P 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- 2349

_____________ M A U R IC E R . D U H A N E Y , Pet i t i oner

v. TH E 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 a D eci s i on and O r derof th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( B I A N o. A 30- 114- 908) I m m i gr at i on J udge: A ndr ew R
. A r t hur A r gued J une 10, 2010 B e f o re : A M B R O , C H A G A R E S , a n d G R E E N A W A Y , J R .,

C i rcui tJudg es. ( Fi l ed: Sept ember14, 2010)

D ani el M
. G onen C hr i s t os R avani des ( A r gued) F o u r T im es S q u are N ew Y or k, N Y 10036 C ouns el f orP et i t i oner T on yW est G r eg D
. M ack M anuel A

. Pal au ( A r gued) R i char d M

. E vans Paul Fi or i no2 U
. S. D epart m entof J us t i ce P. O

. B ox 878, B en Fr ankl i n St at i on W as hi ngt on, D C 20044 C ou nse lf

orR es pondent

_____________ OP I NI ON

_____________ C H A G A R E S, C i r cui tJ udge. M aur i ce D uhaneypet i t i ons for r evi ew of the A pr i l 22, 2008, deci s i on byt he B oar d of I m m i g rat i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) , fi ndi ng D uhaneyr emovabl e as an al i en convi ct ed of a n aggr avat ed fe l ony u n d er I m m i gr at i on and N at i onal i t yA ct( “I N A ”) s ect i on 237( a) ( 2) ( A ) ( i i i ) , 8 U
. S. C

. § 1227( a) ( 2) ( A ) ( i i i )

. T hi s or derof r emoval w as bas ed on a 1985 convi ct i on for cr i m i nal pos s es s i on of a w eapon i n t he s econd de gr ee, w hi ch D uhaney co n t ends t he G overnm entcoul d have r ai s ed as a gr ound forr emoval dur i ng pr i or i m m i gr at i on pr ocee di ngs . H avi ng fai l ed t o char ge hi m as dep ort able based on t his con vict i on du ri ng t he pri or proceedings, he ar gues t hatt he G overnments houl d have be en pr ecl uded fr om doi ng s o i n s ubs equentpr ocee di ngs . D uhaney al s o ar gues t hatt he B IA c o m m itt e d p ro c e d u ra l er ro r a n d d e p riv e d h im o f th e rig h t to p re s e n t a r g u m e n ts o n h is o w n b e h a lf. F o r th e re a so n s s e t f o rth bel ow , w e w i l l denyt he pet i t i on. I
. D u h an eyw as b o rn in Ja m aica o n N o v em b er 1 2 , 1 9 6 5
. In 1973, att he age of s even, he w as admi t t ed t o t he U ni t ed S t at es as a l aw ful perm anent r es i dent and has r es i ded i n t he U n it ed St at es evers i nce. O n Sept ember11, 1985, a j ur yconvi ct ed D uhaneyof ma n s l a u g h t e ri n th e s e c o n d d e g r e e a n d c r i mi n a l p o s s e s s i o n of a w eapon i n t he s econd de gr ee, bas ed on the fa t al s hoot i ng of V ince n t Sa n ti ag o , Jr. (th e “ 1 9 8 5 sh o o ti n g co n v ict ion s”). T h e jury acqui t t ed D uhaneyof m ur der in the s econd de gr ee a nd m a n sla u g h ter in th e f

irst d e g re e . D u h a n e yw a s s e n ten c e d to cons ecut i ve t erm s of fi ve t o fi ftee n y ear s foreac h convi ct i on.3 W hi l e D uhaneyw as aw ai t i ng t r i al fort hes e charges, he w as a rre ste d a n d c h a rg e d w ith p ossess i o n o f a c o n tro lled su b sta n c e w ith th e in ten t to se ll. O n O c to b e r 1 , 1 9 8 5 , D u h a n e yp led g u iltyto cr i m i nal s al e of a contr ol l ed subst ance ( t he “1985 c ont r ol l ed su b sta n c e c o n v ictio n ” ). H e w a s s e n ten c e d to o n e to th re e y e a rs in pr i s on. B as ed on thes e thr ee c onvi ct i ons , D uhaneyr emai ned i ncar cer at ed unt i l 1995. O n J une 2 4 , 1986, t he I m m i gr at i on and N atur al i zat i on Ser vi ce ( I N S) i s s ued an O r dert o Show C aus e ( t he “1986 O T SC ”) char gi ng D uh an ey as depor t abl e pur s uantt o for m erI N A s ect i on 241( a)( 1 1) , 8 U
. S. C

. § 1231( a) ( 1) ( 1986) , bas ed on the 1985 contr ol l ed s ubs t ance convi ct i on. A dm i ni s t r at i ve R ecor d ( “A

. R
. ”) 910. T he 1986 O T SC di d notm ent i on t he 1985 s hoot i ng conv i c t i o n s . I d

. I n r e s p o n s e t o t h e 1 9 8 6 OTSC, Duhaney s u b mi tt e d a Form I

- 191 r eques t i ng a w ai verof deport at i on pur s uant to f o rm er IN A sec ti o n 2 1 2 (c) in Se p tem b er 19 9 2
. A

. R
. 9 0 5 -06
. In hi s appl i cat i on fora § 212( c) w ai ver , D uhaneydi s cl os ed al l t hr ee convi ct i ons . A

. R
. 906. I n A ugus t 1993, an I m m i gr at i on J udge ( “I J ”) hel d a hea r i ng o n Du h a n e y ’ s r e q u e s t f

o r a § 2 1 2 ( c ) wa i v e r . T h e I J a s k e d t h e I NS at t or neyaboutt he fi r earm s convi ct i on, and the I N S at t or neys t at ed hi s bel i ef thatt he s i nce the O T S C w as i s s ued bef or e M ar ch 1, 1991, t he fi r earm s co n v ic t i on coul d notbe us ed as a bas i s for d ep o rt ab il ity . A

. R
. 3 6 9
. T h e IN S att o rne yfu rth er n o ted, “I d o n ’t th in k w e ’d e v e r ch a rg e h im , Ju d g e , b u t th e p o ss ib ili tye x ists th a t it coul d be cha r ged i n t he future. I w oul d hope thatt he Ser vi ce does n’ tdo t hat

. ” A

. R
. 370. T he IJ c o m m ent ed he w oul d “l eave t hatforano ther da y , ” al t hough he expr es s ed “r eal r es ervat i ons aboutw hether t he S ervi ce coul d do t hat , ” as t he i s s ue pr es ent ed a “re s jud icata q u esti o n . ” Id

. T h e IJ a cc ep ted th e IN S att o rne y ’s re p re se n tatio n th a t th e se o th e r c o n v ictio n s d id n o t re n d e r h im s t atut or i l yi nel i gi bl e fora § 212( c) w ai ver . I d. I n t he or al deci s i on gr ant i ng D uhaney ’ s r eques tfora w ai ver , t he I J fi r s tnot ed that D uhaneyhad admi t t ed the al l egat i ons i n t he O T SC and conc eded t hathe w as depor t abl e. A

. R
. 377. T he I J di s cus s ed both t he 1985 s ubs t ance abus e convi ct ion cit ed i n t he O T SC and the 1985 s h o o t i n g c o n v i c t i o n s , n o t i n g t h a tt h e ma n s l a u g h t e rc o n v i c t i on amount ed t o a cr i m e i nvol vi ng m or al turpi tude. A

. R
. 383- 84Du r i n g t h i s t i me p e r i o d , t h e Go v e r n me n t i s s u e d a n NT A, 1 dat ed N ovember 16, 2006, char gi ng D uhaneyas r emovabl e bas ed o n h i s 1 9 8 5 d ru g t r a f f i c k i n g , ma ns l a u g h t e r , a n d f i r e a r ms convi ct i ons . A

. R
. 683- 84. T hi s N T A w as l ater d ism i s s ed as “i m pr ovi dent l yi s s ued. ” A

. R
. 618. 4 ( ci t i ng I n r e W ojt k o w , 1 8 I
. & N
. D ec. 8411 ( B I A 1981) )

. T he G overnm entel ect ed n o t to appeal , and thes e fi r s tdepor t at i on pr ocee di ngs w er e t erm i nat ed on A ugus t20, 1993. A

. R
. 425. O n M arc h 2 4 , 2000, D uhaneypl ed gui l t yt o cr i m i nal pos s es s i on of a cont r ol l ed s ubs t ance i n t he thi r d degr ee ( t he “2000 convi ct i on”)

. O n M ar ch 25, 2004, t he G overnm enti s s ued a N ot i ce to A p p e a r (N T A ) c h a rg in g th a t th e 2 0 0 0 c o n v ictio n re n d e re d h im r emovabl e on tw o gr ounds : ( 1) as a convi ct i on for a cr i m e r el at i ng to a c o n tr o lle d s u b s t a n c e u n d e r I N A s e c tio n 2 3 7 (a )( 2 )( B )( i) , 8 U
. S. C

