FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT MAY 26 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N os . 05- 14759 a nd 05- 15973 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ A ge nc y N o. A 90- 920- 577 A N T O N I O G A M A L I E L R U B I O , P e titio n e r , v ersu s U .S . A T T O RN E Y G E N E R A L , R e s p o n d e n t.

________________________ P e t i t i ons f

orR e vi e w of

aD e c i s i on of

the B o a r d o f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls

_________________________ ( M ay 26, 2006) B efo re T JO F L A T , A N D E R S O N an d B IR C H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

P e t i t i o n e rAn t o n i o Ga l l i e l R u b i o i s an a t i v e a n d c i t i z e n o f E l S a l v a d o r . He ent er ed the U ni t ed S t at es w i tho utautho ri za t i on i n 1 98 1. H e bec am e at em po ra ry r e s id e n t in A p r il 1 9 8 8 a n d o b ta in e d p e rm a n e n t r e s id e n t s ta tu s in A u g u s t 1 9 9 0 . O n J a nua ry 30, 1996, he pl e d gui l ty t o the of f e ns e of bur gl a ry i n the S upe r i or C o u r t o f G w in n e tt C o u n ty , G e o r g ia , a n d w a s s e n te n c e d to f iv e - y e a r s c o n f

in e m e n t, t o be s e rve d on pr oba t i on a f t e rhe c om pl e t e d at e rm of 90 t o120 da y s i n “ B oot C am p. ” T he Im m i grat i on and N atural i za t i on S ervi ce (“ IN S ”) there af t erchar ged hi m w i th rem ov abi l i ty und erIm m i grat i on and N atural i za t i on A ct(“ IN A ”) § 23 7(a) (2)( A )( i i i ), 8 U . S . C . § 1 22 7(a) (2)( A )( i i i ), as an al i en havi ng been conv i ct ed o f a n a g g r a v a te d f

e lo n y . A ta r em ov al proceedi ng before an Im m i grat i on Judg e ( “ IJ ”) , P et i t i on er c o n te n d e d th a t h e h a d n o t b e e n c o n v ic te d ( in th e G w in n e tt C o u n ty S u p e r io rC o u r t) of a n a ggr a va t e d f

e l ony be c a us e hi s f

i ve - y e a rs e nt e nc e w a s as e nt e nc e of pr oba t i on, r a the rtha n as us pe nde d s e nt e nc e , a nd the r e f or e di d notf

a l l w i thi n the d e f in itio n o f “te rm o f im p r is o n m e n t” in I N A § 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 8 ) ( G ) , 8 U .S .C . § 1101( a ) ( 48) ( G ) . B e c a us e he ha d notc om m i tt e d a n a ggr a va t e d f e l ony , he a r gue d, he w as no tre m ov abl e. T he IJdi sa gree d. T he IN A tre at s abu rgl ary c on vi ct i on as a n a ggr a va t e d f

e l ony i f the t e rm of

i m pr i s onm e ntthe c our ti m pos e s i s “ a tl e a s toneI NA§ 1 01 (a)(48 )( G) , 8 U. S.C. § 1 10 1( a)(48 (G), state s: 1 (a) As used in this chapter –

. . . . (4 3) Th eterm

“ ag gra vate d f e lony”me ans –

. . . . (G) a theft off ense ( including rece ipt of stolen property ) or burg lary

offense for which the ter

m of imprisonment [ is] at least oneyear . The IJlabeled Petitioner’ s conviction a “ crime of violence”that amounted to an 2 ag gravated fe lony

beca use Petitioner’s sentence w as for five year s. The B IA, in its order dismiss ing Petitioner’ s appeal, eschewed the crime of violenc e labe l, and as weindicate infra, treated the crime as an ag gravated fe lony under I NA § 101(a)(48) (G), 8 U .S.C. § 1101(a) (48)( G). As a c onvicted fe lon, Petiti oner evidently realiz ed that he w as inelig ible for a sylum or 3 withh oldingof

remov al. 3 ye ar , ” and the t erm the courti m po se d i n P et i t i on er ’ s c as e w as fi ve ye ar s. T he IJ

