FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E ALS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT AUGUST 1, 2008 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 o. 07- 14549 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ A ge nc y N o. A 90- 727- 738 L O R E N Z O A N T O N I O S A N C H E Z - B E C E R R A , 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 on f orR e vi e w of

a D 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

_________________________ ( A u gu s t 1, 2008) B efo re C A RN E S , B A R K E T T an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: L orenzo A nt on i o S anchez- B ec erra(“ S anchez- B ec erra ”) pet i t i on s f or re vi ewCongress abolished the I NS on March 1, 2003 a

nd replaced it with the Department of 1 Homeland Security . See Homela nd Security

Act of 2002, Pub. L . No. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 (2002). 2 of the B oa r d of

I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ’ ( “ B I A ” ) de c i s i on a f f i r m i ng the I m m i gr a t i on J u d g e ’s ( “I J ” ) o r d e ro f

r e m o v a l a n d d e n ia l o f

h is r e q u e s t f

o ra w a iv e ro f

r e m o v a l. A f te rr e v ie w , w e d is m is s th e p e titio n in p a r t a n d d e n y it in p a r t. I . B AC KG RO UN D A . I n i t i alR e m ovalP r oc e e d i n gs O n D ec em ber 5, 20 02 , the Im m i grat i on and N atural i za t i on S ervi ce (“ IN S ”) 1 se rved S anchez- B ec erraw i th a N ot i ce t o A pp ea r ( “ N T A ”) . T he N T A char ged that ( 1) on oraboutJ a nua ry 1, 1980, S a nc he z - B e c e rr a , a na t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of M e xi c o, i l l e ga l l ye nt e r e d the U ni t e d S t a t e s thr ough T e xa s ; ( 2) on S e pt e m be r27, 1991, S a n c h e z - B e c e rr a ’s s ta tu s w a s a d ju s te d to la w f

u l p e r m a n e n t r e s id e n t b a s e d o n h is se as on al agri cul tural w ork; (3) on N ov em ber 18, 19 93 , S anchez- B ec erraw as c o n v ic te d in A lab a m a s ta te c o u r t o f s e c o n d - d e g r e e r ap e ; a n d ( 4 ) b a s e d o n th is c o n v ic tio n , S a n c h e z - B e c e rr a w a s r e m o v ab le u n d e rI m m ig r a tio n a n d N a tio n a lity A ct(“ IN A ”) § 2 37 (a )( 2)(A )( i i i ), 8 U . S . C . § 1 22 7(a) (2)( A )( i i i ), as an al i en c o n v ic te d o f

a n a g g r a v a te d f

e lo n y a s d e f

in e d in I N A § 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 3 ) ( A ) , 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 3 ) ( A ) . O n F ebruary4, 20 03 , S anchez- B ec erradi d n otappear f or hi s r em ov al he a r i ng. A n I J or de r e d hi m r e m ove d i n abs e nt i a ba s e d on hi s s e c ond- de gr e e r ape3

c o n v ic tio n . I n A p r il 2 0 0 4 , S a n c h e z - B e c e rr a w a s r e m o v e d to M e x ic o . O n O c t obe r23, 2004, S a nc he z - B e c e rr a w a s a rr e s t e d by f e de r a l B or de rP a tr ol a ge nt s i n N e w M e xi c o. H e w a s c ha r ge d w i th i l l e ga l r e e ntry , butthe i ndi c tm e nt w a s d is m is s e d a f

te rS a n c h e z - B e c e rr a a r g u e d h is in itia l r e m o v a l p r o c e e d in g s in abst ent i a w er e f

