti o ne d f o rr ev i ew. At o r ala r g um en t we s ug g es te d tha t th e wai ve ro fthe J RAD i ss ue c o nst r aine d o urr ev i ew b uta l so tha t S o l i s- Cha ve z m i g ht have a cl ai m f orr el i efbas ed o n hi s a tto rney ’ s m i sta ken con cess ion of w ha t ap p ea r e d to be a vali d clai m f or a m andator y for m o fr elief fro m r em ova l
. W e s ugges ted as wel ltha t a m o ti o n t o r eo penb efo r e th e BI A m i g ht be a pp ro pri ate . W hi l e we had the pet i ti on under a dvis em en t, So l i s- Ch avez m ove d to re open the proce edi ngs be f o r e th e BI A. The BI A deni ed th e m o ti o n, ho l di ng th at th e J R A D w as u nt im ely and therefore cou ns el’ s c on c es sio n w as n ot p rej u d icia l. So lis-C h av ez ag ain p et iti one d fo rr e v i e w. We c o ns o l i da t e d the p e t i t i o ns f or dec i si o n.
I I . Discussi on I n b o th o pi ni o ns u nd e rr e v i e w, the BI A c o nd uct ed i ts o wn an aly si s r athe rtha n s uppl em en tingo ra do pting the a nal ysi s o f the IJ, so our f ocus i s on the BI A ’ s deci si ons. C hen v. Ho lder, 6 0 4 F
. 3 d 3 2 4 , 3 3 0 ( 7 th C i r . 20 1 0 )
. WeN os. 10

- 1354& 11

- 1243 7
re vi ew the age ncy’ s l ega l d et erm i nati ons de novo , but d e fe rt o th e B I A ’ s r e a s o n ab l e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o fi t s o wn re gu lat ion s. M a nc i l l a s-R uiz v. Ho lder, 62 5 F
. 3d 993, 99 6 (7th C ir. 2010).
A . J R A D and D ue Proc ess W e be gi n w i th the BIA’s denia lo fS ol i s- Ch avez ’ s m oti on to reo p en ba se d on ine ffec ti v e a s sis ta n c e o f co u n se l. If succes sful, th is cl ai m co uld s er ve as a co m ple te bar to rem ov al. A s w e h av e n ot ed , th e e ffec t o f a JR A D is m andator y and pr eve nts re m ova l base d o n th e c onvi cti on t o w hi ch i t a pp l i es. A l though r em ova lhas ser i ous c on se q uences, i t i s a c ivil p ro c ee d in g. Padil l a v. Ke nt uc ky, 13 0 S. Ct. 14 73, 14 81 ( 2010 )
. A s such, al i ens i n i m m i gr ati on proce edi ngs do not have a S i xth A m endm ent r i ght t o the e ffecti ve ass i sta nce of c o u n s el. P erva iz v. G o nz a les , 40 5 F
. 3d 488, 48 9- 90 ( 7th Ci r . 2 0 0 5 )
. T h e y d o , h o we v e r, h a v e a d u e - p r o c e s s r i g ht to a fair h ea rin g. Kayv . As hc r of t, 38 7 F
. 3d 664, 67 6 ( 7th Cir
. 20 04)
. The BI A has a bo dy ofcas el aw hol ding that an ali en ’s du e-proc ess r ig h ts can be viol ated by his attorn ey ’s in effe c tiv e a ss ist an c e in rem ov al p ro c e e d in gs . See ge ne r al l y M at t e rof

Lo zada , 19 I
. & N
. De c. 637 ( B IA 1988). But s e eSu rgano va v . Hol der, 6 12 F.3d 90 1, 907 (7th Cir. 2010 ) ( re vi ew i ng Lozad a ’ s su bs eque nthi st o ry a nd no ting that “th e leg al s tandards that the BI A wishes to f ol l ow for th ese claim s [have] been i n a sta te of fl ux ”). Th e r e a r e thr e e r e qu i r e men t s f o rr e l i e fo n thi s g r o un d. Fi rs t, th e a l i en m ust co m plywith c er tain proc edural8 N os. 10

