2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 10-27-2009 

# M ont ano v . Atty Ge n U SA P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-3577

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

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

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " M ont ano v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 386. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/386NOT 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- 3577

___________ S AUL M ONT ANO,

Pet i t i oner v . A TTO RN EY G EN ER A L O F TH E U N I TED STA TES, R es pondent

____________________________________ O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof the B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( A gencyN o. A 94- 109- 820) Im m i grat i on Judg e: H on orabl e E ug ene P ug l i ese

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

O ct ober21, 2009 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , J O R D A N and G R E E N B E R G , C i r cui tJ udges

( fi l ed: O ct ober27, 2009 )

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM Pet i t i onerSaul M ont ano i s a nat i ve and c i t i zen of E l Sal vadors eeki ng r evi ew of the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ’ ( “B I A ”) deci s i on aff i r m i ng a dec i s i on of the2

Im m igrati o n Ju d g e (“ IJ”) d en y ing h is ap p li ca ti o n s fo r ca n ce ll ati o n o f re m o v al an d fo r a w ai verof i nadmi s s abi l i ty . Forthe fol l ow i ng r eas ons , w e w i l l denyM ont ano’ s pet i t i on for r e v i e w. I. M ont ano ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es w i thouti ns pect i on i n 1990 and r ece i ved T empora ryPr ot ect ed St atus ( “TP S”) i n 1992. H e bec ame a l aw ful perm anentr es i dent ( “LP R ”) i n 2001 unders ect i on 203 of the N i car aguan A dj us t m entand C entr al A m er i can R el i ef A ct . H ow ever , on M ar ch 3, 2004, M ont ano w as convi ct ed of thi r d- degr ee aggr avat ed as s aul ti n N ew J er s ey , and on M ay23, 2005, he w as convi ct ed of r ece i vi ng s t ol en pr operty . H e w as s ent ence d t o tw o- y ear s pr obat i on foreac h convi ct i on. I n 2007, the D ep artm en t of

H o m elan d S ec u ri ty(“D H S ”) c h arg ed M o n tano as re m o v ab le un d er 8 U . S. C . § 1227( a) ( 2) ( A ) ( i ) and ( i i ) . O n M ar ch 24, 2008, the I m m i gr at i on J udge ( “I J ”) f o u n d M o n ta n o re m o v a b le o n b o th c h a rg e s . A thi s r emoval pr ocee di ng, M ont ano fi l ed an appl i cat i on forcanc el l at i on of re m o v a l u n d e r 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 2 9 b (a ), an d a n a p p lica tio n f o r a w a iv e r o f

in a d m iss ib ili ty under8 U . S. C . § 1182( h) . T he I J found M ont ano t o be i nel i gi bl e fora w ai verbeca us e he w as notan arr i vi ng al i en and be caus e he di d not( and coul d not ) fi l e an a dj us t m entof s t atus appl i cat i on i n conj unct i on w i th the w ai verappl i cat i on. T he I J det erm i ned that M ont ano w as i nel i gi bl e forcanc el l at i on of r emoval beca us e he di d notm eetthe r equi r ementof s even y ear s of cont i nuous phy s i cal pr es ence i n the U ni t ed St at es , as heForpurpos es of ca ncel l at i on of r emoval , anyper i od of cont i nuous phy s i cal 1 pr es ence ends w hen “the al i en has comm i t t ed an of fens e r efe rr ed t o i n s ect i on 1182( a) ( 2) o f th is title th a t r e n d e rs th e a lie n in a d m is s ib le .” 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 9 b (d )( 1 ). 3 onl ybeca m e an LPR i n 2001 and hi s T PS per i od di d notqual i fyas an “a dm i s s i on” t o the U n ite d S ta te s . O n J ul y28, 2008, the B I A di s m i s s ed M ont ano’ s appea l . M ont ano ar gued that , for the purpos es of el i gi bi l i tyforcanc el l at i on of r emoval , hi s per i od of cont i nuous phy s i cal pr es ence i n t he U ni t ed St at es s houl d be t abul at ed fr om the t i m e he r ece i ved TP S. T he B I A r ej ect ed thi s ar gum entbeca us e the TP S per i od m aybe cons i der ed forthe “cont i nuous phy s i cal pr es ence ” ca l cul at i on onl yi f the A t t orneyG ener al det erm i nes that e x tr e me h a r d s h i p e x i s t s . 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 5 4 a ( e ) . Be c a u s e M o n t a n o d i d n o ta r g u e , o rs h o w, thats uch har ds hi p exi s t ed, the B I A det erm i ned thathe w as s t atut or i l yi nel i gi bl e for canc el l at i on of r emoval as he coul d notes t abl i s h m or e than tw o y ear s of cont i nual re sid e n c e p rio r to h is A p ril 2 0 0 3 a rre st. 1 T he B I A al s o agr eed w i th the I J thatM ont ano w as i nel i gi bl e fora w ai verof i nadmi s s i bi l i tybeca us e he di d notfi l e an appl i cat i on foran adj us t m entof s t atus . See 8 U . S. C . § 1182( h) . T he B I A det erm i ned thatthe s t atut e “doe s notpr ovi de fora ‘ s t andal one’ w ai ver ; and ther efor e [M ont ano] m us ts ubm i tan appl i cat i on fora . . . w ai ver concurr ent l yw i th an appl i cat i on foradj us t m entof s t atus . ” T hr ough couns el , M ont ano now pet i t i ons forr evi ew of the B I A ’ s fi nal or derof re m o v a l.4 II. W e h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n to re v ie w a f in a l o rd e r o f