. § 1227( a) ( 2) ( B ) ( i ) ; and ( 2) as a convi ct i on of an a ggr avat ed f e lo n yu n d e r I N A s e c tio n 2 3 7 (a )( 2 )( A )( iii) , 8 U .S .C . § 1227( a) ( 2) ( A )(i ii ) , w hi ch i s defi ned t o i ncl ude a drug t r aff i cki ng c r i me u n d e rI NA s e c t i o n 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 3 ) ( B) , 8 U. S

. C. § 1 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 3 ) ( B) ( t he “2004 N T A ”)

. A

. R
. 931. I n O ctober 2004, an I J or der ed D u h an ey rem o v ed b ase d o n the 20 0 0 co n v ict ion

. A

. R
. 7 4 6 -48
. In J anuary 2005, t he B I A aff i r m ed thi s r emoval or der , m aki ng i tt he fi nal agenc ydet erm i nat i on ( t he “2005 r emoval or der ” ort he “2005 r emoval pr ocee di ngs ”)

. A

. R
. 752. O n A ugus t9, 2006, t he N ew Y or k Supr eme C our tvaca t ed t he 2000 convi ct i on and di s m i s s ed t he i ndi ct m ent w i t h pr ej udi ce. A

. R
. 4 4 0
. T h ere af

ter, D u h an eyfil ed a p ro se m o ti o n w ith the B IA to reo p en an d term inate the 2 0 0 5 rem o v al pro ce ed ing s; th e B IA r e c e i v e d t h e mo t i o n o n De c e mb e r4 , 2 0 0 6
. A. R. 6 9 5

- 7 0 6
. On 1 D ece m ber5, 2006, t he G overnm ental s o m oved t o r eopen the 2005 r emoval pr ocee di ngs . A

. R
. 688- 90. T h e G overnm ent ’ s m ot i on acknow l edged thatD uhaneyw as no l onger r emovabl e bas ed on the now - vaca t ed 2000 convi ct i on , butt he mot i on s t at ed the G overnm ent ’ s bel i ef t hat D uhaney “may be r emovabl e . . . on t he b a s i s of o t h e r , s e p a r a t e a n d d i s t i n c tc r i mi n a l c o n v i c t i o n s . ” A. R. 690. T he G overnm entr eques t ed thatt he B I A “r emand t hi s m at t er t o t he I m m i gr at i on C our ts o t hati tm ayr eopen a nd t erm i nat e theW e r efe rt o t he For m I

- 261 i t s el f as t he “2007 For m , ” and 2 w e r e f e r to th is f

o rm to g e th e r w ith th e 2 0 0 4 N T A th a t it s uppl ement ed as t he “A m ended 2004 N T A

. ” The 2007 Form, on it s o w n , d o es n o t con sti tute a se p ara te ch arg ing d o cu m en t. It m er el y adds fac tual al l egat i ons and cha r ges of r emovabi l i t yt o t he 2 0 0 4 NT A. 5 afor ement i oned R emoval Pr ocee di ngs . . . and r es ci nd t he af o rem en ti o n ed O rde r of R em o v al. ” Id

. T h e G o v ern m en t’ s m ot i on al s o i ncl uded the fol l ow i ng cave at : “al l of the for egoi ng w i t houtpr ej udi ce a gai ns tt he i ni t i at i on of a n ynew r emoval p r o c e e d i n g s , s o t h a tDH S- I CE ma yp r e p a r e a n d f i l e a n e w N TA a g a in s t th e R e s p o n d e n t.” Id

. D u h an eyclaim s tha t he d id n o t r ec eive the G o v ern m en t’ s m ot i on. T h rou g h o u tt hi s t i m e per i od, D uhaneyw as i n t he G overnm ent ’ s cus t ody

. O n N ovember17, 2006, t he G overnm ent t r ans ferr ed D uhaneyfr o m a d etent i on fac i l i t yi n N ew Y or k t o a corr ect i onal cent eri n Penns y l vani a. D u h aney ’ s m ot i on i ncl uded a c o v e rl e t t e rl i s t i n g h i s a d d r e s s a s t h e P e n n s y l v a n i a f a c i l i t y , A. R. 6 9 5 , b u t th e B IA ’s fil ing rec eipt li sts his ad d ress a s the N ew Y o rk fac i l i t y , A

. R
. 693. T he G overnm ents erved i t s m ot i on bys endi ng i tvi a fi r s tcl as s m ai l t o t he N ew Y or k fac i l i t y . A

. R
. 690. O n J anuary17, 2007, t he B I A gr ant ed the part i es ’ m ot i ons t o r e o p e n a n d r e ma n d e d t h e ma t t e r t o t h e I mmi g r a t i o n Cour t for fur t herp roceedi ngs . A

. R
. 617. O n M ar ch 6, 2007, t he G overnm entfi l ed a For m I-261, l odgi ng addi t i onal char ges of r emov abi l i t yagai ns tD uhaney( t he “2007 For m ”)

. A

. R
. 600- 01. 2 S p e c if ica lly , the 2 0 0 7 F o r m c h a rg e d D u h a n e yw ith re m o v a b ili ty p u rsua n t t o : I N A sec ti o n 2 3 7 (a)(2)(C ), 8 U
. S

. C

. § 1 2 2 7 (a)(2)(C ), bas ed on hi s convi cti o n fora fi r earm s offe ns e; I N A s ect i on 2 3 7 ( a ) ( 2 )(A )(ii), 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 7 (a )(2 )(A )(ii), b a se d o n h is convi ct i ons fort w o cr i m es o f m or al turpi tude; and I N A s ect i on 2 3 7 (a )(2 )(A )(iii), 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 7 (a )(2 )(A )(iii), ba se d o n h is co n v ict ion fo r an ag g rav ated fe lo n y . A .R
. 6 0 0
. T h e 2 0 0 7 F o rm det ai l ed hi s 1985 m ans l aught er , fi r earm s pos s es s i on, and s al e of a contr ol l ed s ubs t ance convi ct i ons ; r epor t ed t hat hi s 2000 convi ct i on had bee n vaca t ed; and acknow l edged t hat he had bee n gr ant ed a §6 212( c) w ai verbas ed on an a ppl i cat i on t hatl i s t ed all t hr ee 1985 convi ct i ons . A

. R
. 600- 01. I n r es pons e, D uhaney fil ed a m ot i on t o t erm i nat e the r emoval pr ocee di ngs . A

. R
. 503- 09. D uhaneyar gued, i nt eral i a, t hatD H S fai l ed t o pr ovi de hi m not i ce of i t s m ot i on t o r eopen, t hat th e B IA e rre d b yre m a n d in g th e c a se to th e IJ r a th e r th a n sim p ly t erm i nat i ng t he r emoval pr ocee di ngs , and t hat t he G overnm entw as barr ed bycol l at er al es t oppel and r es judi cat a fr om char gi ng gr ounds of r emovabi l i t yt hati tcoul d have c har ged dur i ng t he pr i or pr ocee di ngs t hatw er e cl os ed i n 1993 and 2005. A

. R
. 504- 08. O n N o v e m b e r 5 , 2 0 0 7 , the IJ d e n ied D u h a n e y ’s m o tio n to t erm i nat e. A

. R
. 444- 52. T he I J not ed thatcol l at er al es t oppel and r e s j u d i c a t a a p p l yg e n e r a l l yt o i mmi g r a t i o n p r o c e e d i n g s , b u tt hat nei t herdoctr i ne pr ecl uded D H S fr om all eg i ng new gr ounds for r emovabi l i t yi n t hi s cas e. A

. R
. 449. T he IJ c oncl uded that “[u] ndert he IN A as i t w as appl i ed w hen [D uhaney ] w as gr ant ed a w a i v e r u n d e r s e c t i o n 2 1 2 ( c )

. . . , t h e f o r me r I NS c o ul d not have char ged [hi m ] w i t h r emoval as an al i en convi ct ed of a n aggr avat ed fel ony , ” bec aus e th e aggr avat ed fe l onypr ovi s i ons of the I m m i gr at i on A ctof 1990 di d notappl yr etr oact i vel yunt i l t he I l l ega l I m m i gr at i on R eform and I m m i gr antR es pons i bi l i t yA ctof 1996 w as enac t ed. A

. R
. 450. B as ed on thi s “mat er i al i nt erveni ng c h a n g e in th e g o v e rn in g law ,” th e IJ f o u n d th a t “n e ith e r re s ju d ica ta norcol l at er al es t oppel w oul d barD H S’ s pr os ecut i on of r emoval pr ocee di ngs bas ed on hi s 1985 w eapon c onvi ct i on. ” A

. R
. 451. T he I J al s o det erm i ned thatD uhaney ’ s § 212( c) w aive r appl i ed onl yt o t he bas i s for r emovabi l i t y al l eged att hatt i m e, and nott o a bas i s forr emovabi l i t y– D uhaney ’s c o n v i ct i on of an a ggr avat ed fel ony– t hatdi d noteven e xi s tatt he t i m e. A

. R
. 451. O n D e c e m b e r 2 0 , 2 0 0 7 , the IJ o rd e re d D u h a n e yre m o v e d to J a ma i c a b a s e d o n t h e t h r e e g r o u n d s a d d e d b y t h e 2 0 0 7 F o r m. A. R. 58- 63. D uhaneyappea l ed the I J ’ s deci s i on, A