1 2 there fore foun d P et i t i on erre m ov abl e. H avi ng re ac hed thatdeci si on , the IJas ked P e t i t i one ri f

he w i s he d t o r e que s ta ny othe rf orm of r e l i e f ( othe rtha n the de ni a l of r e m o v a l) . H e s a id n o , a n d th e I J o r d e r e d h im d e p o r te d to E l S a lv a d o r . 3 P e titio n e rap p e a le d th e I J ’s d e c is io n to th e B o a r d o f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls (“ B IA ”) , and o n January 31 , 20 02 , i tdi sm i ss ed the appeal . In i t s order , the B IA a d d r e s s e d a n d r e

je c te d P e titio n e r ’s a r g u m e n t th a t h is 1 9 9 6 G w in n e tt C o u n ty c o n v ic tio n w a s n o t a n a g g r a v a te d f e lo n y ( a n d th e r e f

o r e n o t ag r o u n d f

o rr e m o v a l) b e c a u s e , a c c o r d in g to P e titio n e r , “h is s e n te n c e to 5 y e a r s w a s as e n te n c e to pr oba t i on r a the rtha n as us pe nde d s e nt e nc e a nd, the r e f or e , d[ i d] notf

a l l w i thi n the defi ni t i on of “ t erm of i m pri sonm ent ” i n [IN A §] 10 1(a) (48)(G ). ” T he B IA agre ed w i th the I J ’ s f

i ndi ng r e ga r di ng P e t i t i one r ’ s s e nt e nc e , obs e rvi ng tha t“ the l a ngua geIn I NS v. St. C y

r, 533 U.S. 289, 326, 121 S.Ct. 21271, 150 L .Ed.2d 347 (2001), the 4 Sup remeCourt

he ld t hat alth ough § 21 2( c ) w a s repe ale d in 19 96 , § 21 2( c ) discretio na ry re lie f i s availableto aliens “whoseconvictions were obtained through plea agreements and who, notwithstanding those c onvictions, would have be en elig ible for § 212( c) relief at the time of their plea under thelaw then in ef

fec t.” As Petitioner pled guilty in J anuar y 1996, he wa s elig ible for § 212( c) relief if hemet the re quisites for the same . 4 i n the conv i ct i on do cum entcl ea rl y s t at es that[P et i t i on er ] w as se nt ence d t o a 5-ye ar pe r i od of c onf i ne m e nt , m os tof

w hi c h he w a s a l l ow e d t o s e rve on pr oba t i on. T he f a c ttha tapor t i on of

the . . . i nc a r c e r a t i on w a s s us pe nde d orpr oba t e d i s i rr e l e va nt f o rim m ig r a tio n p u rp o s e s . See s e c tio n 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 8 ) ( G ) o f th e A c t.” P e titio n e rd id nots e e k r e vi e w of

the B I A ’ s de c i s i on di s m i s s i ng hi s appe a l . A c c or di ngl y , the m eri t s o f th atd eci si o n are n o tb efo re u s. T h e G o v er n m en t d es ig n ated M ay 2 3 , 2 0 0 2 , as th e d ate o f P etit io n er ’s re m ov al , and n ot i fi ed P et i t i on er ’ s a tt orney thathi s c l i entshou l d reportfor r em ov al on thatdat e. P et i t i on erfa i l ed t o app ea l and b ec am e afugi t i ve. H e r em ai ned such unt i l he w a s a rr e s t e d i n S e pt e m be r2004. F ol l ow i ng hi s appr e he ns i on, he f i l e d a spec i al m ot i on w i th the B IA , pu rs uantt o 8 C . F . R . § 1 00 3. 44 , t o reopen h i s r em ov al proceedi ng s t o see k rel i ef un der f orm erIN A § 2 12 (c ), 8 U . S . C . § 1 18 2(c) (r epea l ed 1996) ( he r e a f

t e r§ 212( c ) ) , a nd t o s t a y hi s r e m ova l pe ndi ng the B I A ’ s de c i s i on. 4 T he B I A gr a nt e d the s t a y on O c t obe r18, 2004. O n A ug ust2, 20 05 , the B IA , re l yi ng on M att erof B l ake, 23 I. & N . D ec . 722 ( B . I . A . 2005) , de ni e d hi s m ot i on. T he B I A s t a t e d tha tt o w a rr a ntr e ope ni ng,5

P et i t i on erhad t o d em on stra t e thathe w as el i gi bl e t o app l y f or § 2 12 (c ) r el i ef

