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 3-23-2010 

# S amb o C hum v

. Atty Ge n U SA P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-2165

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 authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " S ambo C hum v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1666. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1666NOT PRECEDENTIAL U N IT E D S T A T E S C O URTO F AP P E ALS F O R T H ET H IRD C IRC U IT

___________ N o. 09- 2165

___________ S A MB O C H U M, 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

____________________________________ O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof the B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( A gencyN o. A 027- 371- 501) I m m i gr at i on J udge: H onor abl e W al t erA . D ur l i ng

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

M ar ch 17, 2010 B efor e: B A R R Y , ST A PL E T O N and N Y G A A R D , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed M ar ch 23, 2010)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM Sam bo C hum pet i t i ons forr evi ew of the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ’ ( “B I A ”) fi nal or derof r emoval . T he G overnm enthas m oved t o di s m i s s the pet i t i on forl ack ofC hum w as bor n i n a C ambodi an r efuge e ca m p i n T hai l and. 1 Sect i on 1229b( a) pr ovi des thatthe A t t orneyG ener al m aycanc el the r emoval of an 2 al i en w ho “(1) has bee n an al i en law full yadm i t t ed fo r perm anen tres i den ce fo r notl ess than 5 y ear s , ( 2) has r es i ded i n the U ni t ed St at es cont i nuous l yfor7 y ear s aft erhavi ng been a dm i t t ed i n anys t atus , and ( 3) has notbeen c onvi ct ed of a nyaggr avat ed fe l ony . ” 8 U . S. C . § 1229b( a) . I f an a l i en meet s thes e thr ee r equi r ement s , the I J , “upon r evi ew of the re co rd a s a w h o le, ‘m u st ba lanc e the ad v erse fa ctors e v iden cing the a li en ’s undes i r abi l i tyas a perm anentr es i dentw i th the s oci al and humane cons i der at i ons p re se n ted in h is [ o r h e r] b e h a lf to d e ter m in e w h e th e r th e g ra n tin g o f . . . relie f

a p p e a rs in the bes ti nt er es tof thi s countr y . ’ ” I n r e C - V - T - , 22 I . & N . D ec. 7, 11 ( B I A 1998) (qu o ti n g M att er o f M arin, 16 I. & N . D ec . 5 8 1 , 5 8 4 (B IA 1 9 7 8 )). 2 j ur i s di ct i on. Forthe r eas ons thatfol l ow , w e w i l l denythe G overnm ent ’ s m ot i on and Ch u m’ s p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. I. B e c a u se th e b a c k g ro u n d o f th is c a se is f

a m ili a r to th e p a rties , w e d isc u ss it o n ly br i efl yher e. C hum , a nat i ve of Thai l and and c i t i zen of C ambodi a, ent er ed the U ni t ed

1 St at es as a r efuge e i n 1985 and bec ame a l aw ful perm anentr es i denti n 1989. I n 2007, he pl eade d gui l tyi n R hode I s l and s t at e courtt o pos s es s i on of a s aw ed- off s hot gun and po sses si on w i th int ent t o d el i ver m ari j uan a. T he co urtsent enced him t o ten y ears ’ i m pr i s onm ent , w i th al l butei ght een mont hs of the s ent ence s us pended. C hum w as r el eas ed fr om pr i s on aft ers ervi ng fi ft een mont hs . Shor t l yaft erhi s r el eas e, he w as pl ace d i n rem ov al proceed i ng s. In O c to b e r 2 0 0 8 , C h u m a p p lie d f o r c a n c e lla tio n o f

re m o v a l u n d e r 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 9 b (a). A fter a h ea ri n g o n the m erit s, the Im m igrati o n Ju d g e (“ IJ”) g ran ted C h u m ’s

2 appl i cat i on. T he I J r ecogni zed thatC hum had bee n a mem berof a ga ng, had dr opped outT he B I A not ed, w i thoutdeci di ng, that“w e ar e notconvi nced that[C hum ] has 3 es t abl i s hed hi s bur den i n demonstr at i ng el i gi bi l i tyfor[ca ncel l at i on of r emoval ] . ” (D e c is io n o f

B IA a t 2 .) 3 o f h igh sch o o l, an d h ad b o th an ad u ltan d juv en il e c ri m inal rec o rd. N o n ethe less, the IJ concl uded thatthe pos i t i ve equi t i es “s l i ght l yoffs et ” thes e nega t i ve fa ct or s . ( D eci s i on of IJ at 4.) T h e IJ stated that “[ w ]hil e the re is no ev iden ce o f re h ab il it ati o n in this m att er, ther e i s evi dence of r ehabi l i t at i ve pot ent i al , i ncl udi ng earni ng hi s G E D , havi ng no pr obl ems w hi l e i ncar cer at ed, compl et i ng angerm anage m entand otherpr i s on r ehabi l i t at i ve- type cour s es , havi ng no i nt ent i on of r eturni ng t o hi s gang, and pur s ui ng a tr ade i n the cul i naryart s . ” ( I d. at3. ) T he I J al s o emphasi zed the ci r cumst ance s s urr oundi ng C hum ’ s entr yi nt o the U ni t ed St at es , not i ng thatC hum “know s nothi ng of C a m b o d ia a n d h a s n o re la tiv e s h e k n o w s o f re s id in g th e re .” (I d .) T he G overnm entappea l ed the I J ’ s rul i ng t o the B I A , ar gui ng that( 1) C hum ’ s drug convi ct i on r ender ed hi m i nel i gi bl e forcanc el l at i on of r emoval and ( 2) even i f C hum w as el i gi bl e, the I J err ed i n gr ant i ng the appl i cat i on. T he B I A rul ed on the s econd a r gum ent onl y , hol di ng thatthe I J err ed i n gr ant i ng C hum ’ s appl i cat i on. T he B I A concl uded that 3 C hum ’ s pos i t i ve equi t i es w er e i ns uffi ci entt o over come t he nega t i ve equi t i es . C hum now pet i t i ons forr evi ew of the B I A ’ s deci s i on, and the G overnm enthas m oved t o di s m i s s t he pet i t i on forl ack of