. R
. 9- 29, and on A pr i l 22, 2008, t he B I A aff i r m ed the r emoval or der , A

. R
. 2- 6. T he B I A r ej ect ed D uhaney ’ s ar gum ent s t hati terr ed byr emandi ng t he cas e t o t he I J , t hatD uhaney ’ s due pr oces s r i ght s w er e vi ol at ed by hi s fai l ur e t o r ece i ve not i ce of t he G overnm ent ’ s m ot i on, and that col l at er al es t oppel and r es jud icat a barr ed the G overnm entfr om a d d i n g c h a r g e s t h a ti tc o u l d h a v e c h a r g e d b e f o r e . A. R. 4

- 5
. On7 M a y7 , 2 0 0 8 , Du h a n e yf i l e d t h i s t i me l yp e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. II. W e h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n o v e r t h is p e titio n u n d e r 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 ( a ) ( 1 ) . S in c e D u h a n e yw a s f o u n d re m o v a b le b a se d o n h is convi ct i on for an aggr avat ed fel ony , w e r evi ew onl yt he l egal and cons t i tuti o n al i s s ues r ai s ed. 8 U
. S. C

. §§ 1252( a) ( 2) ( C )

- ( D ) ; s ee C ar ol eo v. G onzal es , 476 F. 3d 158, 162 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( “W e have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew cons t i tut i onal cl ai m s orques t i ons of l aw ra is e d u p o n a p e titio n f o r r e v ie w f

ro m a f i n a l o rd e r o f

th e B IA

. .

. . ”)

. W e exer ci s e de novo r evi ew over t hes e i s s ues . See C ar ol eo, 476 F. 3d at162 ( ci t i ng K amar a v. A t t ’ y G en . , 420 F. 3d 202, 211 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ))

. III
. A s a thr es hol d m at t er , D uhaneyar gues t hat t he B I A err ed by r e ma n d i n g h i s c a s e t o t h e I J r a t h e rt h a n s i mpl yr e o p e n i n g t he pr ocee di ngs for the sol e purpos e of t erm i nat i ng t he or derof r emoval

. H e ar gues t hatt he B I A di s r egar ded i t s ow n es t abl i s hed pr ece dentby r emandi ng t he cas e, and t hat he w as depr i ved of the r i ghtt o oppos e re m and becaus e t he G overnm entfai l ed t o pr ovi de pr opernot i ce. A

. D uhaney fi r s tcont ends t hatt he B I A err ed byr emandi ng r athert han t erm i nat i ng hi s cas e upon the vaca tur of hi s convi ct i on, r el y i ng on J ohns on v. A s hcr oft , 378 F. 3d 164, 171 ( 2d C i r . 2004) ( “J ohnso n (2d C i r . ) ”)

. I n t hatcas e, t he C our tof A ppeal s fort he Second C i r cui t not ed t hat t he “B I A , as a m at t er of pra ct i ce, r out i nel yr eopens and t erm i nat es pr ocee di ngs of thi s ki nd w i t hout rem an d ing fo r fu rth e r in q u iryb ef o re a n IJ. ” Id

. (cit ing In re R o d ri g u ez -R u iz, 2 2 I. & N
. D ec . 1 3 7 8 , 1 3 8 0 (B IA 2 0 0 0 ); In re G ut ni c k, 13 I
. & N
. D e c . 67 2, 67 4 ( BI A 19 71 ) )

. The c ou r ta l so not ed that , s i nce the G overnm entdi d noti nt end t o intr o d uce a ny p r e v i o u s l yu n a v a i l a b l e e v i d e n c e o n r e ma n d , “ t h e Bo a r d ’ s o wn p re c e d e n ts c lea rlym a n d a ted ” th a t th e G o v e rn m e n t’ s m o tio n to r em an d b e deni ed. I d. ( ci t i ng K uang- T e W ang v. A s hcr oft , 2608 F. 3d 448, 451 & n. 2 ( 5t h C i r . 2001) ; I n r e C oel ho, 20 I
. & N
. D ec. 464, 471- 73 ( B I A 1992) )

. T he courtconcl uded that , “[w ] hi l e the B o a rd is f

re e to m o d if

yits p re c e d e n ts in a re a so n e d f a sh io n , ita c ts arbi t r ar i l yand unl aw ful l yw hen i ts i m pl yi gnor es es t abl i s hed hol di ngs . ” I d. at171 ( ci t i ng K e Zhen Z hao v. U
. S. D ep’ tof J us t i ce, 265 F. 3d 83, 93 ( 2d C i r . 2001) ; J ohns on v. A s hcr oft , 286 F
. 3 d 6 9 6 , 7 0 0 & n . 4 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 2 ) (“Jo h n so n (3d C ir

. )”)). W e h a v e r e c o g n ize d th a t an a d m in istra tiv e a g e n c y“ a c ts arbi t r ar i l yi f i tdepart s fr om i t s es t abl i s hed pr ece dent s w i t hout announci ng a pr i nci pl ed r eas on forthe depa r tur e. ” J ohns on ( 3d C i r . ) , 2 8 6 F
. 3 d a t 7 0 0 ( c i t a t i o n s a n d q u o t a t i o n m a r k s o m i t t e d )

. We di s agr ee, how ever , t hat t he B I A di s r egar ded es t abl i s hed pr ece dent byr emandi ng t hes e pr ocee di ngs t o t he I J
. W e do not vi ew anyof the c ase s cit ed in Jo h n so n (2d C ir

. ) a s estab li sh ing that the B IA ’s es t abl i s hed pr ece denti s t o t erm i nat e r emoval pr ocee di ngs w i t hout r emand t o t he I J
. W hi l e the B I A t erm i nat ed r emoval pr ocee di ngs wi t h o u tf i r s t r e ma n d i n g t o a n I J i n b o t h Ro d r i g u e z - Ru i z , 2 2 I
. & N. De c . a t 1 3 8 0 , a n d Gu t n i c k , 1 3 I
. & N. De c . a t6 7 4 , t h e s e t wo ex am pl es do notpr ove thatt hi s pr ocedur e amount s t o t he B IA ’s e sta b lish e d p re c e d e n t. If a n y th in g , th e a p p lica b le r e g u latio n s s e e m to c o n tem p late t h e p r o c e d u r e t h a tt h e BI A f o l l o we d i n t h i s c a s e . Un d e r8 C. F
. R. § 1 0 0 3 .1 (d )(3 ) ( iv ), th e B IA g e n e ra lly“ w ill n o t en g a g e in f a c tf in d in g in th e c o u rse o f

d e c id in g a p p e a ls.” If

“ f a c tf in d in g is neede d i n a par t i cul ar cas e, t he B oar d m ay r emand t he pr ocee di ng t o t he i m m i gr at i on j udge

. . . . ” I d. I n C oel ho, t he B I A di s cus s ed t he re q u i r e me n t s f

o ra mot i o n t o r e ma n d , e x p l a i n i n g t h a ts uch mo t i o n s a r e “ n o te x p r e s s l ya d d r e s s e d ” b yt h e I NA b u th a v e b e c o me “an a cce pt ed part ” of the agen cy ’s p roce dur e. 20 I
. & N
. D ec. at 471. W hen a m ot i on t o r emand a l s o r equi r es r eopeni n g cl os ed p roc ee d ing s, the m o ti o n m u st co m p lyw ith the re q u ir em en ts fo r a m o tio n to re o p e n . Id . A c c o r d in g ly , rem a n d is g e n e ra llyo n ly appr opr i at e for“cons i der at i on of new fact s orchange d c irc u m sta n c e s.” W a n g , 2 6 0 F .3 d a t 4 5 1
. C o e lh o a n d W a n g m e re ly r ecogni ze thatr emand i s gener al l yi nappr opr i at e w i t houtnew fact ual ci rcum st ances. I n t hi s cas e, t he vac aturof D u h an ey ’s 2000 convi ct i on9 pr es ent ed the B I A w i t h new fac t s t o cons i der , al l ow i ng i tt o gr ant th e p a rties ’ m o tio n s to re o p e n a n d to re m a n d to th e IJ to e v a lu a te t he i m pactof thes e new fa ct s . O nce the B I A had r emanded t he cas e t o t he IJ , B I A pr ece dent author i zed the I J t o cons i der“anyand a ll m a tters ” th a t th e IJ “ d e e m [ e d ] a p p ro p ria te in th e e x e rc ise o f h is admi ni s t r at i ve di s cr et i on. ” I n r e Pat el , 16 I
. & N
. D ec. 600, 601 (B IA 1 9 7 8 ). U n d er th ese circu m stan ce s, the B IA d id n o t disrega rd i t s es t abl i s hed pr ece dent by r emandi ng t he cas e i n a w ay t hat ul t i m at el yperm i t t ed the G ove rn m entt o l odge addi t i onal char ges of re m o v a b ili tya g a in st D u h a n e y . A c c o rd in g ly , the B IA d id n o t er r in or der i ng a r emand. B
. D uhaneyal s o ar gues t hatt he G overnm entfai l ed t o pr ovi de n o tice o f its m o tio n to re o p e n , w h ich it se n t to a d e ten tio n f a c ili ty i n N ew Y or k aft er he had been t r ans ferr ed t o a corr ect i onal cent er i n Penns y l vani a. I n par t i cul ar , he cl ai m s t hathe w as depri ved of t he oppor tuni t yt o m ake a r gum ent s on hi s ow n behal f a nd t hathe s uffe r ed pr ej udi ce a s a r es ul t , i n vi ol at i on of hi s r i ghtt o due p ro c e s s. S ee F ad iga v