; that i s , he ha d t o e s t abl i s h tha tthe gr ound on w hi c h he ha d be e n he l d r e m ovabl e , the a g g r a v a te d f

e lo n y o f b u r g la ry , h a d ac o rr e s p o n d in g g r o u n d o f in a d m is s ib ility u n d e rI N A § 2 1 2 ( a ) , 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 8 2 ( a ) . T h e B I A w e n t to s o m e le n g th in e x p la in in g th e h u r d le P e titio n e rf a c e d : T o be s t a tut or i l y e l i gi bl e f oras e c t i on 212( c ) w a i ve r , the r e s ponde nt m ustes t abl i sh thatse ct i on 21 2(a) of the A ct , 8 U . S . C . § 1 18 2(a) , c ont a i ns agr ound of

i na dm i s s i bi l i ty tha ti s c om pa r abl e t o the gr ounds upon w hi c h he i s r e m ovabl e , i n thi s c a s e f orha vi ng be e n c onvi c t e d of th e a g g r a v a t e d f

e l o n y o f b u r g l a ry a s d e f

i n e d i n s e c t i o n 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 3 ) ( G) o f th e A c t, 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 3 ) ( G ) . M at terof B lake , 23 I& N D ec . 722 ( B I A 2005) . . . . I n M a tte ro f B la ke . . ., w e r e c e nt l y he l d tha tthe t es tfor det erm i ni ng w hether agrou nd of re m ov abi l i ty has a s t atut ory co u n t erp arti n sect i o n 2 1 2 (a) o f th e A ct‘ tu rn s o n w h eth er C o n g ress ha s e m pl oy e d s i m i l a rl a ngua ge t o de s c r i be s ubs t a nt i a l l y e qui va l e nt c a t e gor i e s of

of f e ns e s . ’ 23 I & N D e c . A t728. N o pr ovi s i on i n s e c t i on 212( a ) of the A c te s t abl i s he s i na dm i s s i bi l i ty f orbur gl a ry ora ny co m p arab l e cat eg o ry o f o ffen ses. W e reco g n i ze th atb u rg l ary i s a c r im e in v o lv in g m o r a l tu rp itu d e a n d th u s ac o n v ic tio n th e r e f o r e w ill r e nde ra n a l i e n i na dm i s s i bl e unde rs e c t i on 212( a ) ( 2) ( A ) ( i ) ( I ) of the A c t , 8 U . S . C . § 1182( a ) ( 2) ( A ) ( i ) ( I ) . N one the l e s s , tha tf a c tdoe s not e s t abl i s h c om pa r abi l i ty unde rthe s t a nda r d a nnounc e d i n M at te rof B lake , s upr a. I

d. a t 7 2 9 . T h e w id e r a n g e o f o f f e n s e s th a t f

a ll w ith in the s c ope of

s e c t i on 212( a ) ( 2) ( A ) ( i ) ( I ) of the A c ts i m pl y doe s not c om pa r e i n a ny w a y tha tc a n be de s c r i be d a s s ubs t a nt i a l l y e qui va l e nt to th e n a rr o w c a te g o ry o f b u r g la ry a n d th e f

t o f f e n s e s s p e c if

ie d in s e c tio n 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 3 ) ( G ) o f th e A c t. C

f . M at terof B ri ev a , 23 I& N D ec . 766 ( B I A 2005) ( hol di ng tha ts e c t i on 212( a ) . . . doe s notc ont a i n a grou nd of i nadm i ss i bi l i ty thatcorr es po nd s t o the cr i m e of vi ol ence gr ound of

r e m ovabi l i ty ) . T hus , w e c onc l ude tha ts e c t i on 212( a ) of the A c t d o e s n o t c o n ta in ag r o u n d o f in a d m is s ib ility th a t is c o m p a r ab le to the grou nd s upo n w hi ch the re spon denti s r em ov abl e.6

B ec ause IN A § 2 12 (a ), 8 U . S . C . § 1 18 2(a) , has no rel evantst atut ory coun t erpart , the B IA hel d thatP et i t i on erw as no tel i gi bl e f or a § 21 2(c) w ai ver. It th e r e f o r e d e n ie d h is s p e c ia l m o tio n f o rr e lie f f r o m th e r e m o v a l o r d e r . O n A u g u st 2 9 , 2 0 0 5 , P etit io n erp etit io n ed th is co u rt to re v iew th e B IA ’s A u g u s t 2 ru lin g . O n S e p te m b e r2 9 , th e B I A d e n ie d h is m o tio n f o rr e c o n s id e r a tio n . O n O c to b e r3 1 , 2 0 0 5 , h e p e titio n e d th is c o u r t to r e v ie w th e S e p te m b e r2 9 ru lin g . We c o n s o l i d a t e dth e two p e t i t i o n s f o rr e v i e w. P r i ort o br i e f