- 1354& 11

- 1243

re q u ire m en ts . Se eLo zada , 1 9 I
. & N. De c . a t63 9. S e c o nd , t he a l i e n mu s t s h o w “ th a t h e wa s p r ej u d i c e d b y h i s r e pre se n ta tiv e’s p erfor m ance. ” Id. a t6 3 8
. Final l y, “[ i ] neffecti ve as si sta nce of counsel i n a deporta ti on proce edi ng is a deni alo fdue proc ess o nl y i fthe proce edi ng was so fun da men t a l l y u nf a i rtha tthe a l i e n wa s p r e v e nt ed fro m r eas onabl y pr ese nti ng hi s ca se. ” Id. H er e, the BIA d ete rm i ned ( and the g ove rnm ent doe s not dispute) thatS ol i s- Ch avez co m pli ed w i th the fi rs t re quir em ent. The BIA c oncl ud ed, how eve r, that S ol i sCha ve z co ul d no t sa ti sfy the s ec o nd. S pec i fi ca l l y, the B I A held that becau se th e JRA D w as u nt im ely , cou ns el’ s c o nc e s s i o n o fi t s i nv a l i di t y di d n o tde pr i v e S o l i s - Ch avez of a va lid d e fense to rem oval. A ccord ingly, the B oard con clud ed that he w as no t preju d ice d by his cou ns el’ s per f o r m an ce a nd there wa s no r ea so n t o r eo penthe proce edi ngs. A s r e l e va n t h er e, th e JR A D st at u te p ro vid es th at im m igr at ion au th or itie s m ay n otu se a c on v i c tio n as a b as is to re m ove an a l i en i fth e c o u r ts e n t e n c i n gs u c h a l i e n f o rs u c h c r i me sh all m ak e, atthet i m eof f i rs ti m pos i ng j udg m e ntor pa ssingsentenc e, o r w ith in t h i r ty da ys th ereafter, a re com men da t i o n t o the At t o r ne y Ge ne r a ltha ts uch al i en not be deporte d, du e noti ce havin g been g i v e n pr i o r t o ma k i ngs uc h r e c o mm e nd a t i o n t o r e pre senta ti ves ofthe i nter est ed St ate , the Se rv i ce, and prose cuti on a uthor i tie s, wh o shal lbe gr anted an opp ortu nity to m ake rep resen tations in th e m atter.N os. 10

- 1354& 11

- 1243 9 8 U
. S. C
. § 1251(b)(2) (repea le d 1 9 90) (em p ha sis add ed ). T he Coo k C ou nt y j ud ge w ho h a n d led Sol is- C ha vez’s ca se e nt er ed th e J RAD 6 8 days afters en te nc i ng . The BIA hel d that the expi ra ti on o fthe sta tute’ s 3 0- day posts entencing deadl i ne r endered the J RA D ine ffecti ve. T he ana lysi s is not qu ite tha t sim p le. Sol is- C ha vez’s j ud ge cl ear l y ind i cate d at sen tencing tha t s he i ntended to consi d er a J RA D in du e co urse . Ind eed, the j ud ge ra i sed the J RA D is sue her self. S he i nfo rm ed counselo f the no ti ce r equi re m ents and deem ed So l i s-C h avez an appropri ate candi date. The j ud ge vi ew ed the case as “v ery di ffer en t fr o m a l o t o fthe o th erc as es tha t m i g ht have been charg ed und erthe [ sex u al- ass aul t] st atute ” b ec au se the v i cti m “was nothar m ed i n any substa nti al w ay. ” M or eov er, S ol i s- Ch avez had no c rim i nalbac kgr ound. A t the end ofthe sente ncin g h eari ng, the j ud ge ex pl i ci tly “ r et ain[ ed] j uri sdi ct i o n fo r3 0 day s, ” sa i d the ca se was “ st i l lo n the c al l, ” an d m ade i t cl ea rtha t sh e “a n tic ip at [ed ] fu rt h er p ro c ee d in gs in t h is m at te r.” W he n the t i m e ca m e f o rtho se furt he r pr o ce eding s, the j ud ge w as in t h e m i dd l e o fa j ury tr i al
. S he cal l ed So l i sC h a v e z ’ s c a s e d u r i n ga b r e a kb u tu n d e r th e c i r c u msta nces did nothave an o pp or tuni ty to re f am i l i arize he rselfw ith th e case or th e JRA D i ssu e. Soli s-C ha vez’s co uns elwas no t i n the c o ur tr o o m a t t ha t m o m en t, s o the j ud ge continued the case unti lthe next m onth. Thi s i s no t uncom m on in hi gh- vol um e s tat e t ri alco urts , in w hi ch j ud ges cal ldozens o fcas es each day

— o fte n w h ile in tr i al

— a nd a t t o r ne y s j ug g l e a pp e a r a nc e s i n s e v e r a lco urtr o o m s o n the s ame da y . The de ci si o n t o c ont inue the10 N os. 10