. A tt ’yG en . , 4 8 8 F
. 3 d 1 4 2 , 1 5 5 (3d C ir

. 2007) ( “W her e an a l i en cl ai m s a deni al of due pr oces s beca us e he w as prevented from m aking his case t o the B IA or the IJ, he m ust show (1) t hat he w as prevented from reas on ablypresent i ng his case a n d (2) t hat s ub st anti al prej ud i ce res ult ed. ” (quotat i on m arks, cit ati o n , an d fo o tno te om itted)). W e d isa g re e w ith D u h an ey ’s c l a i m. B ot h par t i es fi l ed m ot i ons t o r eopen the pr ocee di ngs bas ed on t he vac aturof D uhaney ’s 2000 convi ct i on. A

. R
. 689- 90 ( G overnm ent ’ s m ot i o n) , 698- 706 ( D uhaney ’ s m ot i on)

. W i t hout h ea ri n g an yad d it ion al arg u m e n ts from eith er p arty , the B IA gr ant ed the r el i ef s oughtbybot h par t i es . A

. R
. 6 1 7 ( gr ant i ng m ot i on t o r eopen be caus e “[ t ] he r es pondentand the D epart m entof H om el and Secur i t y , i n s epar at e mot i ons , as k that w e r eopen pr ocee di ngs on t he gr ounds t hatthe cr i m i nal convi ct i on under l y i ng th e re sp o n d e n t’s re m o v a l o r d e r h a s b e e n v a c a ted ” ). A g a in , b o th p arti es so u g h t and rec eive d iden ti ca l reli ef

. W e reject D u h an ey ’s argum ent that he suffered an yt ype o f pr ej ud i ce un der these ci r cumst ance s . A ccor di ngl y , t he B I A di d notdepr i ve D uhaneyofW e not e, how ever , t hatundert he ana l y s i s w e appl yt o t he 3 or i gi nal pr ocee di ngs , r es j udi cat a w oul d n o t h ave barr ed the G overnm entfr om fi l i ng a new N T A bas ed on t he cha r ges l odged i n the 200 4 F orm had t he B IA m erel yt erm i nated t he p roceedings. 10 his du e process r i gh t s. I V. H av in g ad d resse d D u h an ey ’s arg u m en t th at th e B IA comm i t t ed pr ocedur al err or , w e tur n t o hi s s ubs t ant i ve cha l l enges to th e re m o v a l o rd e r. H is p r in c ip a l cla im is th a t re s ju d ica ta pr ecl uded t he G overnm entfr om addi ng addi t i onal char ges t o t he 2 0 0 4 N T A b ase d o n co n v ict ion s that itco u ld h av e u sed to su p p o rt charge s o f rem ov abil i t ydu ri ng pri or i m m i grat i on proceed i ng s. D uhaneyar gues t hatt w o s epar at e pr ocee di ng s shoul d have pr ecl us i ve eff

ect : ( 1) t he or i gi nal pr ocee di ngs , bas ed on the 1986 O T SC , w hi ch t erm i nat ed w i t h t he gr ant of a § 212( c) w ai ver ; and ( 2) t he 2004 pr ocee di ngs , w h ic h he ar gues s houl d have be en t erm i nat ed w hen hi s 2000 convi ct i on w as vaca t ed. Si nce w e have det erm i ned thatt he B I A di d noterrbyr emandi ng t he pr ocee di ngs i n a w ayt hatperm i t t ed the G overnm entt o l odge addi t i onal char ges o f re m o v a b ili ty , o n lyth e f irst p ro c e e d in g a c h iev e d th e f in a lity nece s s ary t o i nvoke r es j udi cat a. W e hol d t hat t he G overnm ent 3 w a s n o t p re c lu d e d f

ro m a lle g in g n e w c h a rg e s o f re m o v a b ili ty fol l ow i ng t he vac aturof D uhaney ’ s 2000 convi ct i on. A

. R e s ju d ica ta, a lso k n o w n a s c laim p re c lu sio n , b a r s a p a rty fr om i ni t i at i ng a s econd s ui tagai ns t the sam e adve r s arybas ed on t h e s a m e “ c a u s e o f

a c t i o n ” a s t h e f

i r s ts u i t
. S e e I n r e M u l l a r k e y, 536 F. 3d 215, 225 ( 3d C i r . 2008)

. A par t ys eeki ng to i nvoke r es j udi cat a mustes t abl i s h t hr ee el ement s : “( 1) a fi nal j udgm enton t he m er i t s i n a pr i ors ui ti nvol vi ng ( 2) t he s ame par t i es ort hei rpr i vi es and ( 3) a subs equent s ui t bas ed on t he same caus e of act i on. ” I d. ( quot at i on m arks om i t t ed)

. “The doctr i ne of r es j udi cat a bar s not o n l yc l a i ms t h a twe r e b r o u g h ti n a p r e v i o u s a c t i o n , b u ta l s o c l a i ms t hatcoul d have be en br ought

. ” I d.11 A lth o u g h th e d o c trin e o f re s ju d ica ta is m o st f re q u e n tly appl i ed t o fi nal j udgm ent s i s s ued bycour t s , w e have al s o endor s ed i t s appl i cat i on t o adj udi cat i ve det erm i nat i ons byad m ini s t r at i ve a g e n c i e s , i n c l u d i n g c e r t a i n i mmi g r a t i o n d e c i s i o n s . Th e S u p r e me C our thas i ns t ruct ed t hat t he “comm on- l aw doctr i nes of col l at er al es t oppel ( as t o i s s ues ) and r es j udi cat a (a s t o cl ai m s ) ” s houl d be appl i ed “t o t hos e det erm i nat i ons of admi ni s t r at i ve bodi es t hathave at t ai ned fi nal i t y . ” A s t or i a Fed. Sav. & L oan A s s ’ n v . S ol i m i no, 5 0 1 U .S . 1 0 4 , 1 0 7 (1 9 9 1 ). “‘ W h e n a n a d m in istra tiv e a g e n c yis act i ng i n a j udi ci al capacit y and r es ol ves di s put ed i s s ues of fa ct p ro p e rly b e f

o re it w h ich th e p a rties h a v e h a d a n a d e q u a te oppor tuni t yt o l i t i gat e, t he court s h av e n o thes i t at ed t o appl yr es j udi cat a t o enfor ce r epos e. ’ ” I d. ( quot i ng U ni t ed St at es v. U t ah C ons t r . & M i ni ng C o. , 384 U
. S. 394, 422 ( 1966) )

. Si nce the co m m o n law p ri n ciples o f c o ll ateral estop p el an d res jud icata are “w el l es t abl i s hed, ” court s m ayi m pl yt hat“C ongr es s has l egi s l at ed w i t h an expe ct at i on t hatt he pr i nci pl e w i l l appl yexce ptw hen a s t atut or ypurpos e t o t he contr aryi s evi dent

. ” I d. at108 ( quot at i on m ark s o m itted). A ppl y i ng t hi s fr amew or k, w e have hel d t hatcomm on l aw pr ecl us i on doctr i nes appl yt o adj udi cat i ve age ncyd et erm i nat i ons undert he I N A , as l ong as appl i cat i on of thes e doctr i nes “does not frus t r at e congr es s i onal i nt entorim p ed e the ef fec t i ve func t i oni ng o f the age ncy . ” D uval l v. A t t ’ yG en. , 436 F. 3d 382, 387- 88 ( 3d C i r . 2006)

. I n D uval l , w e expl ai ned thatt hes e pr ecl us i on doctr i nes appl y to “a ll pr ocee di ngs t hatm aybe dee m ed ‘ adj udi cat i ve, ’ no m att er w h ethe r th e g o v ern ing en ti ty is a ‘co u rt ’ or a n ‘ag en cy . ’” I d. at390. W e furt herexpl ai ned that“[t ] he adve r s ar i al s y s t em of d isp u te r e so lu tio n e sta b lish e d in th e IN A is p lain lya d ju d ica to ryin char act erand s us cep t i bl e t o ful l appl i cat i on of comm on l aw pr i nci pl es of pr ecl us i on. ” I d. Si nce “[r ] equi r i ng t he IN S t o m eet i t s bur den of pr oof ata s i ngl e hea r i ng i s cons i sten t w i t h t he s t atut or ys cheme, as i nt erpr et ed by t he admi ni s t r at i ve age ncy , and w i l l notfrus t r at e t he goal s of C ongr es s , ” the “‘ l eni entpr es um pt i on in f a v o r o f a d m in istra tiv e e sto p p e l’ h o ld s, a n d th e IN A w ill b e h e ld t o i ncorpor at e comm on l aw pr i nci pl es of col l at er al es t oppel