un dam ent al l y unfai r. B . R eo p en ed R em o v a lP ro ceed i n g s a n d § 2 1 2 (c) W a i v er R eq u est O n J une 16, 2005, S a nc he z - B e c e rr a a nd the gove rnm e ntf i l e d a j oi ntm ot i on t o reopen S anchez- B ec erra ’ s r em ov al proceedi ng s. T he m ot i on st at ed S anchezB e c e rr a n e v e ra c tu a l l y r e c e i v e d n o t i c e o f th e r e m o v a l h e a r i n g b e c a u s e th e I NS lis te d h is a d d r e s s a s th e c o u n ty ja il a n d s e n t th e n o tic e o f th e h e a r in g th e r e , b u t in the i nt er i m he had b ee n rel ea se d o n b on d. T he IJgrant ed the m ot i on and reopened th e r e m o v a l p r o c e e d in g s o n S e p te m b e r1 2 , 2 0 0 5 . T he I J c ont i nue d the r e m ova l pr oc e e di ngs f i ve t i m e s be tw e e n A pr i l 2006 and M ay20 07 , atl ea stfour of w hi ch w er e a ttri bu t ed t o S anchez- B ec erra ’ s c ou nsel be i ng s i c k a nd/ orS a nc he z - B e c e rr a ’ s notf i l i ng the r e qui r e d w r i tt e n appl i c a t i ons f or re l i ef fr om re m ov al . D uri ng the course of these cont i nu ed heari ng s, S anchezB ec erraadm i tt ed the charges i n the N T A and con ce ded rem ov abi l i ty, bu tst at ed th a t h e in te n d e d to ap p ly f o ra w a iv e ro f

r e m o v a l u n d e rf

o r m e rI N A § 2 1 2 ( c ) , 8 U . S . C . § 1 18 2(c) . A ye araf t erthe re m ov al proceedi ng s had been reopened, S anchez- B ec erraNunc pro tunc literally means “now for then” and refers to a cour t’s use of its inherent 2 power to have a n action takeretroactive leg al ef fec t. Blac k’s L aw Dic tionary 1100 (8th ed. 2004). See infra

note 7. 3 4 f i l e d hi s appl i c a t i on f

ora § 212( c ) w a i ve ron O c t obe r31, 2006. T he ne xtda y , he fi l ed a m em orandu m supp ort i ng hi s r equestfor a§ 2 12 (c ) w ai ver nun c pro tun c. 2 H is m e m o a r g u e d th a t th e a g e n c y e rr o rin 2 0 0 3 in n o t p r o v id in g h im n o tic e o f h is o r ig in a l r e m o v a l h e a r in g a n d o r d e r in g h im r e m o v e d in ab s te n tiap r e v e n te d h im fr om appl yi ng for a§ 2 12 (c ) w ai ver of r em ov al back i n 2 00 3. S anchez- B ec erra a c know l e dge d tha the w a s s t a tut or i l y i ne l i gi bl e f ora § 212( c ) w a i ve runde rthe re l evantst atut es as construed by the B IA ’ s dec i si on i n In re B l ake, 23 I. & N . D ec . 7 2 2 ( B I A 2 0 0 5 ) . H o w e v e r , S a n c h e z - B e c e rr a r e q u e s te d th a t th e I J a llo w h im to 3 appl y f or a § 21 2(c) w ai ver nun c pro tun c, i . e. , as i f he w as athi s ori gi nal re m ov al he a r i ng i n 2003 be f

or e the B I A de c i de d B l a ke i n 2005. T he gove rnm e nt ’ s pos i t i on thr oughoutthe pr oc e e di ngs w a s tha tS a nc he z - B e c e rr a w a s s t a tut or i l y i ne l i gi bl e f or a § 2 1 2 ( c ) w a iv e ro f

r e m o v a l. A t a c o n tin u e d h e a r in g o n N o v e m b e r2 , 2 0 0 6 , th e I J s c h e d u le d a m e r its hear i ng for S anchez- B ec erra ’ s § 21 2(c) w ai ver r equest . W hi l e app ea ri ng before the I J , S a nc he z - B e c e rr a ’ s c ouns e l r e que s t e d a he a r i ng da t e i n M a y 2007 a nd a c c e p te d a h e a r in g d a te o f M a y 7 , 2 0 0 7 . O n M a y 7 , 2 0 0 7 , S a n c h e z - B e c e rr a ’s c o u n s e l w a s n o t p r e s e n t a t th e h e a r in g .5

T he I J s t a t e d tha tS a nc he z - B e c e rr a ’ s c ouns e l ha d f i l e d a n unt i m e l y r e que s tf or another c on t i nu ance the previ ou s w ee k, w hi ch had b ee n d eni ed. T he IJal so st at ed the c l e r k of

the U ni t e d S t a t e s D i s tr i c tC our ti n E l P a s o ha d c a l l e d the pr e vi ous w ee k and sa i d the di stri ctcourtj ud ge had i ss ued an o rderforbi dd i ng S anchezB e c e rr a ’s c o u n s e l f