- 1354& 11

- 1243

m att ero utsi de the 30- day w i nd ow thus re prese nts a n ove r s i g ht o f a b us y s t a t e t r i a l j ud g e , no t a n o pi ni on o n the m er i ts ofthe J RA D. H ad th e j u d ge been re m i nd ed ofthe J RA D cl ock , w e a re co nfi dent she w oul d have ha ndl ed th e m at te r m o r e del i ca te l y, es pec i al l y i n l ight of her p r e viously an nou nc ed i nt en tion to con side r a J R A D. A s i t was, the j ud ge enter ed the re com m endati on at th e n ex t h ea rin g, w ith ou t o p p o s i t ion from im m ig r at i o n a utho r i ti es o rthe s ta te pr o se cut o r . The r e i s no i ndica ti on t h at she w as unfam i l i arwith the f acts o fS ol i sCh avez ’ s ca se at th at t im e. I m port antl y, the j ud ge w as pla i nl y t ryi ng to r eta i n j uri sdic ti on f orthe express pu r po s e o fc o ns i de r i ngthe J RAD. T h e g o v e r n me n tma i n t a i n s th a tth e mi s s e d d e a d l i ne au to m ati call y make s th e J RAD i nv al i d, b utthi s ar g um en t di sr ega r ds th e su r r o undi ngc i r cumst an ce s an d tr e a t s the 3 0
- da y de a dl i ne a s a j ur i s di c t i o na lr e qu i re m en t. Ta k i ngthe se con d po i ntfi r st, we do no t r ea d the sta tutory t i m e l i m i t a s for ecl osing the j ud ge’ s a uthor i ty to continue a c ase post sente nci ng f orthe pu rpos e o f enter i ng a JR A D. The sta tute say s that the i m m i gr ati on con seq ue nc es o fa c o nv i ct i o n a r e wi ped o uti fthe j ud ge m ake s the r eco m m endat i on a t s entencing o r w i thi n 30 days o fs en te n c ing, but i t doe s no t s peak t o th e c on se q u en c es of m iss in g t h e d ea d lin e; th e s ta tu te is sile n t o n w h et h er th e e x p i ra tio n of th at tim e lim it e lim in at es th e c ou rt ’s a u th or i t y t o e n te r a JR A D
. Cf. Ar b augh v. Y & HCorp. , 54 6 U.S
. 50 0, 51 5- 16 ( 2006 ) ( “I fthe Legi sl atu r e c l e a r l y s t a t e s th a t a th r e s h o l d l i mi t a t i o n o n a sta tute’ s s cope s hall c ou nt as j uri sdic ti onal, then cour ts an d l iti gan ts w il l be d uly instru cted and w il l not be leftN os. 10

- 1354& 11

- 1243 11 to w re stl e with the i ssue. But w hen Congre ss does not ra n k a s t a t u t or y lim ita tio n on co ve ra ge as j u ris d ict ion al, cour ts shoul d t reat the r est ri cti on a s no nj uri sdic ti onal in ch aract er. ” (ci tation om itted ))
. I n thi s r ega rd the 30

- day l i m i t in the J RA D statute is sim il art o the s ta tu to r y de adl i ne a t i ss ue i n Dol a n v. U nited Sta tes , 130 S. C t. at25 38
. D ol an c onc erne d the sta tutory t i m e l i m i t forse ttin g v i cti m r est i tuti on under 18 U
. S
. C. § 3 66 4( d) ( 5) , whi chpr o vi des tha t a se nt en cing co ur t “s ha l ls eta da te f o rthe fi na lde te r m i na ti on ofthe vic tim ’s los se s, n o t t o e x c ee d 90 d ay s a fte r se n te n c in g.” I n D ol an the di st r i ctc o ur t spe ci fi ca l l y no te d the r es ti tu
ti on i ssue a t sentencing but sai d ther e was noteno ugh i nform at i on in the re cor d to deter m i ne the pro per am ount. A n addend um to the prese nten c e r epor t was ti m ely fi l ed, b utthe c o ur t i ne xpl i cabl y s ch edu l ed th e re st ituti on hea ring thr ee m onths outsi de the 90- day posts entencing window
. The Su p rem e Cour t hel d that th e m i ss ed dea dl i ne di d no t depr i ve the c o ur t o fthe p ow er to aw ar d res tit u tio n . Id. at25 39. Because th e res ti tuti on s tatute doe s no t o n i ts f ace “speci fy a co nsequence fornonco m pli ance with i ts ti m i ng pro vi si ons, ” the S up re m e Cour t declined to i mpo s e i t s o wn “ c o e r c i v e s a nc t i on. ” Id. ( quotati on m ar ks om i tte d). Instead, the Court chara cter i zed § 3664 ( d)( 5) as a t i m e- l i m i ti ng st atute that“s eek s s peed by c re ating a ti m e- r el at ed di r ec ti ve tha t i s l eg al l y e nf o r ce ab l e but do es no t depr i ve a j udg e o ro th erpub l i c o ffi cial o fthe pow erto ta ke the a ctio n to wh i ch the deadli ne appli es i fthe deadli ne i s m i sse d.” Id. a t 2 5 3 8 . Th e C ou rth eld12 N os. 10

- 1354& 11

- 1243 tha t“ a s e nt e nc i ngc o ur t that mi s s e s the 9 0
- da y de a dl i ne nonethel ess r eta i ns the pow erto o rderr est i tuti on