. ” I d. ( ci t i ng In r e Feder enko, 19 I
. & N
. D ec. 57, 61 ( B I A 1984) and q u o ti n g A storia, 5 0 1 U
. S

. at 10 8 ).A l t hough t hi s gener al pr i nci pl e appe ar s w el l sett le d, at 4 l eas tone courtof appe al s has expres s ed the pos s i bi l i t yt hatr es j udi cat a maynotappl y i n t he spec i fi c cont extof ef for t s t o r emove al i ens convi ct ed of aggr avat ed fel oni es . See C hannerv. D H S, 527 F. 3d 275, 280 n. 4 ( 2d C i r . 2008)

. T he courti n C hannerexpl ai ned th a t “ a d o c trin e o f re p o se sh o u ld n o t b e a p p lied so a s to f r u s tr a te cl ear l yexpr es s ed congr es s i onal i nt ent , ” a nd t hatC ongr es s has “r epea t edl yand unambi g u ous l y. . . s oughtt o r emove . . . al i ens c o n v ic ted o f a g g rav ated fe lon ies. ” Id

. T h e c o u rtthere fo re s ugges t ed thatt he r emov al of al i ens w ho have c om m i t t ed aggr avat ed fe l oni es m aybe a s peci al cas e: “I tm aybe thatw hen D H S att em p ts t o rem o v e a li en s co n v ict ed o f a g g rav ated fe lon ies -- as oppos ed t o al i ens fal l i ng i nt o s om e othercat egorym aki ng t hem r emovab le -- the det er m i nat i on of w hetherr es j udi cat a appl i es change s , gi ven C ongr es s ’ cl earand emphat i c pos i t i on w i t h r es pect t o s uch al i ens . ” I d. 12 T he part i es i n t hi s cas e do notdi s put e the gene r al pr opos i t i on t hatr es j udi cat a maybe appl i ed t o adj u d ic at i ve p ro c e e d in g s u n d e r th e IN A

. T h e q u e stio n is w h e th e r re s ju d ica ta 4 pr ecl uded the G overnm entfr om l odgi ng new char ges of re m o v a b ili tyu n d e r th e se p a rticu lar c irc u m sta n c e s. A s p re v io u sly not ed, r es j udi cat a onl y appl i es t o a sec ond pr ocee di ng bas ed on the s ame “caus e of a ct i on” as t he fi r s t
. T he chal l enge i n t hi s cas e, as i n m anyr es ju d i cat a ca s es , i s defi ni ng t he r el evant“ca us e of a c tio n .” W e have di s avow ed att empt s t o cr eat e a “ s i m p l e t es t ” for
“ d e ter m in in g w h a t c o n stitu tes a c a u se o f a c tio n f o r r e s ju d ica ta purpos es . ” L ubr i zol C orp. v. E xxon C orp. , 929 F. 2d 960, 963 ( 3d C i r . 1991) ( quot at i on m arks om i t t ed)

. “R ather , w e l ook t ow ar d t he
‘ es s ent i al s i m i l ar i t y of t he under l y i ng event s gi vi ng r i s e to t he v a r i o u s l e g a l c l a i m s . ’ ” I d

. ( q u o t i n g D a v i s v . U
. S

. S t e e l S u p p l y, 6 8 8 F .2 d 1 6 6 , 1 7 1 (3 d C ir. 1 9 8 2 ) (e n b a n c )). O u r a p p ro a c h re f lec ts t he “‘ pr es entt r end .

. . of r equi r i ng t hata pl ai nt i ff pr es enti n one s ui tal l t he cl ai m s forr el i ef thathe mayhave a r i s i ng outof the s ame t r ans act i on oroccurr ence . ’ ” I d. ( quot i ng U nit ed St at es v. A th lo n e In d u s., In c ., 4 6 F .2 d 9 7 7 , 9 8 4 (3 d C ir. 1 9 8 4 )). U n d e r th is t r ans act i onal appr oach, t he foc us of the i nquir y i s “‘ w hethert he13 a c ts c o m p lain e d o f

w e re th e sa m e , w h e th e r t h e m a te ria l f a c ts al l eged i n eac h s ui tw er e the s ame, and w hethert he w i t nes s es and d o cu m en tat ion req u ir ed to pro v e suc h all eg ati o n s w ere the s am e.’” Id

. (quoti ng A t hlone, 74 6 F. 2d at 98 4). “A m ere differ en c e in th e o ry is n o t d is p o s itiv e .” Id

. D uhaneypr opos es t hatt he r el evant“‘ t r ans act ion’ forr es jud icata pu rpo ses i n rem o v al p roc ee d ing s is th e a li en ’s r emovabi l i t y . ” D uhaneyB r . 21. H e cont ends t hat “[w ] hethert he a lien is re m o v a b le o n th e b a sis o f c rim in a l o f

f e n se s is e ss e n tially a sin g le tra n sa c tio n : ce rta in ly , the iss u e o f a n a lien ’s r e m o v a b ili ty o n th e b a sis o f

m u lti p le c o n v ictio n s f

o rm a c o n v e n ien t trial u n it and conf or m s t o t he part i es ’ expec t at i ons . ” I d. T he G overnm ent pr opos es t hati n t he r emoval cont ext, the r el evantt r ans act i on s houl d be def

i ned as t he “f

actual occurr ence o r c o nvi ct i on upon w hi ch a c har ge of r emovabi l i t yi s bas ed. ” A t t ’ yG en. B r . 34. W e conc l ude thatt he G o v ern m ent ’ s appr oach t o defi ni ng th e re lev a n t c a u se o f a c tio n is m o re f a ith f u l to o u r r e s ju d ica ta p re c e d e n t an d th e e q u itab le p rin c ip les u n d e rly in g th e d o c trin e , to s aynot hi ng of congr es s i onal i nt ent
. I n t hi s cas e, t he G overnm ent s ecur ed a r emoval or deragai n st D u haneybas ed on cr i m i nal convi ct i o n s fo r w hi ch i thad notpr evi ous l ychar ged D uhaneyas r emovabl e. A l t hough t her e ar e comm on el ement s of fa ctbetw een the tw o rem o v al pro ce ed ing s, the c ri ti ca l acts an d th e n ec essa ry do cum entat i on w ere di fferentfor t he tw o p roceedings. A ccor di ngl y , w e hol d t h at th e d octr i ne of r es j udi cat a di d notbar th e G o v e rn m e n t f

ro m lo d g in g a d d it io n a l ch a rg e s o f re m o v a b ili ty aft erD uhaney ’ s 2000 convi ct i on w as vaca t ed. T he C our tof A ppeal s for t he S econd Ci r cui thas appl i ed a s i m i l art r ans act i onal appr oach t o defi ni ng t he r el ev an t c aus e of ac ti o n . C h an n er v . D H S , 5 2 7 F
. 3 d 2 7 5 , 2 8 1 -82 (2d C ir

. 2 0 0 8 ). In C hanner , t he pet i t i oner w as convi ct ed of s t at e and f eder al cr i m es ar i s i ng outof tw o s epar at e i nci dent s : a fe der al char ge of c arr y i ng a fi r earm du r i n g a d ru g t r a f f i c k i n g c r i me a n d s t a t e c h a r g e s of r obberyi n t he fi r s tdegr ee and cons pi r acy t o comm i t r obbery . T he I N S i ni t i al l y char ged hi m as r emovabl e base d s ol el y on t he fe der al co n v i c t i o n , whi c h i tc o n t e n d e d a mou n t e d t o b o t h a n a g g r a v at ed fel onyand a r emovabl e fi r earm s offe ns e under t he I N A

. A ft eran14 IJ ha d en tere d an o rde r of rem o v al, h o w ev er, th e p eti ti o n er’s fede r al convi ct i on w as vaca t ed, and, bas ed on the I N S’ s m ot i on, hi s r emoval w as t erm i nat ed. T he I N S t hen i ni t i at ed new r emoval p ro c e e d in g s a g a in st h im , c h a rg in g h im a s re m o v a b le b a se d o n h is s t at e convi ct i ons , w hi ch amount ed t o aggr avat ed fe l oni es undert he I N A