r o m le a v in g T e x a s u n til th e p e n d in g c r im in a l tr ia l w a s f in is h e d . T h e I J to ld th e c le r k th a t S a n c h e z - B e c e rr a ’s c a s e w o u ld p r o c e e d . T h e I J to ld S a nc he z - B e c e rr a , w ho di d appe a r , tha tthe I J w oul d be i s s ui ng a w r i tt e n de c i s i on. C . I J’ s R e m ovalD e c i s i on O n M ay7, 20 07 , the IJi ss ued a w ri tt en deci si on fi nd i ng thatS anchezB e c e rr a w a s r e m ovabl e a s a n a ggr a va t e d f e l on ba s e d on hi s s e c ond- de gr e e r ape c o n v ic tio n . T h e I J a ls o c o n c lu d e d th a t S a n c h e z - B e c e rr a w a s s ta tu to r ily in e lig ib le for a§ 2 12 (c ) w ai ver. F urther, the IJ ’ s dec i si on st at ed thatS anchez- B ec erra ’ s r equestfor nun c pro tunc r e l i e f

w a s “ hi ghl y s pe c ul a t i ve ” i n l i ghtof the A tt orne y G e ne r a l ’ s i ns truc t i ons i n In re Jean , 2 3 I. & N . D ec. 3 7 3 (A . G . 2 0 0 2 ), th ata d i scret i o n ary w ai v er m u st ba l a nc e hum a ni t a r i a n c onc e rns a ga i ns tthe s e r i ous ne s s of the c r i m i na l of

f e ns e , a nd, i n the abse nce of extra ordi nary ci rc um st ance s, w ai vers w ou l d n otbe grant ed w here the pers on se eki ng re l i ef w as conv i ct ed of a dangerous or viol entcr i m e. T he IJ st at ed thati tconsi dere d sec on d-degree r ape t o b e adang er ou s c ri m e a nd that

“ [g] i ven the hi gh l y s pecul at i ve nature of the re l i ef , even i f thi s C ou rtw er e6

e m p o w e r e d to g r a n t s u c h r e lie f , n u n c p r o tu n c r e lie f

is n o t a r e a lis tic o p tio n in th is m a tt e r . ” F i na l l y , the I J s t a t e d tha tS a nc he z - B e c e rr a ha d notpr ovi de d a ny a uthor i ty , f

r om e i the rthe B I A orthi s C our t , e s t abl i s hi ng tha ta n I J ha s a ny e qui t abl e pow e rt o gr a ntnunc pr o tunc r e l i e f a nd thus c onc l ude d tha ti tha d “ no autho ri ty t o g ra ntthe re qu es t ed re l i ef . ” D . B I A A p p e al O n app ea l t o the B IA , S anchez- B ec erraar gu ed that(1) the IJ ’ s deni al of a c ont i nua nc e de pr i ve d hi m of hi s r i ghtt o c ouns e l a nd w a s a n abus e of di s c r e t i on, a n d ( 2 ) h e w a s e lig ib le f o ra § 2 1 2 ( c ) w a iv e rn u n c p r o tu n c . T he B I A di s m i s s e d S a nc he z - B e c e rr a ’ s appe a l . T he B I A f ound no c l e a re rr or i n the IJ ’ s f

ac tual fi nd i ng s. T he B IA concl ud ed thatthe IJcorr ec t l y det erm i ned th a t S a n c h e z - B e c e rr a w a s in e lig ib le f o ra § 2 1 2 ( c ) w a iv e r , c itin g B la k e . T he B I A a l s o not e d S a nc he z - B e c e rr a “ thr ough c ouns e l , doe s nota r gue on appe a l tha the i s s t a tut or i l y e l i gi bl e f ors e c t i on 212( c ) r e l i e f

, notw i ths t a ndi ng M a tte ro f

B la k e .” T h e B I A c o n c lu d e d it h a d n o ju r is d ic tio n to g r a n t e q u itab le rel i ef, w h i ch i s w h ata § 2 1 2 (c) w ai v er n u n c p ro tu n c i n S an ch ez-B ecerra’s case w oul d c ons t i tut e . F i na l l y , the B I A c onc l ude d S a nc he z - B e c e rr a ha d s how n no pr e j udi c e i n the I J ’ s de ni a l of a c ont i nua nc e i n l i ghtof hi s s t a tut ory i ne l i gi bi l i ty f orWe reviewonly the B IA’s dec ision, ex cept to the e x tent the B IA expressly adopted the 4 IJ ’s dec ision. Najjar v. Ashc roft, 257 F .3d 1262, 1284 (11th Cir. 2001). 7 a wa i v e ro f