j ur i s di ct i on. II. “Thi s C our tgener al l yl acks j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew di s cr et i onarydeci s i ons m adeA s the G o v ern m en t exp lai n s, w e lac k juri sd ict ion to rev iew that d iscreti o n ary 4 asp ec t of the B IA ’s de cisi o n . S ee 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 (a)(2)(B )(i ). 4 under§ 1229b r egar di ng canc el l at i on of r emoval . ” M endez - R ey es v. A t t ’ yG en. of the U . S . , 4 2 8 F . 3 d 1 8 7 , 1 8 9 ( 3 d C i r . 2 0 0 5 ) ( c i t i n g 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( B ) ( i ) ) . A d d i t i o n a l l y, w e gene r al l yl ack j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew fi nal or der s of r emoval ent er ed aga i ns tal i ens convi ct ed of c ert ai n drug offe ns es . See 8 U . S. C . § 1252( a) ( 2) ( C ) . W e r et ai n j ur i s di ct i on, h o w e v e r, o v e r c o n s titu tio n a l c la im s a n d q u e s tio n s o f la w . S e e 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (a )( 2 )( D ). I n m ovi ng t o di s m i s s , the G overnm entcont ends thatC hum ’ s pet i t i on chal l enges m er el ythe B I A ’ s di s cr et i onarybal anci ng of the equi t i es . W e di s agr ee. C hum cl ai m s t hat the B IA app l i ed the w rong st and ard of revi ew and m i sappli ed the balanci ng t est governi ng canc el l at i on of r emoval appl i cat i ons . B eca us e thes e cl ai m s fal l w i thi n the ambi tof ourj ur i s di ct i on under§ 1252( a) ( 2) ( D ) , the G overnm ent ’ s m ot i on i s deni ed. III . A l though w e have j ur i s di ct i on t o cons i derC hum ’ s pet i t i on, he has nots how n t hat the B I A err ed as a mat t erof l aw . C hum fi r s tcl ai m s thatthe B I A “appl i ed the w r ong s t andar d of r evi ew beca us e i tfai l ed t o defe rt o the [I J ’ s ] fac tual fi ndi ngs and r ever s ed the [I J ’ s ] deci s i on w i thoutfi ndi ng anyof hi s fi ndi ngs cl ear l yerr oneous . ” ( C hum ’ s O peni ng B r i ef a t2. ) N othi ng i n t he B I A ’ s deci s i on, how ever , i ndi cat es thatthe B I A ques t i oned th e IJ’ s f a c tu a l f in d in g s, le t alo n e f

a iled to d e f

e r to th e m . T h e B IA sim p lyd isa g re e d w ith the IJ’ s balanci ngo f th ese fin d ing s. B ec au se th e B IA rev iew s tha t asp ec t of the IJ’s 45

d ec isi o n d e n o v o , see 8 C . F . R . § 1 0 0 3 . 1 (d)(3 )(i i) , the B IA d id n o t nee d to d ee m the IJ’s f a c tu a l f in d in g s c le a rl ye rr o n e o u s to o v e rt u rn th e IJ ’s g ra n t o f c a n c e lla tio n o f

re m o v a l. Ac c o r d i n g l y , th e BI A d i d n o ta p p l yth e wr o n g s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w. C hum ’ s othercl ai m i s thatthe B I A i gnor ed hi s “pr i nci pal pos i t i ve equi t i es and amel i or at i ng as pect s of hi s negat i ve equi t i es , ” ( C hum ’ s O peni ng B r i ef a t23) , ther eby p r e v e n t i n g i tf

r o m p r o p e r l ya p p l y i n g th e t e s tf o rb a l a n c i n g th e e q u i t i e s . Al th o u g h we r ecogni ze thatthe B I A ’ s deci s i on di s cus s ed the nega t i ve as pect s of C hum ’ s cas e at g rea ter l en g th tha n the p o sit ive a sp ec ts, the B IA d id co n side r b o th . Ind ee d , the B IA ’s deci s i on m ent i oned C hum ’ s r ehabi l i t at i ve pot ent i al , hi s “l ong t i m e phy s i cal pr es ence and f a m ily tie s in th e U n ite d S ta te s ,” a n d th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s th a t b ro u g h t h im to th is c o u n tr y . ( B I A D eci s i on at2. ) T he B I A s i m pl yconcl uded thatthes e pos i t i ve equi t i es di d not outw ei gh C hum ’ s “cr i m i nal act i vi t i es , gang af fi l i at i on, and the ci r cumst ance s s urr oundi ng hi s 2007 convi ct i on i nvol vi ng both drugs and w eapons . ” ( I d. ) M or ever , C hum has not persuaded us t hat the ab sence i n the B IA ’s decis i on of an yal l eged “am el i orat i ng aspect s” of hi s negat i ve equi t i es , s uch as the fa ctthathe l eftthe s aw ed- off s hot gun i n the trunk of h is car d u ri n g the d rug d ea l th at l ed to h is arrest, ref lects an ything m o re tha n the B IA ’s d isc re tio n a ryd e c isio n to a f f o rd th is e v id e n c e little o r n o w e ig h t. I n l i g h to f

th e a b o v e , we wi l l d e n yCh u m’ s p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.