— at l eas t where, as h er e, the sente nci ng co urt m ade cl ear pri orto the deadli ne’ s e xpir ati on th at i t would o rder r e s t i tu tio n, l ea vin g op en (for m or e t h an 90 d ay s) o n ly the a m ount. ” Id. at 2537
. D ol an i s instr ucti ve he re . Li ke the r est i tuti on s tatute, th e J RAD s ta tu te do es no t, b y i ts term s, s pec i fy the c o nsequence f ornonco m pli ance w i th i ts 30- day deadl i ne. W he n th e statu te w as in effect, the sh ort statu tory wi ndo w pre ve nt ed se nt en cingj udg es fr o m e nt er i ng a J RAD r et r o spe ct i vely o rl o nga fte rthe s en te nc i ng h e a r i n gw h e n th e f a c t s o fth e c a s e h a v e f a de d fr o m m e mor y. Ja nv ier, 793 F.2d at45 3

- 5 5
. B u t t h e s ta tu te its elf is si l en t o n whe th erthe 3 0- dayt i m e l i m i t affec ts the cour t’ s a u th or ity to ente r a J RA D or f or ecl ose s the possibil ity ofa contin ua nc e beyon d that ti m e fram e w he re the c ourthas ti m el y a nnounced it s intenti on to consi der m ak i ng th e r ec o m m en dat i o n. As i n D ol an , this statu tory s i l e nc e s ug g e s t s tha ta mi s s e d d e a dl i ne , “ e v e n thr ough [the cou rt’s] ow n fau lt
. . . , d oes not de p rive the cou rt of th e p ow er ” t o e n te r a JR A D
. Se eD ol an , 13 0 S. Ct. at25 39. W hi l e w e have not previ ousl y c onsi dered the val i dity ofan unti m el y J RA D, w e hav e a dd re ss ed the effect of b e l a t e d n o t i ce . I n C e r uj o v . INS , 57 0 F
. 2d 1323 , 13 24 ( 7th Ci r . 1 97 8) , the jud ge e nt er ed a J RAD a t se nt en cingb ut w i thout propernot i ce t o i m m i gr ati on o ffi ci al s. W e a ckn ow l edged the ar gum ent that “ the 3 0- day ti m e l i m it and b y an al ogythe noti ce r equi re m ent s houl d be r ead as dir ecto ryand not m anda tory. ” Id. at13 25 ( ci ti ng Vel ez-N os. 10

- 1354& 11

- 1243 13 L o z a n o v . INS , 463 F .2d 1 30 5, 13 10 (D .C . C ir. 19 72 ) (Fa h y, J., d issent ing)). Bu t w e note d as w ellthat the sta t u t o ry l anguage “does n ot cla ri fy the effect ofa re com m endati on a gainst depor tat i on m ade witho ut prio r noti ce t o th e IN S.” Id. W e h el d tha t atl ea stwher e th e g o ve r nm ent had notbee n prej ud i ced, i t was appropr i ate to re m and the ca se f ornot i ce a nd a new J RA D hearing . Id. at 1325

- 27. I t’ s worth em phasi zin g that thi s ca se i s no t char acter i zed byafter thought ordeadl i ne-m an i pu l ating g am esm an sh ip. Thi s i s no t, f orexam ple , a nun c pro t uncJ R AD en ter ed onl y a fteri m m i gr ati on a uthor i ti es i ni ti ate d rem ov alpro ceedi ngs. Se eVe l ez- Lozan o , 4 6 3 F
. 2 d a t1 3 0 6

- 08. N o rwas the s en te nc i ngj udg e as k ed to v ac at e th e o r i g i n al jud gm en t a n d ree n te r it in ord er to be lat ed ly b r i n gth e c a s e wi th i n th e 3 0
- d a y win d o w. Se eRas ht ab adi v . INS , 2 3 F.3d 1562, 15 68 ( 9th Ci r. 19 94)
. A r etr oac ti ve at te m pt t o ob ta i n a J RAD woul d f al lo ut si de th e sta tute’ s t erm s. H er e, byco ntra st, S ol i s- Ch avez ’ s j ud ge pl ainl y i nt en ded to e nt er ta i n a J RAD a t se nt en cing butc o ul d no t do so w itho utno ti ce t o i m m i g r at i o n a uthor i ti es. S he sa i d she would r eta i n j uri sdic ti on s o that noti ce c ou ld be gi ven, and she adj ourne d the ca se f or the e xp r e s s pu r po s e o f c o ns i de r i ng a J RAD o nc e that prer equi si te w as acco m pli shed. The case pro gr ess ed s t e a di l y t o wa r d tha te nd wi th no i nt e r v e ninge v e nt s that cal lS ol i s- Ch avez ’ s m oti ves i nto que sti on o r sugge st tha tthe j ud g e ’ s f am i l i a r i t y wi th hi s c a s e h a d wa ne d. The J RAD was e nt er ed at th e sec o nd he ar i ngwi th

out obj ecti on fro m i m m i gr ati on a uthor i tie s or the st ate p rosecu tor.14 N os. 10