i n a d m i s s i b i l i ty . S a n c h e z - B e c e rr af i l e d a t i m e l y p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. 4 I I . DI S CUS S I ON A . Ju r i s d i c t i on T hi s C our t ’ s j ur i s di c t i on t o r e vi e w r e m ova l or de r s i s r e s tr i c t e d w he r e the pe t i t i one r , l i ke S a nc he z - B e c e rr a , i s a c r i m i na l a l i e n r e m ovabl e ba s e d on a c o n v ic tio n f

o ra n “a g g r a v a te d f

e lo n y ,” a s d e f

in e d in I N A § 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 3 ) , 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 3 ) . I NA § 2 4 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( C ) ; 8 U. S . C . § 1 2 5 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( C ) ( r e f e r e n c i n g I NA § 237( a ) ( 2) ( A ) ( i i i ) ; 8 U . S . C . § 1227( a ) ( 2) ( A ) ( i i i ) ) . H ow e ve r , w e r e t a i n j ur i s di c t i on to r e v ie w “c o n s titu tio n a l c la im s o rq u e s tio n s o f la w .” I N A § 2 4 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( D ) ; 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( D ) . A p e titio n e rm u s t a lle g e a c o n s titu tio n a l o rle g a l c la im tha ti s “ c ol or abl e , ” i . e . , w i th “ s om e pos s i bl e va l i di ty , ” f orus t o ha ve j ur i s di c t i on u n d e rI N A § 2 4 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( D ) , 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( D ) . A r ia s v . U .S . A tt’y G e n ., 48 2 F . 3d 12 81 , 12 84 & n. 2 (11 th C i r. 20 07 ) ( qu ot at i on m arks om i tt ed). W e r evi ew l e ga l a nd c ons t i tut i ona l c l a i m s de novo. A l i v. U . S . A tt ’ y G e n. , 443 F . 3d 804, 808 (11th C i r. 20 06 ). B. § 2 1 2 ( c ) W a i v e r N unc Pr o Tunc S a n c h e z - B e c e rr a a r g u e s th e B I A e rr e d in c o n c lu d in g th a t it la c k e d e q u itab le j uri sdi ct i on t o g ra ntnu nc pro tun c r el i ef and i n d enyi ng hi s r equestfor a§ 2 12 (c )8

w a iv e rn u n c p r o tu n c . S a n c h e z - B e c e rr a th u s p r e s e n ts a le g a l q u e s tio n th a t th is C o u r th a s j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e v i e w. I t is u n n e c e s s a ry to a d d r e s s w h e th e rn u n c p r o tu n c r e lie f is p u r e ly e q u itab le i n n ature or i f the B IA had d i sc re t i on ary autho ri ty t o g ra ntnu nc pro tun c r el i ef b e c a u s e , e v e n if

th e B I A h a d th a t a u th o r ity , S a n c h e z - B e c e rr a w a s s ta tu to r ily i nel i gi bl e f

or a § 21 2(c) w ai ver i n 2 00 3, j ustas he w as i n 2 00 7. A s di sc usse d be l ow , the appl i c abl e s t a tut ory f r a m e w or k i n 2003 w a s the s a m e a s tha ti n 2007 a n d th u s S a n c h e z - B e c e rr a w a s e q u a lly in e lig ib le f o ra § 2 1 2 ( c ) w a iv e rin 2 0 0 3 . W e s t a r tw i th I N A § 212( a ) a nd ( c ) . I N A § 212( a ) l i s t s the “ c l a s s e s of e x c l u d ab l e a l i e n s ” wh o a r e i n e l i g i b l e f o ra d m i s s i o n t o th e Un i t e d S t a t e s . I NA § 212( a ) ; 8 U . S . C . § 1182( a ) . O ne of the s e e xc l udabl e c l a s s e s i s “ [ c ] r i m i na l a nd r e l a t e d g r o u n d s , ” w h i c h i n c l u d e s , i n r e l e v a n tp a r t , a l i e n s c o n v i c t e d o f “ a c r i me in v o lv in g m o r a l tu rp itu d e .” I N A § 2 1 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( A ) ( i) ( I ) ; 8 U .S .C . § 11 82 (a )( 2)(A )( i )( I) . F orm erIN A § 2 12 (c ), w hi ch has now been repea l ed, prov i ded for aw ai ver of s uch § 21 2(a) i nel i gi bi l i ty a s f ol l ow s: “ [a ] l i ens l aw ful l y a dm i tt ed f orpe r m a ne ntr e s i de nc e w ho t e m por a r i l y pr oc e e de d abr oa d vol unt a r i l y a nd not un der a n o rderof depo rt at i on , and w ho ar e r eturni ng t o a l aw ful un re l i nq ui shed dom i c i l e of