i ng, w e a s ke d the pa r t i e s t o a ddr e s s i n the i rbr i e f s the f ol l ow i ng q u est i o n s: 1 ) W h eth erIN A § 2 4 2 (a )( C ), 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (a )( C ), li m it s th is co u rt’s j ur i s di c t i on ove rthi s pe t i t i on f orr e vi e w . S e e D e l P i l a rv. A tt orne y G e ne r a l , 326 F . 3d 11 54 , 11 56 (11th C i r. 20 03 ). 2) If IN A § 2 42 (a )( C ) app l i es , addres s w hether the spec i fi c c on st i tut i on al chal l enges or quest i on s of l aw , i f a ny, ra i se d b y P et i t i on er , ar e r evi ew abl e. S ee 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2(a) (2)( D ); B rook s v. A shcr oft , 28 3 F . 3d 12 68 (11th C i r. 20 02 ). 3) If P et i t i on erse eks j ud i ci al re vi ew of the deni al of di sc re t i on ary r el i ef , doe s I N A § 242( a ) ( 2) ( B ) pr e c l ude thi s c our t ’ s j ur i s di c t i on i f the B oa r d of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s di d n otexer ci se any di sc re t i on i n d enyi ng the re qu es t ed re l i ef ? W e c ons i de rthe s e que s t i ons i n turn. I N A § 2 4 2 ( a ) ( C ) , 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 ( a ) ( C ) , s ta te s , in p e r tin e n t p a r t: ( a ) A ppl i c abl e pr ovi s i ons

. . . . (2) M att er s notsubj ec tt o j ud i ci al re vi ew

. . . .7 ( C ) O r de r s a ga i ns tc r i m i na l a l i e ns N otw i ths t a ndi ng a ny othe rpr ovi s i on of l a w ( s t a tut ory or no nst atut ory) , i ncl ud i ng se ct i on 22 41 of T i t l e 28, or any other habeas c orpus pr ovi s i on . . . no c our ts ha l l ha ve j ur i s di c t i on t o r e vi e w a ny f i na l or de rof

r e m ova l a ga i ns ta n a l i e n w ho i s r e m ovabl e by r e a s on of ha vi ng c om m i tt e d ac r i m i na l of f e ns e c ove r e d by s e c t i on 1182( a ) ( 2) or 1 2 2 7 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( A ) ( iii) . . . o f th is title . . . . S e c tio n 1 2 2 7 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( A ) ( iii) s ta te s , in p e r tin e n t p a r t: ( a ) C l a s s e s of

de por t abl e a l i e ns A ny a l i e n . . . i n a nd a dm i tt e d t o the U ni t e d S t a t e s s ha l l , upon the or de rof the A tt orne y G e ne r a l , be r e m ove d i f the a l i e n i s w i thi n one or m o re o f th e fo l l o w i n g cl asses o f d ep o rt ab l e al i en s:

. . . . (2) C ri m i nal offe nses (A ) G ener al cr i m es

. . . . ( i i i ) A ggr a va t e d f

e l ony I n D e l P i l a r , the c our tc ons i de r e d the s c ope of i t s r e vi e w f

ors om e one st andi ng i n P et i t i on er ’ s s ho es . W e s ai d that“ ou r r evi ew . . . i s l i m i t ed t o ‘ w hether [he] i s ( 1) an al i en (2) w ho i s r em ov abl e ( 3) base d o n a conv i ct i on for a n ag g ra v ated fe lo n y.’ B a h a a rv . A s h c r o ft , 26 4 F . 3e 13 09 , 13 11 (11th C i r. 20 01 ) ( per curi am ). ” 326 F . 3d at11 57 . A s w as the ca se w i th the pet i t i on eri n D el P i l ar , P e t i t i one ri s a n a l i e n w ho i s r e m ovabl e unde r§ 1227( a ) ( 2) ( A ) ( i i i ) f orha vi ng c o m m itte d a n a g g r a v a te d f e lo n y . T h e a n s w e rto th e f ir s t q u e s tio n , th e n , is th a t w e l a c k j ur i s di c t i on t o r e vi e w the c ha l l e nge d B I A or de r s unl e s s , i n r e s pons e t o the s e c ond que s t i on, P e t i t i one rha s pr e s e nt e d c ons t i tut i ona l c ha l l e nge s orque s t i ons ofI NA§ 2 42 (a)( 2) (D ), 8 U .S. C. § 12 52 (a)( 2) (D ), state s, in p ertinent p art : “No thingin 5 subparagraph (B) or (C), or in any other provision of this cha pter (other than this section) which limit s or eliminates judicial review, shall be c onstrued as precludingreview of c onstitut ional claims or questions of lawraised upon a petition for review filed with an appropriate cour t of appeals. . . .” 8 l a w . W e f