- 1354& 11

- 1243

W e rej ectth e g o vernm ent’ s argum ent thatSoli s- Ch avez has 1 no i nt er es ti n the J RA D th atc an be p ro t ec t ed un der the Due Pr oc es s Cl aus e. I t i s t ru e that he has no ri ght t o a J RA D ( it’ s a p u rely d iscretion ary f or m of r elief) , b u t he m ay certain ly p r o t e c ta p r e v i o u sl y e n t e r e d J R A D a g a i n st th e g o v e r n m e n t ’s c l a i m tha ti ti s un t i m e l y a nd the r e f or e i nv a l i d. A ccor dingl y, under these cir cum sta nces, and beca use the s tatute doe s no t i tse l fspeci fy the co nseque n c es of noncom pli ance w ith the ti m e l i m i t, we see no re aso n to t r e a tthe mi s s e d d e a dl i ne a s inv a l i da t i ngthe J RAD. By concedi ng the i ssue bef or e the IJ, S ol i s- Ch avez ’ s a tto rney w aived a com p lete defen s e t o rem oval and therefore prej ud i ced hi s cl i ent’ s ca se. I t r em ai ns to be deter m i ned 1 w hetherthatco ncessi on r endered the adm i ni str ati ve proce edi ngs “ so fund am ental l y unf ai r th at the a l i en w as p re ve n te d from rea so n ab ly p re se n tin g h is c as e.” Lo z ada , 19 I
. & N
. Dec. at63 8. W e r em and to the a gency f orfurtherpro ceedi ngs t o add re ss thi s i ssue.
B. Fai l ure t o Ad dres s t he M ot i on t o St ay So l i s- Ch avez al so chal l enged the BI A ’ s f ai l ure to consi der hi s m otion t o sta y r em ova lpro ceedi ngs t o perm i t hi s n atural i zati on a pp l i cati on t o proce ed. Though th e BI A nee d no t “wr i te a n exe g es i s o n e ve r y c o nt en ti o n, i t m us t c onsi der the i ssues r ai sed[ ] and announce i ts d ecision in term s su ffici en t to enab le a review ing cou rt to perce i ve that i t has h ear d and thought a nd not m er el y r eact ed. ” Igl esias v. M uk a sey, 540 F. 3d 528, 53 1 ( 7thN os. 10

- 1354& 11

- 1243 15 Cir
. 20 08) ( quotati on m arks o m i tte d). The BI A neve r add re sse d Sol i s- Ch avez ’ s r equest that the r em ov al proceedi ngs b e s tay ed to al l ow his natura l i zati on a pp l i cat i o n t o mo v e f o r wa r d. The go ver nm ent a rgues that S ol i s-C h avez’ s m oti on wa s do o med i n a nye v e nt . T he g o v e r ningr e g ul ati on provi des: A n i m m i gr ati on j ud ge m ay t er m i nate re m ova lpro ceedi ngs t o perm i t the al i en t o proce ed to a fi nal hear i ng o n a pendi ng appl i cati on o r peti ti on f or na tu r al iz at i o n w hen the ali en has e st abli she d pri m a facie e l igi b i l i ty f

orna t ural izat i on and the m att er i nvol ves ex c ep tio n ally ap p ea lin g or h u m an ita ria n fac to rs ; in e v e r y o th e rc a s e , th e r e mo v a lh e a r i ngsh a l lb e c o mpl et ed as pr o m ptly a s po ss ibl e no twi th st an di ng the pendency o fan a pp l i cati on f ornat u ra l i zati on du ring anyst ate o fthe proce edi ngs. 8 C. F
. R. § 1 23 9. 2( f ) ( emphasi s added)
. In M at t e rof H i dalgo , 24 I. & N . D ec . 103 , 106 (B IA 2 00 7), th e B IA h eld th at on ly th e D H S m ay es ta b lish an alien ’s p r i m a fa c ie el i g ibi l i tyf o rna tu r al i za ti o n fo rpur po se s o ft er m i na ting re m ova lpro ceedi ngs under thi s r egulat i on. In other w or ds, an IJ o r the BI A m ay t er m i nate re m ova lpro ceedi ngs o nl y w hen “so m e for m o faffi rm ati ve com m unicat ion from [D H S]” es ta b lish es th e a lien ’s p r i m a fac ie elig ibilit y for n at u ra liza ti o n . H i dalgo , 24 I
. & N
. Dec. at 106. The DH S has provi ded no such com m unica ti on her e. The Bo ar d’ s dec i si o n in H i dalgo h as be e n co n tr ov er sia l. The m aj or i ty op in ion gener ate d a spi ri ted di sse nt that th e pan elmaj o r i tyi tsel f ackno wl edg ed was “ no t wi th o ut16 N os. 10