s e ve n c ons e c ut i ve y e a r s , m a y be a dm i tt e d i n the di s c r e t i on of the A tto rn e y G e n e r a l w ith o u t r e g a r d to th e p r o v is io n s o f s u b s e c tio n ( a ) o f

th isEven though I NA § 212(c ) wa s repe aled by the Illeg al Immigration Reform and 5 Immi gra nt Re sp on sib ili ty

Ac t of 19 96 (“ IIRIRA ” ), re lie f re mainsavaila bleto aliens “ wh os e c onvic tio ns wereob taine d through p le a agre e mentsand

wh o, no tw ith sta

ndingtho sec onvic tio ns , would have be en elig ible for § 212( c) relief at the time of their plea under thelaw then in ef

fec t.” I NS v. St. C y

r, 533 U.S. 289, 326, 121 S. Ct. 2271, 2293 (2001). Be causeSanchez-B ecerra pled guilty in 1993 (before IIRIRA’s enactment in 1996), he w as thus still elig ible for I NA § 212(c ) relief under St. Cy

r. 9 se ct i on . ” I N A § 2 12 (c ); 8 U . S . C . § 1 18 2(c) (199 4) (e m ph as i s a dd ed). 5 I n 1976, the B I A e xpa nde d § 212( c ) t o pe r m i ta w a i ve rof r e m ova l t o a l a w f ul pe r m a ne ntr e s i de nti n de por t a t i on pr oc e e di ngs a nd r e ga r dl e s s of w he the rhe vol unt a r i l y de pa r t e d the U ni t e d S t a t e s a nd m e r e l y s e e ks t o r e turn. S e e F a r quha r s on v. U . S . A tt ’ y G en. , 24 6 F . 3d 13 17 , 13 23 (11th C i r. 20 01 ) ( ci t i ng M att erof S i l va, 16 I. & N . D ec . 26 , 30 (B IA 19 76 )) . In subsequentca se s, the B IA and A tt orney G ener al cl ar i fi ed thata § 21 2(c) w ai ver w as avai l abl e onl y t o al i ens w ho w er e d e p o r tab le o n g r o u n d s f o rw h ic h th e r e w a s a c o m p a r ab le g r o u n d o f in a d m is s ib ility i n IN A § 2 12 (a ). S ee i d. (c i t i ng M att erof H ernand ez -C as i l l as , 20 I. & N . D ec . 26 2, 28 0-93 (A . G . 19 91 ); M att erof W adud , 19 I. & N . D ec . 18 2, 18 4 (B IA 19 84 ); M a tte ro f

G r a n a d o s , 1 6 I . & N . D e c . 7 2 6 , 7 2 8 ( B I A 1 9 7 9 ) ) . I n o th e rw o r d s , a d e p o r te e w a s e lig ib le f

o ra § 2 1 2 ( c ) w a iv e rif

th e s ta tu to ry g r o u n d f

o rh is depo rt at i on w as com parabl e t o a st atut ory groun d for i nadm i ss i bi l i ty und er§ 2 1 2 ( a ) . I n 1991, the B I A appl i e d thi s s t a tut ory f r a m e w or k t o a n a l i e n de por t abl e f or an aggravat ed fe l on y c on vi ct i on and con cl ud ed that“ a w ai ver und erse ct i on 21 2(c)In 1990, I NA § 212(a)(23) , 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(23) was revised and re designated at I NA 6 § 212(a) (2)(A)(i) (II), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)( 2)(A) (i)(II). See Me za, 20 I . & N . Dec . at 260 n.5. 10 i s n o tu n av ai l ab l e t o an al i en co n v i ct ed o f an ag g rav at ed fel o n y si m p l y b ecau se the r e i s no gr ound of