. T he pet i t i oner ar gued t hat t hi s s econd pr ocee di ng w as barr ed by r es j udi cat a, but t he B I A and t he C our t of A pp ea ls fo r the Second C i r cui thel d t hatt he s econd pr ocee di ng i nvol ved a d i ffe r ent
“ c a u se o f

a c tio n ” f

ro m th e f

irst. Id . at 2 7 8 , 2 8 1 -8 2 . T h e c o u rt in C hannerr eas oned thatt he t w o pr ocee di ngs “di d notor i gi nat e fr om t h e s a me n u c l e u s o f

o p e r a t i v e f

a c t
. Th e f

a c tu a l p r e d i cat es pr oduced t w o di s t i nctconvi ct i ons bas ed on di ffe r entchar ges . ” I d. a t 2 8 1 . T h e c o u rt c o n tin u e d th a t “[ w ]h ile th e re m e d yf o r e a c h c laim is i d en tic a l -- d ep o rt ati o n fo r co m m itti n g an ag g rav ated fe lon y-- t he contr as t i ng evi dence r equi r ed t o p rove e ach c l ai m and the d iffe ren t el em en ts o f e ac h crim e d em o n str ate tha t th eyd o n o t fo rm a c o n ven i ent tri al un i t
. ” Id. T he co urtrej ect ed C han ner’ s claim t hatr es j udi cat a s houl d appl ybeca us e “the fa ct s es s ent i al t o t he s econd s ui texi s t ed and w er e know n t o t he com pl ai ni ng par t y att he t i m e of the fi r s t , ” r eas oni ng t hat“ea ch deport at i on p roc eedi ng s t emm ed fr om a s epar at e tr ans act i on” and “ eac h r equi r ed di ffe r ent pr oof. ” I d. T he courtconcl uded thatr es ju d ic at a di d notbart he G overnm entfr om l odgi ng new char ges of re m o v abi l i t ybas ed on a di ffe r entpr edi cat e convi ct i on. In B rav o -P ed roz a v . G o n za les, 4 7 5 F
. 3 d 1 3 5 8 (9th C ir

. 2 0 0 7 ), b yc o n tra st, th e C o u r t o f A p p e a ls f o r th e N in th C irc u it d e ter m in e d th a t “ e lem e n tar y f a irn e ss ” re q u ire d th e o p p o site re su lt. Id. at 13 6 0
. In th at ca se, th e G o v ern m en t fi rstso u g h t t o d ep o rt B r avo- Pedr oza ba s ed on a 1985 convi ct i on forr obberyand a 1986 convi ct i on forbur gl ary . T he I J found hi m depor t abl e butgr ant ed h im reli ef

u n d er fo rm er I N A § 2 1 2 (c), 8 U
. S

. C

. § 1 1 8 2 (c) (19 9 0 ). B ra v o -P e d ra z o , 4 7 5 F .3 d a t 1 3 5 9 . T h e G o v e rn m e n t so u g h t to depor thi m fora s econd t i m e i n 2001, bas ed on a 1996 c onvi ct i on forpet t yt heftt hat , d u e to h i s pr i oroffe ns es , amount ed t o an aggr avat ed fe l ony . I d. T he I J found B r avo- Pedr oza r emovabl e, but w hi l e hi s pet i t i on for r evi ew w as pendi ng, t he C our tof A ppeal s for t he N i nt h C i r cui thel d t hatpet t yt heft d i d notamount t o an aggr avat ed fe l ony ; i tt her efor e r emanded B r avo’ s peti ti o n t o t he B I A

. I d. A few day s l at er , t he G overnm entfi l ed new char ges of15 r emovabi l i t yagai ns thi m , al l egi ng t hat hi s t hr ee pr i orconvi ct i ons w er e cr i m es of m or al turpi tude. I d. T he I J uphel d t he cha r ges , but t h e Co u r t o f

Ap p e a l s g r a n t e d Br a v o - P e d r o z a ’ s p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w, concl udi ng t hatr es j udi cat a barr ed the G overnm entfr om r el i t i g a t i n g Br a v o - Pe d r o z a ’ s r e mov a b i l i t yb a s e d o n t h e s e t h r ee pr i orconvi ct i ons . I d. at1359- 60. T he co u rt h eld t hatt he G overnm entw as barr ed byr es ju d icat a fr om “i ni t i at i ng a s econd depor t at i on case on t he bas i s of a c har ge that[i t ] coul d have br oughti n t he fi r s tcas e, w hen, due t o a cha ng e o f l aw t hat o c c u rr e d d u ri n g th e c o u rs e o f th e f ir s t c a s e , [ it] lo s t th e f

ir s t c a s e .” I d. at 1358. T he cour t r ej ect ed t he G overnm ent ’ s ar gum entt hatr es j udi cat a s houl d be appl i ed “f l e x i b l y ” i n t hi s cont ext , expl ai ni ng t hat t he age ncy ’ s ow n reg u l at i ons pr ovi ded an opportuni t yt o add char ges “ d u ri n g the p en d en cyo f im m igrati o n p roc ee d ing s, ” b u t not a f ter a p ro c e e d in g h a d c o n c lu d e d . Id . at 1 3 5 9 -6 0 (e m p h a sis in or i gi nal )

. T he G overnm enthad “a bundantop p o rtuni t y ” t o add t hes e cha r ges t o t he pr i orpr ocee di ngs , t he courtdet erm i ned, and havi ng negl ect ed thi s oppor tuni t y , i tcoul d not“avoi d t he appl i cat i on of the gene r al pr i nci pl es of r es j udi cat a. ” I d. at1360. T he courtconcl uded that“el ement ary fai r nes s ” s uppor t ed t he pet i t i oner ’ s r es j udi cat a defe ns e, but i tdi d notaddr es s w hether t he s e c o n d p r o c e e d i n g s i n v o l v e d t h e s a me c a u s e o f a c t i o n a s t he f irst. W e a re n o t p e rsu a d e d th a t p rin c ip les o f f a irn e ss n e c e ss a rily s uppor tappl i cat i on of r es j udi cat a i n t he ci r cumst an ce s pr es ent h ere in. I n an yev en t, w e se e n o rea so n to d ep art f rom o u r st an d ard re s ju d ica ta a n a ly sis , in c lu d in g th e tra n sa c tio n a l ap p ro a c h to defi ni ng t he r el evantcaus e of a ct i on. D u h a n e ya rg u e s th a t w e sh o u ld n o t co n sid e r th e p re d ica te c o n v ictio n to b e th e re lev a n t f a c tu a l tran sa c tio n b e c a u se th e f a c ts under l y i ng a convi ct i on m ay not gener al l ybe l i t i gat ed i n r emoval pr oc e e d i n g s . Se e Duh a n e yBr
. 2 1 n . 5 ( a r g u i n g t h a tu n d e rt he “form al cat egor i c a l ap p r o a c h , ” th e “ u n der l y i ng fac t s of the cr i m i nal co n v ict i ons g en era ll ym ayn o t be lit igated ” (c it ing E v an so n v . A tt ’y G e n ., 5 5 0 F .3 d 2 8 4 , 2 9 0 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 8 )). A lth o u g h a n IJ’ s a b ili ty t o l ook bey ond t he el ement s of the cr i m e cha r ged maybe l i m i t ed, t he emp h asis of the I J ’ s anal y s i s r emai ns w hethera part i cul ar convi ct i on amount s t o a r emovabl e offens e. W e conc l ude thatt he m os tr eas onabl e def

i ni t i on of t he r el evant t r ans act i on i s t he fa ctual16 o cc u rren ce g iving ri se to a c h arg e o f re m o v ab il ity . S ee C h an n er, 5 2 7 F
. 3 d at 28 1 (“W h ile th e rem ed yfo r ea ch claim is i d en ti ca l -

- depor t at i on forcomm i t t i ng an aggr avat ed fel ony - - t he contr as t i ng e v id e n c e re q u ire d to p ro v e e a c h c laim a n d th e d if f e r e n t ele m e n ts of eac h cr i m e demonstr at e thatt heydo notfor m a conve ni entt r i al uni t ”)

. I n t hi s cas e, t he r el evantfac tual o cc u rrence i s t he c o n v i c t i o n o rc o n v i c t i o n s g i v i n g r i s e t o a c h a r g e o f r e m o v a b i l i t y. Si nce the i ns t ant r emoval or der w as bas ed on an aggr avat ed fe l ony convi ct i on ar i s i ng fr om cr i m i nal conductt hatt he G overnm enthad not pr evi ous l y char ged as a gr ound forr emoval , t hes e new char ges re p re s e n t a n e w “ c a u s e o f a c tio n .” O u r p re c e d e n t in o th e r, re late d a re a s s u p p o rts th is c o n c lu sio n . In a c a se w h e re w e re je c te d a n a lien ’s a ttem p t to i nvoke j udi ci al es t oppel t o bl ock th e G overnm entfr om l odgi ng addi t i onal char ges of r emovabi l i t y , w e expl ai ned that“‘ t her e i s no r equi r ementt hatt he [D H S] advanc e eve r yconce ivabl e bas i s for [ re m o v a b ili ty ] i n th e [ N o tice to A p p e a r] .