- 1354& 11

- 1243
som e for ce. ” Id. at10 8. A nd the o pini on has bee n cr i ti ci zed as set ti ng up a Catch- 22 because federa ll aw ge n er ally prohibi ts DH S fro m m aking the ty pe ofco m m unica ti on m a n d at ed by th e d ec isio n . See 8 U. S
. C. § 1 42 9 ( “[ N ]o appli cati on for natura l i zati on s hal lbe consi dered by th e Att o r ne y Ge ne r ali fthe r e i s pen di nga g ains t th e appl i ca nta r emov alproc eedingpur su an t to a war r an t ofar re st i ssued under the pro vi si ons ofthi s c h ap te r or an y othe r A ct . . . . ”). T h e Sec on d C irc u it ex p lain ed th is pr ob lem at len gt h in Pe r r i e l l o v . Na p o l i t ano , 5 79 F
. 3d 13 5 ( 2d Ci r . 2 00 9)
. The re gu lat ion in q u es tio n d at es ba c k t o 1 97 4. Id. at13 9. Bac kthe n, the BI A i nt er pr et ed i t to r equire e ithe rthe I m m i gr ati on a nd N atur al i zat ion S er vi ce o r a federa l cour t t o i ssue a s tat em ent o fpri m a f aci e e l i gibi l i ty f or n at u ra liza tio n . Se eM at t e rof Cr uz , 1 5 I
. & N
. Dec. 23 6, 23 7 ( BIA 1975 ). In 199 0 Congr ess o verhaule d the natural i zati on pro cess , strip ping cour ts ofautho ri ty to natura l i ze an d pr ev en ting the Att o r ne y Ge ne r alfr o m c o ns i der i ng a na tu r al i za ti o n a ppl i ca ti o n whi l e a r emov alpr o ce eding is p en d i n g. P er ri el lo , 57 9 F
. 3d at 139- 40. The r egul ati on wa s n e v e ra men de d, h o we v e r, a nd H i dalgo p reserv ed th e co r e ho l di ngof Cru z d es p ite th e in te rv en in g c h an ge in n at u ra liza tio n p ra c tic es . H i dalgo , 2 4 I
. & N. D e c . a t1 0 6
. As a r es ult, a n a l i enc anne ve rg etthe c o m m uni ca ti o n h e needs to support a s tayo fr em ova lpro cee d in gs und er the r egul ati on

— “[ t] he l aw, i n effec t, se ems to be ch as i ngN os. 10

- 1354& 11

- 1243 17

T he Seco nd C ircu it also no ted the v ariety of resp on ses to this 2 appar en ti nc ons i s t en c y: In som e cas es ( such as thi s one) , D H S h a s a d ju dicate d naturalizat ion applic ati ons wh il e al ie ns have awaited t er m i nat i on ofthe i r re m ovalp ro c ee di ngs , no t withs t andi ng the bar in § 1429. In other c a ses, IJ s have d ete rm ined pri m a f ac i e el i gibi l i t y f or na t ur al i za t i on, no t withs t andi ng the BI A’ s ho l di ng i n Cruz thatth e y l a c k j ur i s di c t i ont o do so. A nd in y et oth er ca ses, no d eterm ina tion of pr im a facie eligib ility h a s b een m ad e b y an y b od y , leav ing alien s to p u r s u e wr i t s o fma n da mus ina n e ff o r tt o c o mpe l DHS to p ro d u ce “a ffirm ativ e sta tem en t[s ]” as to p rim a facie el i gibi l i t y. Pe r r i e l l o v . Na p o l i t a no , 579 F. 3d 135, 140- 41 ( 2d C ir
. 2009) (ci ta tio n s o m itt ed ). its ta il.” P er ri el lo , 57 9 F
. 3d at 13 8; see also Z egrea n v . Atto r-

2 ney Ge n. , 6 02 F. 3d 27 3, 2 74

- 75 ( 3d Ci r . 2 01 0) ( ca l l i ngthe c o nfl i c t“ a wk wa r d i fn o ta l t o g e the ru nwo r k ab l e ” a nd a “kn ot w e are asked to un tan gle”). Everyci rcui t co urt th at has re vi ew ed a BI A deci si on app l yi ng H i dalgo ha s affi r m ed th e r ul e, ty pi ca l l y r ely i ng o n th e d e fe r e n c e o we d t o t h e B I A in i n t e r p r e t i n gi t s o wn re gu lat ion s. Se e, e . g. , R o b e rtson -D ew a r v. Ho lder, 64 6 F
. 3d 22 6, 23 0-3 1 (5 th C ir. 20 11 ); see als o B a r n e s v. Ho lder, 62 5 F
. 3d 80 1, 8 05 ( 4th Ci r . 2 01 0) ( co l l ec tingc as es )
. And the Per r i e l l o cour t i tse l ful ti m ate l y c oncl ud ed th at “ i t i s no t a j ud i ci alr ol e t o save a re gul ati on that now c on fli cts, at l eas t in part, with the u nd er l yi ng statute . ” 579 F. 3d at 142. T he i ssu e is not p r o p e r ly before us here, how ever, because the BI A o ver l oo ked i t. A ccor dingl y, the proper18 N os. 10