e xc l us i on [ i n § 212( a ) ] w hi c h r e c i t e s the w or ds , ‘ c onvi c t e d of a n a g g r a v a te d f

e lo n y .’” M a tte ro f

M e z a , 2 0 I . & N . D e c . 2 5 7 , 2 5 9 ( B I A 1 9 9 1 ) . Inst ea d, the B IA l oo ked t o w hether the “ spec i fi c c at egory of a gg ra vat ed fe l on y a t i ss ue” had a com parabl e groun d o f i nadm i ss i bi l i ty i n § 21 2(a) . S ee i d. T he B IA c onc l ude d a n a l i e n de por t abl e f ora n a ggr a va t e d f

e l ony of “ i l l i c i ttr a f

f i c ki ng i n a ny c o n tr o lle d s u b s ta n c e ,” a s d e f in e d in I N A § 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 3 ) ( B ) , 8 U .S .C . § 11 01 (a )( 43 )( B ), w as el i gi bl e f or a § 21 2(c) w ai ver because i thad a st atut ory c o u n te rp a r t o f

in a d m is s ib ility in I N A § 2 1 2 ( a ) ( 2 3 ) , 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 8 2 ( a ) ( 2 3 ) . I d . 6 In 20 05 , the B IA appl i ed thi s s am e f ra m ew ork i n con cl ud i ng thatan al i en d e p o r tab le b a s e d o n a n a g g r a v a te d f e lo n y c o n v ic tio n f

o rs e x u a l ab u s e o f

a m in o ris i nel i gi bl e f

or a § 21 2(c) w ai ver. S ee B l ake, 23 I. & N . D ec . at72 7-29 . T he B IA c o n c lu d e d th e in a d m is s ib ility g r o u n d s f o ra “c r im e in v o lv in g m o r a l tu rp itu d e ” in IN A § 2 12 (a )( 2)(A )( i )( I) , 8 U . S . C . § 1 18 2(a) (2)( A )( i )( I) w as no ta s t atut ory c o u n te rp a r t b e c a u s e “th e m o r a l tu rp itu d e g r o u n d o f e x c lu s io n a d d r e s s e s a d is tin c tly di ff er entand m uch b roader c at egory of offe nses than the aggravat ed fe l on y s exual abus e of a m i norc ha r ge . ” I d. a t728. T he B I A e xpl a i ne d tha t“ the t e s tf or com parabi l i ty i s notm etm er el y by s ho w i ng thatsom e or m any of the offens esThe B lake petitioners actually petitioned for review of

the B IA’s dec ision to the Second 7 Circuit. In 2007, the Second Circuit re jected thepetitioners’ a

rgument that the B IA’s dec ision had cha ng ed the law

reg arding§ 212(c) waiver s and stated “ [t ]he statutory counter part ruledoes nothing morethan cr

ystalliz e the ag ency ’s pre exis ting body of law.”Blake v. Carbone , 489 F.3d 88, 98-99 (2d Cir. 2007). H owever, the Sec ond Circuit ultim ately disagree d with the BIA’s approach of a

naly zing whether the “ ag gravated fe lony” ground of deportation had a statutory c ounterp art

in t he§ 2 12 (a) groun ds of

inadmi ssibil ity . Id. at 10 2- 03 . Ins te a d, theSe c on d Circuit adopted the a

pproach of analy

zing whether the pa

rticular criminal offense, which w as the ground for the ag gravated-fe lony deportation, had a statutory counter part in the § 212(a) grounds of inadmissibil ity . I d. at 103-04. TheSecond Circuit remanded to the B IA to make that statutory 11 i ncl ud ed i n the charged ca t egory c ou l d al so be cr i m es i nv ol vi ng m oral turpi tud e. ” I d. a t729. T he a ggr a va t e d f e l ony of s e xua l abus e of