. . . [ S ]u c h a ru le w o u ld n ee d lesslyco m p li ca te pro ce ed ing s in th e va st m ajorityo f c ase s. ’” Y ong W ong Par k v . A tt ’y G en. , 472 F. 3d 66, 73 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( quo t i n g De Fa r i a v . I NS, 1 3 F. 3 d 4 2 2 , 4 2 4 ( 1 s t Ci r . 1993) (m o d ifi ca ti o n s in P ark )). W e a d o p ted a s im ila rl yp ra g m a tic v ie w o f th e G o v e rn m e n t’s im m igrat i on char gi ng di s cr et i on i n D uval l

. D es pi t e ourgener al c o n c lu sio n th a t th e d o c trin e o f c o llate ra l es to p p e l ap p lied to i m m i gr at i on pr ocee di ngs , w e ul t i m at el ycon cl uded thatt he G overnm en t w as notpr ecl uded fr om r el i t i gat i ng t he i s s ue of the pet i t i oner ’ s al ienage, even though t hati s s ue t echni cal l yhad bee n adj udi cat ed on t he mer i t s i n t he fi r s tpr ocee di ng. I n t he i ni t i al depor t at i on pr ocee di ngs , t he G overnm ent- - t hr ough an over s i ght th e c o u rt c h a ra c ter ize d a s a m e r e “ lit ig a tio n e rro r” -- f a iled to pr oduce pr oof of t he pet i t i oner ’ s for ei gn ci t i zens hi p. D uval l , 436 F
. 3 d at 3 8 4
. A fter th ese init ial d ep o rt ati o n p roc ee d in g s w e re t erm i nat ed i n t he pet i t i oner ’ s favor , s he w ent on t o comm i ts ever al addi t i onal cr i m es . W hen the G overnm ents oughtt o r emove her based on t hes e s ubs equentconvi ct i ons , s he att empt ed t o i nvoke col l at er al es t oppel t o b a rth e Gov e rnm entfr om r el i t i gat i ng t he i s s ue of heral i enage . W e hel d t hatcol l at er al est oppel di d notbart he G ov ernm ent fr om rel i t i gati ng t his i ssue und er these ci rcum st ances,17 re a so n in g th a t “c o llate ra l es to p p e l w a s b o rn e o f e q u itya n d is th e re f o re ‘f lex ib le,’ b e n d in g to sa tisf yits u n d e rly in g p u r p o s e in li g h t of the n ature o f th e p roc ee d ing s. ” Id. a t 3 9 0 -91 (qu o ti n g N at’l R
. R
. Pas s enger C orp. v. Pa. Pub. U t i l

. C om m ’ n, 288 F. 3d 519, 528 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ))

. T h e c a se f

o r a p p lyi n g e q u it a b le p r e c lu s io n d o c tr in e s f lex ib ly is pa rt icularlystr o n g in th e cir cu m stan ce s p rese n ted b yD u h an ey ’s p e tit io n . A s w e e x p lain e d in D u v a ll, C o n g re ss h a s re p e a ted ly amended t he i m m i gr at i on l aw s t o fac i l i t at e t he r emo v al of al i ens w ho have be en convi ct ed of a ggr avat ed fe l oni es . 436 F. 3d at391 ( n o t i n g t h a ta “ p r i ma r yg o a l o f s e v e r a l r e c e n to v e r h a u l s o f t h e I NA has been t o ens ur e and expedi t e t he r emoval of al i ens convi ct ed of s er i ous cr i m es ” ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed) ) ; s ee a l s o C hanner , 527 F. 3d at 280 n. 4 ( obs ervi ng t hatC ongr es s has “r epea t edl y and unambi guous l y ” sought t o r emove al i ens convi ct ed of a ggr avat ed f e lo n ies ). “[ A ] d o c trin e o f re p o se sh o u ld n o t b e a p p lied so a s to frus t r at e cl ear l yexpr es s ed congr es s i onal i nt ent
. ” C h an ner , 527 F .3 d a t 2 8 0 n .4
. T h e f

a c t th a t C o n g re ss h a s s p e c if ica llyc h o se n to amend t he i m m i gr at i on l aw s t o fac i l i t at e the r emoval of al i ens w ho h a v e c o m m itt e d a g g ra v a ted f e lo n ies c o u n se ls a g a in st a n o v e rly r i gi d appl i cat i on of the r es j udi cat a doctr i ne. I n t hi s cas e, t he orde r of re m oval agai ns tD uhaneyi s bas ed o n a g ro u n d o f

re m o v a b ili tyth a t d id n o t ev e n b e c o m e a v a ilab le unt i l aft erD uhaney w as gr ant ed a § 212( c) w ai ver . T he B I A found h im re m o v a b le u n d e r I N A s e c tio n 2 3 7 (a )( 2 )( A )( ii i ) , 8 U .S .C . § 1227( a) ( 2) ( A ) ( i i i ) , as an al i en convi ct ed of an aggr avat ed fe l onyas d ef ined in IN A sec ti o n 1 0 1 (a)(43 )(F), 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 1 0 1 (a)(43 )(F). I N A s ect i on 101( a) ( 43) ( F) defi nes aggr avat ed fel ony as a cr i m e of v iolen ce fo r w h ich th e term o f im p ri so n m en t i s at l ea st on e y ea r. T hi s defi ni t i on of aggr avat ed fe l onyw as notcr eat ed unt i l aft er 1985, how ever , and C o ngr es s di d notpr ovi de fort he r etr oact i ve appl i cat i on of t he defi ni t i on unt i l i tpas s ed the I l l egal I m m i gr at i on R e f o rm an d Im m igran t R esp o n sibil ityA ct of 1 9 9 6 (“IIR IR A ”), Pub. L
. N o . 104- 208, 110 St at
. 3009. I I R I R A s ect i on 321( b) amended I N A s ect i on 101( a) ( 43) t o appl yt he def i ni t i on of aggr avat ed fe l ony“r egar dl es s o f w h ethert he convi ct i on w as e n ter e d b e f

o re , o n , o r a f

ter th e d a te o f

e n a c tm e n t o f

th is p a ra g ra p h .” 1 1 0 S ta t. a t 3 0 0 9 -6 2 8 (c o d if ie d a t 8 U
. S

. C . §D u h a n e y als o a rg u e s th a t th e G o v e rn m e n t’s a ttem p ts to 5 i ni t i at e new r emoval pr ocee di ngs agai ns thi m bas ed on char ges t hat i tcou l d h ave b rough ti n earl i er pr oceed i ng s vi olat e du e process. W i t houts om e pr ocedur al bart o l i m i tt he G overnm entfr om b rin g in g su c c e ss iv e a c tio n s, D u h a n e ya rg u e s, it “ c o u ld sim p ly i ns t i tut e r epea t ed admi ni s t r at i ve pr ocee di ngs , i m pos i ng m or e and m o re e x p e n s e o n its ta rg e t, u n til it a c h i e v e d its d e s ir e d re s u lt.” D uhan eyB r . 47. T he doctr i nes of r es j udi cat a and pr ocedur al 18 1 1 0 1 (a)(43 )). W h e n th e o rig in a l im m ig ra tio n p roce edings ter m in a ted w ith t h e g r a n t o f a § 2 1 2 ( c ) wa i v e r i n 1 9 9 3 , t h r e e y e a r s b e f o r e I I RI RA w a s p a ss e d , the G o v e rn m e n t co u ld n o t h a v e c h a rg e d D u h a n e yw ith r emovabi l i t ybas ed on thi s gr ound. O t hercour t s of appe al s have hel d t hatr es j udi cat a does n o t b ar the G overnm entfr om l odgi ng new char ges of r emovabi l i t y , pos t
- I I R I R A , t hatcou ld n o thave been r ai s ed pr e- I I R I R A

. See, e. g. , L j ut i ca v. H ol der , 588 F. 3d 119, 127 ( 2d C i r . 2009) ( “U ndert h e pr i nci pl es of r es j udi cat a, w hi l e a previ ou s j ud gm ent m a y p re cl ud e l i t i gati on of clai m s that ar ose pr i ort o i t s entr y , i tcannotbe gi ven the ef fec tof ext i ngui s hi ng c laim s w h ich d id n o t ev e n th e n e x ist a n d w h ich c o u ld n o t p o ss ib ly have be en s ued upon i n t he pr evi ous cas e. ” ( quot at i on m arks o m itted)); A lvea r-V elez v . M u k ase y , 5 4 0 F .3 d 6 7 2 , 6 7 8 (7th C ir

. 2008) ( “[A ] l t hough change s i n cas e l aw al m os tneverpr ovi de a j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o ri n s t i tu t i n g a n e w a c t i o n a r i s i n g fr o m th e s a me d ispu te that alread yh as b ee n li ti g ated to a f inal jud g m en t, statu tory change s t hatoccuraft ert he pr evi ous l i t i gat i on has concl uded may ju s tif ya n e w a c tio n .” ). Si nce w e have det erm i ned t hat t he i ns t antor derof r emoval i s bas ed o n a di ffe r ent“ca us e of a ct i on” than the ea r l i er pr ocee di ngs agai ns tD uhaney , w e nee d no t resol ve w hethert he enac t m entof n ew st atut or ygr ounds of r emoval w oul d r enderr es jud icata ina p p lic a b le. N eith er m u st w e a d d ress D u h an ey ’s co n tention that the G o v ern m en t co u ld hav e use d h is 19 8 5 firearm and m ans l aught er convi ct i ons t o s uppor tot herpot ent i al gr ounds of r e mov a l