- 1354& 11

- 1243

T h e BI A s h o u l d a l s o ad dr e s s an o th e r i s s u e onr e man d. As we 3 have no t ed, the DH S s oughtt o r em ove So l i s - Chave z o n the groun d that he w as an ali en conv ic ted o fa crim e ofchi ld abu se . Soli s- Ch av ez c ontes ted this charge throughou t hi s rem oval pro c ee di ngs , but the BIA di d not addre s s i t . The go ver nm en tno w con c ede s thatthe c ri m e- of

- c hi l d- abus e gr ound app li es only t o con v icti ons occ urring afterSeptem ber 30, 1996. S eeIllega l Im m igr atio n R eform an d Im m igr an t R esp on sibility A ct of1996, Pub
. L. N o. 104- 208, § 350(b), 110 St at. 3009 ( 1996 ). So l i s - Chave z was con vi c t ed i n 1 98 9, s o thi s c har ge of re m ovabi l i t y was e rr one ous . The B IA ’ s f ai l ur e t o di s c us s the i s s ue , h owe ve r , wa s h a r m l e s s i n l i ghto fthe a l t e r na t i ve gr ound for r em oval( al thoughthatal t er nativ e bas i s f or r e m ov a l wi l l be a ffe c t e d by the BI A’ s r e s ol ut i ono fthe J RAD a nd H i dalgo issu es o n re m a n d ). S ee Vi cto r v . H o l der, 616 F. 3d 70 5, 710 ( 7th C ir. 20 1 0) ( ha rm less- erro r stan d ard ap p lies in j ud ic ial review ofi m m igrat ion procee dings)
. St il l, the BIA s ho ul d c or r e c tthe e r r oro n r e m a nd
. cour se i s t o re m and the c as e to the BIA, al l ow itto ad d ress Soli s-C ha vez’s argu m en t, an d then i f n e c e ssary r ev i ew the BI A’s de ci si o n. 3
C. Sect i on 212 ( c) Chall enge So l i s- Ch avez al so ask s us to re m and for a hearing to det e r mi ne wh e the rh e i s r e t r o a c t i v e l y e l i g ib l e f o rr e l i ef fro m r em ova lunder § 212( c) , a re pea led p ro vi si on o f the I m m i gr ati on a nd N ati onal i ty A c t. Se cti on 2 12( c) provi ded the A tto rneyGenera lwith th e di scr eti on t o al l o w an ot her wi se - depo r tabl e al i ent o r emai n in the coun try s o l ong as he had l i ved her e foratl eas t s eve nN os. 10

- 1354& 11

- 1243 19 yea rs and had not been c on vic ted o fcer tain types o f c rim es . See 8 U.S
. C . § 11 82( c) ( re peal ed 199 6)
. The I l l ega l I m m i gr ati on Ref or m and I m m i gr an t Responsibi l i ty A ct of19 96 re pla ced the bro ad dis cre ti on o f§ 212( c) with th e n ar ro w er “ c a n c ella tio n of re m ov al” p ro vis ion
. See 8 U.S
. C. § 1 229 b ; see genera llyM a ta -G uerrero v. Ho lder, 62 7 F .3d 2 56 , 2 57 -58 (7t h C ir. 20 10 ). Solis-C h av ez is in elig ib le for ca n c ella tio n of re m ov al. I n IN S v
. St
. Cyr, the S uprem e Cour t hel d that “ § 2 12( c) re l i efr em ai ns av ai l abl e foral i ens . . . w h ose co nvi cti ons w er e obtained thr ough pl ea agr eem ents and w ho, notwith st anding thos e co nvi cti ons, would have been el i gible fo r § 2 12( c) r el i efatthe ti m e o fthei r ple a under the l aw then i n effect. ” 5 33 U
. S. 28 9, 32 6 ( 2001 )
. St
. Cyr has l ed to a ci rcui t s plit o ve r w hetherr etr oac ti ve § 2 12( c) re lief w as av aila b le ou ts id e th e gu ilty -p lea co n te x t. See Fe rgus on v. U
. S. At t or ney Ge n. , 56 3 F
. 3d 1254, 12 63- 67 ( 11th Ci r . 2 00 9) ( co l l ec tingc as es a nd d isc us singthe v ar i o us ap p roaches )
. Our ci rcui t r eads St
. Cyra s b e i ngl i mite d to i ts f ac ts ; w e ha ve a do pte d a “ ca te g o r i ca la ppr o ac h” a nd em phasi zed that“th e c at ego ryo fal i ens who w ent t o tr i aldi d not for go any pos sibl e be nefi t in re l i ance o n sect i on 2 12( c)
. ” C a nto v. Ho lder, 593 F.3d 638 , 644 (7th C ir. 2010 ). Th us , a § 212(c) w aiver un d er St
. Cyr i s l i m i ted to th os e w h o re l i ed on the av ai l abi l i ty ofthi s for m o f re l i efby( 1) pl eadi ng guil ty pr ior to its r epeal, o r ( 2) concedi ng deport abi l i ty w i th the expecta ti on that th ey co u ld se ek w aiv er s u n d er § 21 2(c ). Id. at64 3- 44 ( ci ti ng M ontenegro v. Ashcroft, 355 F .3d 10 35, 10 36- 37 ( 7th C ir. 2004) (per cu riam ))
.20 N os. 10