a m i nor , w hi c h f

or m e d the b a s is o f B la k e ’s r e m o v a l, d id n o t h a v e a c o m p a r ab le g r o u n d o f in a d m is s ib ility in § 2 12 (a ) a nd thu s deport ee B l ake w as i nel i gi bl e f or a § 21 2(c) w ai ver. A s s ho w n abo ve, the use of ast atut ory c ou nt erpartanal ys i s f or § 2 12 (c ) w a i ve rr e que s t s appl i e d by the B I A i n B l a ke w a s e s t abl i s he d by the t i m e of S a nc he z - B e c e rr a ’ s i ni t i a l r e m ova l pr oc e e di ngs i n 2003. S e e Z a m or a - M a l l a r i v. M u k a s e y , 5 1 4 F .3 d 6 7 9 , 6 8 9 - 9 0 ( 7 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) ( s ta tin g th a t th e B I A in B la k e “d id no tes t abl i sh a new rul e of l aw , bu tra ther app l i ed the previ ou sl y w el l -e st abl i shed c om pa r abi l i ty s t a nda r d i n a di f f e r e ntf a c tua l c ont e xt ” ) ; V o v. G onz a l e s , 482 F . 3d 363, 369- 70 ( 5th C i r . 2007) ( r e j e c t i ng a r gum e nttha tB l a ke c ontr a di c t e d pr i or a ge nc y pr a c t i c e ) ; C a r ol e o v. G onz a l e s , 476 F . 3d 158, 163 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( “ T he pr i nc i pl e tha t§ 212( c ) i s a va i l abl e i n r e m ova l pr oc e e di ngs onl y w he r e the gr ound f o rr e m o v a l h a s a ‘s ta tu to ry c o u n te rp a r t’ g r o u n d f o re x c lu s io n h a s b e e n f

ir m ly in pl ac e a nd consi st ent l y app l i ed si nce a tl ea st19 91 . ”) . 7counter

part a nalysis. I d. at 105. Although theSecond Circuit disagree d with the BIA’s B lake de cision, this does not aff ect the prece dential ef

fec t of the B IA’s dec ision elsewhere. See Matter of Anse lmo, 20 I . & N. Dec . 25, 31 (B IA 1989) (“We arenot require d to acc ept an adversedeter mination by

one circuit court of appe als as bindingthroughout the United States.”). I ndeed, other circuits agree with the BIA’s analysis in Blake a nd have a naly zed whether

the “ag gravated fe lony” ground of deportation had a statutory counter part in the § 212(a) grounds of inadmissibility . See Z amora Mallari, 514 F .3d at 691-93 (addressingag gravated fe lony of sexual abuse of a

minor); Vue v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 858, 860- 61 (8th Cir. 2007); Vo, 482 F.3d at 368-72; Caroleo, 476 F .3d at 167-68; Kim v. Gonzales, 468 F.3d 58, 62- 63 (1st Cir. 2006). In any event, Sanchez-Be cer

ra does not challeng e the B IA’s analysis in Blake in 2005, a nd we c onsider here only

whether Sanchez-B ecerra

was inelig ible for a

§ 212(c) waiver

in 2003. At the end of

the day, we note that the Seventh Circuit, albeit in a cur sory footnote, 8 re je c te d a simila r a rgument, statinga s f

oll ow s: The petitioners all maintain on appeal that if their ca se had been he ard be foreBlake they would havequ alif

ie d f or § 2 12 (c ) re lie f. Ho wever, a s ju st n ote d, B lakemere ly a pp lie d th ec omp ara

bleba siste st to a

new f a c tual sc e na

ri o. I f on e of

the se petitioners’ c ases had come before Blake, that case would be the “B lake” casethat stood f or the proposition that an alien convicted of sexual a buse of a minor does not qu al i f y f o r a § 2 1 2 ( c ) w ai v e r

b e c a u s eth e rei s n o c o mp ara

b l egro un d

o f e x c lu d a b i l i ty. Z amora -Mallari, 514 F.3d at 689- 90 n.4. 12 E ve n i f the B I A a l l ow e d hi m t o appl y f ora § 212( c ) w a i ve ra s i f i tw a s 2003, S a n c h e z - B e c e rr a h a s n o t s h o w n th e s ta tu to ry f r a m e w o r k a n d B I A ’s d e c is io n w o u ld be a ny di f

f e r e nttha n i n B l a ke . I n f a c t , S a nc he z - B e c e rr a ha s notc ha l l e nge d the B IA ’ s a nal ys i s i n B l ake or expl ai ned w hathe w ou l d argue di ff er ent l y t o sho w that hi s a ggr a va t e d f

e l ony c onvi c t i on f

ors e xua l abus e of

a m i norf

orw hi c h he i s be i ng depo rt ed has ast atut ory c ou nt erparti n § 21 2(a) t o render hi m el i gi bl e f or a § 2 12 (c ) w ai ver. T hu s, because S anchez- B ec erraw as st atut ori l y i nel i gi bl e f or a § 2 1 2 (c ) w aiv erin 2 0 0 3 , j u st as h e w as in 2 0 0 7 , w e d en y S an ch ez -B ec er ra ’s pet i t i on as t o i t s c hal l enge t o the B IA ’ s c on cl usi on thati tcoul d n otgranthi m a § 21 2(c) w ai ver nun c pro tun c. 813