re m o v a l p u rs u a n t to 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (a )(1 ), an d w ill su sta in th e B IA ’s d e ter m in a tio n if th e re is s u b sta n tial e v id e n c e to s u p p o rt it. Z u b e d a v . A s h c ro f t, 3 3 3 F .3 d 4 6 3 , 4 7 1 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). E l i gi bi l i tyforcanc el l at i on of r emoval r equi r es thata pet i t i onerdemonstr at e thathe ors he has “( 1) been . . . l aw ful l yadmi t t ed forperm anentr es i dence fornotl es s than 5 y ear s , ( 2) has r es i ded i n t he U ni t ed St at es cont i nuous l yfor7 y ear s aft erhavi ng been admi t t ed i n anys t atus , and ( 3) has notbeen c onvi ct ed of a nyaggr avat ed fe l ony . ” 8 U . S. C . § 1229b( a) . A l though M ont ano w as gr ant ed TP S i n 1992, the TP S st atut e s t at es that“the per i od of s uch s t atus s hal l notbe count ed as a per i od of phy s i cal pr es ence i n the U ni t ed s t at es forpurpos es of s ect i on 1229b( a) . . . , unl es s the A t t orneyG ener al d e te rm in e s th a t e x tr e m e h a rd s h ip e x is ts .” 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 4 a (e ) ( re p e a le d 1 9 9 6 ). M ont ano ar gues thathe di d notr ece i ve a f ul l and fa i rhear i ng as t o hi s appl i cat i ons f o rr e l i e f b e c a u s e th e I J d i d n o th e a ra n yt e s t i mo n yc o n c e rn i n g h i s c l a i m o f e x tr e me har ds hi p, and thus thathi s due pr oces s r i ght s w er e vi ol at ed. W e have j ur i s di ct i on over M o n tan o ’s d u e p ro c e ss c laim u n d e r 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (a )(2 )(D ). D u e p ro c e ss in th is c o n tex t re q u ire s th a t a p e tit io n e r b e p ro v id e d w ith a f u ll an d f a ir h e a rin g a n d a re a so n a b le o p p o rtu n ityto p rese n t evid en ce . R o m an ishyn v . A tt ’yG en . , 4 5 5 F . 3 d 1 7 5 , 1 8 5 (3d C ir . 2006) . T o pr evai l on a pr ocedur al due pr oces s chal l enge, a pet i t i onerm us tm ake a n i ni t i al s how i ng of s ubs t ant i al pr ej udi ce. B onhom etr e v. G onzal es , 414 F. 3d 442, 448 ( 3d5