. Und e r t h e c i r c u ms t a n c e s p r e s e n t e d b y t h i s cas e, r es j udi cat a does notbart he G overnm ent fr om l odgi ng new char ges of r emovabi l i t ybas ed on convi ct i ons th a ti th a d n o tpr evi ous l yr ai s ed. 5est op pel, as w el l as the B IA ’s ow n p rocedu res , ho w e v er, i m po se s i gni fi cant l i m i t s on t he G overnm ent ’ s abi l i t yt o br i ng s ucce s s i ve rem ov al act i on s. T hese do ct ri nes and proced ures i m po se pr i nci pl ed l i m i t s on t he G overnm ent ’ s abi l i t yt o r evi s i tcl ai m s and i s s ues t hathave al r eady been ful l y l i t i gat ed, even i f thes e doctr i nes do notbart he G o v ernm entfr om l odgi ng new char ges of rem ov abil i t yi n thi s part i cularcase. D uh aney ’s d u e process c h a llen g e th e re f

o re lac k s m e rit. 19

B
. D uhaneycont ends t hatthe reg u la t i ons governi ng § 212( c) w ai ver s s uppor thi s pos i t i on t hatt he G overnm entw as pr ecluded fr o m l odgi ng new char ges of r emoval bas ed on convi ct i ons di s cl os ed i n h i s appl i cat i on for§ 212( c) r el i ef. T he G overnm ent cont ends t hatt hi s ar gum entw as w ai ved bec aus e i tw as not s peci fi cal l y r ai s ed befor e t he I J and t he B I A

. D uh an ey cont ends t hatt hi s s peci fi c i s s ue fa l l s w i t hi n hi s br oaderclaim tha tt he G o v e rn m e n t w a s p re c lu d e d f ro m re lit ig a tin g c laim s th a t itc o u ld have br oughtdur i ng e a r l i e rp r o cee di ngs . A s s um i ng, ar guendo, t hat D uh aney has pr op erl y exh aust ed thi s i ssue, w e con cl ud e t hat hi s § 212( c) w ai ver does not appl y t o t he i ns t antor derof r emoval , w hi ch i s b a s e d o n a d i f

f e r e n tg r o u n d o f

r e m o v a b i l i t y. A § 212( c) w ai ver ext ends onl y t o t he “s peci fi c gr ounds of excl udabi l i t yo r deport abi l i t ythatw er e des cr i bed i n t he appl i cat i on. ” 8 C

. F. R
. § 212. 3( d)

. T he s ol e cha r g e in t he 1986 O T SC w as bas ed on h i s 1985 contr ol l ed s ubs t ance convi ct i on, m a k in g h im d e p o r t a b le u n d e r f o rm e r I N A s e c tio n 2 4 2 (a )( 1 1 ), 8 U
. S. C

. § 1231( a) ( 1) ( 1986)

. A

. R
. 910. I tdi d n o t rai s e anyot her gr ounds fordepor t abi l i t y . D uhaney ’ s appl i cat i on for t he § 212( c) w aive r disclos ed h is othe r co n v ict ion s, A .R . 9 0 6 , an d the IJ di s cus s ed thes e convi ct i ons i n th e h e a r i n g on D uhaney ’ s r eques tfor t he w ai ver , s ee A

. R
. 369- 70, butt he di sclo su re a nd di s cus s i on of t hes e convi ct i ons does not s om ehow br i ng everypos s i bl e gr ound fordepor t at i on t hatcoul d have be en bas ed on t h e convi ct i ons w ith in th e s c o p e o f

th e w a iv e r. T h e B IA h a s ex p lain e d th a t a § 2 1 2 (c ) w a iv e r “ sh o u ld20 r emai n val i d i ndefi ni t el y , ” but onl y as t o s peci fi c “gr ounds s t at ed att he t i m e of t he gra nt of re l i ef. ” I n r e B al der as , 20 I
. & N
. D ec. 389, 393 ( B I A 1991)

. I n B al der as , t he B I A fur t herexpl ai ned that “s i nce a gr antof s ect ion 212( c) r el i ef ‘ w ai ves ’ t he fi ndi ng of excl udabi l i t yi t s el f, t he cr i m es al lege d t o be gr ounds for ex clud ab il ityo r de p o rt ab il ityd o n o t disap p ea r fro m the a li en ’s r ecor d fori m m i gr at i on purpo ses.” I d. at391. “[W ] hen s ect i on 212( c) r el i ef i s gr ant ed, t he A t t or neyG ener al does noti s s ue a p ard on orexpungementof the convi ct i on i t s el f. I ns t ead, t he A t t or neyG ener al gr ant s t he al i en re l i ef upon a det erm i nat i on t hat a favor abl e exe r ci s e of di s cr et i on i s w arr ant ed on the part i cul ar fac t s pr es ent ed, n o tw iths t andi ng t he al i en’ s excl udabi l i t yor d ep o rt ab il ity . ” Id

. (fo o tno te om itted). T he fa ct s of B al der as hel p i l l um i nat e t hi s di s t i nct i on. T he IN S fi rs t soug ht t o depo rt B al deras based o n tw o con vict i on s, undert he form erI N A s ect i on 241( a) ( 4) ( A ) , w hi ch appl i ed t o an al i en convi ct ed of tw o cr i m es i nvol vi ng m or al turpi tude. B al der as r ece i ved a § 212( c) w ai ver , buthe w as l at erconvi ct ed o f anot her crim e i n v o lving m o ral turp itu d e. T h e IN S then so u g h t to d e p o rt B al der as a s econd t i m e, bas ed on one of the pr e- w ai verconvi ct i ons and the p os t
- w ai verconvi ct i on, undert he s ame “t w o cr i m es i nv olvi ng turpi tud e” prov i si on . T he B IA con cl ud ed thatB al deras’ § 2 1 2 ( c ) w a i v e rd i d n o ta p p l y t o t h i s n e w b a s i s f o rd e p o r t a b i l i t y, h o ld in g th a t: a convi ct i on w hi ch has once be en r el i ed upon i n a char ge of depor t abi l i t y m ay be al l eged as one of the
‘ t w o cr i m es i nvol vi ng m or al turpi tude’ i n a s econd pr o c e e d i n g , e v e n t h o u g h t h e f i r s tp r o c e e d i n g was t erm inated bya gr antof r el i ef unde rs ect i on 212( c) of the A ct , w here t he seco nd cri m e al l eged i s a s ubs equentconvi cti on t hatw as notdi s cl os ed i n t he pr i orpr ocee di ng. I d. at393. A l t hough B al d era s i nvol ved an a l i en w ho comm i t t ed anothercr i m e af

t erobt ai ni ng a § 212( c) w ai ver , t he s econd pr ocee di ng r el i ed both on t he pos t
- w ai verconvi ct i on and one of t he21 pr e- w ai verconvi ct i ons . T hi s fac ti l l us t r at es t hatt he s cope of a § 212( c) w ai veri s defi ned byt he bas i s fordepor t abi l i t y , nott he under l y i ng cr i m e i t s el f. See Esqui vel v. M ukas ey , 5 4 3 F. 3d 919, 922 ( 7t h C i r . 2008) ( “The B I A h as establ i s hed thata § 212( c) w a iv e r d o e s n o t w a iv e th e b a sis f o r e x c lu d a b ili tyitse lf; itm e re ly w aive s the fin d ing o f e x clud ab il ity . ” (e m p h asis in o ri g inal)). I ndeed, w e have det erm i ned, r el y i ng on B al der as , t hat t he fa ctt hat a pet i t i oner ’ s depor t at i on bas ed on a part i cul arconvi ct i on has been wa i v e d d o e s n o tp r e v e n ts u b s e q u e n tc o n s i d e r a t i on of t h e s a me under l y i ng convi ct i on forot herpurpos es . R odr i guez- M unoz v. G o n z a les , 4 1 9 F .3 d 2 4 5 , 2 4 8 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ) (“ [ E ]v e n if R o d ri g u ez -M u n o z’s d ep o rt ati o n b ase d o n hi s 1992 convi ct i o n w ere w a iv e d u n d e r § 2 1 2 (c ), th a t co n v ictio n w o u ld n o n e th e les s re m a in an aggr avat ed fe l onyfor purpos es of pr ecl udi ng hi s appl i cat i on for canc el l at i on of r emoval under§ 240A

. ”); s ee a l s o D e H oy os v. M ukas ey , 551 F. 3d 339, 342- 43 ( 5t h C i r . 2008) ( agr eei ng w i t h t he B IA ’s ap p roa ch in B alde ras); E sq u ivel, 5 4 3 F
. 3 d at 92 2 -23 (sam e). D u h a n e yo b tain e d d isc re tio n a ryre lief th a t a ll o w e d h im to re m a in in th e c o u n trye v e n th o u g h h e w a s f o u n d to b e d e p o rta b le bas ed on hi s 1985 convi ct i on for s al e of a contr ol led s u b sta nce. T h is § 2 1 2 (c ) w a iv e r rem a in s v a lid in d e f in itely , b u t ita p p lies o n ly t o t he basi s fordepor t at i on char ged i n t he 1986 O T SC

. U ndert he appl i cabl e r egul at i ons , t he G overnm entw as p e rmi tt e d t o l o d ge new ch arg es of rem o v ab il ity , ev en b ase d o n co n v ict ion s that w e re di s cl os ed i n hi s appl i cat i on. D uhaney ’ s § 212( c) w ai verdoes not ext end t o t he gr ound forr emovabi l i t yt hatunder l i es the i ns t ant o rd e r o f re m o v a l. V
. Fort he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l denyt he p eti ti on for r e v i e w.