C . D e ni a lo f

M o t i o n t o C o nt i nue Sa n c h e z - Be c e rr a a r g u e s th a tth e I J ab u s e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n d e n y i n g h i m a c o n tin u a n c e o f

th e M a y 7 , 2 0 0 7 r e m o v a l h e a r in g a n d e f f e c tiv e ly d e n ie d h im h is ri gh tt o cou nsel . T he deci si on t o g ra nta c on t i nu ance i s “ w i thi n the IJ ’ s broad d i s c r e t i o n . ” Z a f

a rv . U. S . Att ’ y Ge n . , 4 6 1 F . 3 d 1 3 5 7 , 1 3 6 2 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2 0 0 6 ) . As ou t l i ned abo ve, S anchez- B ec erra ’ s r em ov al hear i ng had al re ady bee n con t i nu ed f iv e tim e s , a n d th e I J s c h e d u le d th e M a y 7 , 2 0 0 7 h e a r in g in N o v e m b e r2 0 0 6 . S a nc he z - B e c e rr a ’ s m a i n c ha l l e nge –tha tthe I J f a i l e d t o e xpl a i n w hy i tde ni e d the c ont i nua nc e a nd the r e by abus e d i t s di s c r e t i on–doe s notpr e s e nta l e ga l que s t i on th a t th is C o u r t h a s ju r is d ic tio n to r e v ie w . S e e A lv a r e z A c o s tav . U .S . A tt’y G e n ., 524 F . 3d 1191, 1196- 97 ( 11th C i r . 2008) ( s t a t i ng tha ta “ ga r de n- va r i e ty abus e of di sc re t i on ar gu m ent–w hi ch ca n b e m ade by vi rtual l y e very al i en subj ec tt o a fi nal r e m o v a l o r d e r– d o e s n o t a m o u n t to a le g a l q u e s tio n u n d e r§ 1 2 5 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( D ) ” ) . T o the ext entS anchez- B ec erraar gu es thatthe deni al of a c on t i nu ance vi ol at ed hi s due proces s r i gh t s t o a fund am ent al l y f ai r hea ri ng and t o the pres ence of re t ai ned cou nsel , he pres ent s acol orabl e c on st i tut i on al cl ai m thatthi s C ou rthas j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e v i e w . H o w e v e r , i n o r d e rt o p r e v a i l o n a d u e p r o c e s s c l a i m, Sa n c h e z - Be c e rr a mu s ts h o w “ s u b s t a n t i a l p r e j u d i c e . ” Se e M u l l e n - Co f e e v . I N S, 97 6 F . 2d 13 75 , 13 80 (11th C i r. 19 92 ). B ec ause the re l i ef he i s s ee ki ng –a § 2 12 (c ) w a iv e r– is d is c r e tio n a ry , A r ia s , 4 8 2 F .3 d a t 1 2 8 3 , h is c o u n s e l a lr e a d y p r e s e n te d h isWe deny the g overnment’s October 3, 2007 motion to di smiss S anche z-Bec erra’s 9 petition fo r re view a s mo ot. Sanc he z-B e c e rra ’smotion to s tay depo rtatio n w a s p revious ly denied by this Court on October 3, 2007. 14 ar gu m ent s f

or a § 21 2(c) w ai ver i n a m em orandu m t o the IJ , and h e has no tci t ed a ny a r gum e nt s ore vi de nc e tha tc ouns e l w oul d ha ve pr e s e nt e d a tthe M a y 7, 2007 he a r i ng, S a nc he z - B e c e rr a ha s nots how n he s uf f e r e d “ s ubs t a nt i a l pr e

j udi c e ” f r om th e I J ’s d e n ia l o f

a c o n tin u a n c e . T h u s , w e d e n y S a n c h e z - B e c e rr a ’s p e titio n a s to th e c o n t i n u a n c e c l a i m. 9 PETI TI O N D I SM I SSED I N PA R T A N D D EN I ED I N PA R T.