- 1354& 11

- 1243 So lis-C h av ez arg u es th a t h is JR A D ap p lica tio n sh ou ld be v i ew ed as proo fo fr el i ance o n the avai l ability of § 212(c) rel iefsuffi cientto confer eli gibil ity un d er St
. Cyr
. H e m ain ta in s t h at th e JR A D ap p lica tio n n o t i f i ed im m igr ati on offi ci al s ofhi s co nvi cti on a nd , as a re sul t, expose d hi m to pote nti aldeport at i on. H e cl ai m s that he re l i ed on th e e x ist en c e o f th e § 21 2(c ) w aiv er as a b a c k u p in th e e ve n t t h at h e fa c ed d ep o r t a t i on . Th is a rg u m en t is for ec los ed by ou r p re c ed en t; So lis

- C h av ez ’s c as e fa lls wi th i n n ei th ero fthe c at eg o r i es ment i o ne d i n C anto
.
D . Equit able Est oppel F i na l l y, S o l i s- Ch av ez a r g ue s th atthe g o ve r nm en t shoul d be e quit abl y e sto pp ed fro m r em oving hi m . I t is an op en qu es tio n w h et h er eq u ita b le e s to p p el is a va ilab le ag ain stth e g ov er n m en t. S e eOf f i c eo f Pe rs . Mgmt
. v . R i ch

m ond, 49 6 U.S
. 41 4, 422- 23 ( 1990 ) ( noting tha t i t has rej ecte d e ve r y c l ai m o fe qui tabl e es to ppela g ains t th e g o ve r nm en t butde cl i ni ngt o a do pt a fl atr ul e pr o hibi ting th e c l a i m)
. As s u mi n gi ti s , b e f o r e th e g o v e r n men t maybe est o pp e d fr o m e nfo r c i ngthe l a w, the p a r t y a dvan c i ngthe a r g ume ntmus ts ho w a l lthe t r a di t i onal ele m en ts of es to p p el plu s som e “ affir m at ive m isc on d u c t.” G utierrez v. G o nz a les , 458 F.3d 688 , 691 (7th C ir. 2006). So lis-Chavez ar gues that the g ove rnm ent’ s f ai l ure to conte s tthe J RAD b e f o r e o ra ft e ri twa s e nt e r e d, a nd i ts l engthydel ay i n p ro c essi ng hi s natural i zati on a pp l i cati on a nd se eking hi s r em ov al, am ount t o “affi rm ati ve m i sc ond uct” warr anti ng es toppel
. H e ci tes M e ndoz aHe r n a n d ez v . INS , 6 64 F
. 2d 63 5, 6 39 ( 7th Ci r . 1 98 1) , f o rtheN os. 10

- 1354& 11

- 1243 21 pr o po si ti o n tha t “[ u] ne xpl aine d del ay s . . . c ana m o unt to affirm at ive m isc on d u c t.” T h at st at em en t, h ow e v e r , is no l onge r goo d law
. See IN S v
. M i r anda , 45 9 U.S
. 14, 19 ( 1982 ) ( “Pro ofo nl y that the Governm ent f ai l ed to proce ss prom ptl y a n appli cati on f al l s f arsho rto f es tabli sh ing [a ff irm ative m iscond uc t]. ”); see a lso G utierrez , 45 8 F.3 d at69 2 (“ [A ]n u n ex p lain e d d e l ay . . . qu ite cle ar ly cannot f or m the basi s o fan est op pel ar gum ent a gainst th e govern m en t.”)
. So l i s- Ch avez r ai ses o therpote nti al sources ofaffi rm ati ve mis co nduc t: hi s ar r es t an d de te nt i o n w i th o ute xpla nati on; the proce du ra lCatch- 22 cre ate d by H i dalgo ; a nd the DH S’ s f a i l ur e t o p r o v i de h i m wi th s e i z ur e me di cati on wh i l e in custo dy. These add i ti onalar gum ents d o not ca rry the d ay. S oli s-C ha vez w il l ha ve th e op p ortuni ty to ar gue the m er i ts ofthe H i dalgo i ssue on re m and, and t h e r em ai ni ng al l ega ti ons ofaffi rm ati ve gov er nm entalm i sco nd uct ar e no t o fthe ki nd o r degre e n ec es sa ry to su p p or t e st op p el. Forthe f or ego i ng r eas ons, we G RANT Soli s-C ha vez’s p et itio n s, V A CA T E th e BI A’ s o r de r s , a nd R EMA ND f or fur th erpr o ce eding s co ns i st en t wi ththi s o pi ni o n.

10- 25- 11