i nd nothi ng i n P e t i t i one r ’ s br i e f tha tc oul d be c ons i de r e d a 5 c ons t i tut i ona l c ha l l e nge . H e doe s pr e s e ntthi s l e ga l i s s ue , how e ve r : w he the rthe B I A ’ s r e l i a nc e on B l a ke i n de ny i ng hi s s pe c i a l m ot i on t o r e ope n a nd hi s m ot i on f or r e c o n s id e r a tio n w a s in c o n s is te n t w ith th e S u p r e m e C o u r t’s d e c is io n in I N S v . S t. C y r , 533 U . S . 289, 121 S . C T . 2271, 150 L . E d. 2d 347 ( 2001) . T he G ove rnm e nt concedes thatP et i t i on er ’ s a gg ra vat ed fe l on y c on vi ct i on di d n ot , st andi ng al on e, bar hi m f r om e l i gi bi l i ty f

or§ 212( c ) r e l i e f

a nd c ont e nds tha tthe B I A ’ s r e l i a nc e on B la k e w a s n o t in c o n s is te n t w ith S t. C y r . A s i ndi c a t e d i n the above quot a t i on f r om the B I A ’ s de c i s i on de ny i ng P e t i t i one r§ 212( c ) r e l i e f , i n B l a ke , the B I A he l d tha t“ the t e s tf orde t e rm i ni ng w hether agrou nd of re m ov abi l i ty has a s t atut ory c ou nt erparti n [IN A §] 21 2(a)

‘ turns on w he the rC ongr e s s ha s e m pl oy e d s i m i l a rl a ngua ge t o de s c r i be subst ant i al l y e qu i val entca t egori es of offe nses . ’ ” U si ng thatt es t , the B IA concl ud ed thatno prov i si on i n IN A § 2 12 (a ), 8 U . S . C . § 1 18 2(a) , “ es t abl i shes in a d m is s ib ility f

o rb u r g la ry o ra n y c o m p a r ab le c a te g o ry o f o f f e n s e s .” G iv e n th is fa i l ure of c om parabi l i ty, the B IA concl ud ed thatP et i t i on erw as i nel i gi bl e f or a § 21 2(c) w ai ver. T he l egal qu es t i on P et i t i on erpres ent s thu s boi l s dow n t o w hether9

the B I A e rr e d w he n i tr e l i e d on B l a ke t o de ny r e l i e f . O r , puta nothe rw a y , di d the B I A e rri n f

i ndi ng tha tthe gr ound f orw hi c h P e t i t i one rw a s de por t e d, the a ggr a va t e d f

e l ony of bur gl a ry , w a s nots ubs t a nt i a l l y e qui va l e ntt o agr ound of in a d m is s ib ility c ite d in I N A § 2 1 2 ( a ) , 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 9 8 2 ( a ) ? W e a r e o b lig e d to d ef erto th e B IA ’s re as o n ab le in terp re tati o n o f th e I N A . S ee A ss a’ad v . U .S . A tt ’y G e n . , 3 3 2 F. 3 d 1 3 2 1 , 1 3 2 6 ( 1 1 th Ci r . 2 0 0 3 ) . Th e Bl a k e c o mp a r ab i l i ty t e s ts e e ms t o u s t o b e are as on abl e i nt erpret at i on of the re l evantIN A prov i si on s. M oreover, w e s e e nothi ng i n B l a ke ’ s r a t i ona l e orhol di ng tha ti s i nc ons i s t e ntw i th the S up re m e C ou rt ’ s dec i si on i n S t . C yr . W e there fore re j ec tP et i t i on er ’ s l egal c ha l l e nge t o the B I A rul i ngs unde rc ons i de r a t i on. T h i s b r i n g s u s t o th e th i r d q u e s t i o n , wh i c h c o n c e rn s th e ap p l i c a t i o n o f I NA § 2 4 2 (a )( 2 )( D ). T h e G o v er n m en t co n cu rs w ith th e a ss er ti o n at p ag e v o f P etit io n er ’s br i e f , tha t“ [ T ] he A tt orne y G e ne r a l e xe r c i s e d no di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng the re q u es ted re li ef. T h e B o ar d o f I m m ig ra ti o n ap p ea ls, th e A tt o rn ey G en er al’s del egat ee , si m pl y rul ed thatP et i t i on erw as no tel i gi bl e f or the re l i ef

soug ht . ” I n l i g h to f th i s c o n c e s s i o n , o u rtr e a tm e n to f th e f i r s ttwo q u e s t i o n s e n d s o u rr e v i e w. F or the re as on s s t at ed, the B IA ’ s dec i si on s denyi ng P et i t i on er ’ s s peci al m ot i on and m ot i on for r ec on si dera t i on ar e AF F I R ME D.