C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). T h u s, in o rd e r to p re v a il h e re , M o n tan o m u st m a k e a stro n g sh o w in g th a t if th e I J h a d t a k e n t e s t i mo n yf r o m h i m o rh i s f

a mi l y , h e l i k e l ywo u l d h a v e f o u n d “ e x tr e me h a r d s h i p ” a n d g r a n t e d M o n t a n o ’ s a p p l i c a t i o n f o ra w a i v e ro f

i n a d m i s s i b i l i ty. M ont ano does not , how ever , i ndi cat e how hi s orhi s fami l y ’ s t es t i m onyw oul d have demonstr at ed s uch har ds hi p otherthan t o s aythathi s r emoval has “ca us ed exc ept i onal and unus ual har ds hi p t o hi s fami l ym ember s l aw ful l yher e i n the U ni t ed St at es . ” T her efor e, even a s s um i ng thatthe I J err ed byrul i ng on hi s appl i cat i on w i thoutt aki ng tes tim o n y , M o n tan o h a s f a iled to sh o w th a t h e w a s p re ju d ice d b yth a t d e c isio n . F o r th is r e a s o n , M o n t a n o i s n o te n t i t l e d t o r e l i e f o n h i s d u e p r o c e s s c l a i m. W e al s o have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew l egal and cons t i tut i onal ques t i ons conce rni ng M o n ta n o ’s e lig ib ility f

o r a w a iv e r o f

in a d m is s ib ility p u rs u a n t to 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 8 2 (h )( 2 ). S e e 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (a )(2 )(D ). E lig ib ili tyf o r a w a iv e r re q u ire s th a t “th e A tto rn e yg e n e ra l, i n hi s di s cr et i on . . . , has cons ent ed t o the al i en’ s appl y i ng orr eappl y i ng fora vi s a, for ad m issi o n to the U n it ed S tat es, or a d justm en t of

statu s. ” 8 U . S . C . § 1 1 8 2 (h)(2 ). T h e B IA concl uded thatthi s l anguage r equi r ed M ont ano t o fi l e an appl i cat i on foran adj us t m entof s t atus i n conj unct i on w i th hi s w ai verappl i cat i on. B eca us e M ont ano di d notand coul d not d o s o , h e w a s in e lig ib le f o r a w a iv e r o f

in a d m is s ib ility. D es pi t e M ont ano’ s ar gum entt o the contr ary , I n r e A bos i , 24 I . & N . D ec. 204 ( B I A 2007) , s uppor t s the B I A ’ s det erm i nat i on thatM ont ano coul d nots ucce ed on an in d e p e n d e n t ap p lica tio n f o r a w a iv e r o f

in a d m iss ib ili ty . In A b o si, th e B IA sta ted th a t 86

C . F . R . § 1 24 5. 1(f)

— the ad j ust m ent of st atus regul at i on — app l i es t o ali ens “ i n the U ni t ed Stat es w ho ar e s eeki ng t o over come a gr ound of i nadmi s s i bi l i tyand ar e r equi r ed t o fi l e a c o n c u rr e n ta p p l i c a t i o n f o ra d j u s t me n to f

s t a tu s i n o r d e rt o o b t a i n a wa i v e r . ” 2 4 I . & N. D ec. at205 ( emphasi s i n or i gi nal ) . T her efor e, underthe pl ai n r eadi ng of the s t atut e and the B I A ’ s i nt erpr et at i on of i ti n A bos i , s ubs t ant i al evi dence s uppor t s the conc l us i on that as l ong as M ont ano w as i n the U ni t ed St at es , he w as barr ed fr om s eeki ng a w ai verof in a d m is s ib ility w ith o u t a ls o a p p lyin g f o r a c h a n g e o f

s ta tu s . M o n tan o a lso a p p e a rs to a rg u e th a t th is in terp re tatio n o f th e sta tu te d e n ied h im h is r i ghtt o equal pr ot ect i on of the l aw s , as A bos i al s o concl uded thatL PR s w ho ar e out s i de th e U n ited S tate s a n d se e k to re tu rn v ia a w a iv e r o f in a d m iss ib ili tya re n o t re q u ire d to f ile a c o n cu rren t adju stm en t of statu s ap p li ca ti o n . Id. W e a sses s w h ethe r a statute’s r equi r ement s vi ol at e the equa l pr ot ect i on componentof the D ue Pr oces s C l aus e under rati o n al ba sis r ev iew . A rca -P ined a v . A tt ’yG en . , 5 2 7 F . 3 d 1 0 1 , 1 0 5 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). In K l ement anovs kyv. G onzal es , the Seventh C i r cui tconfr ont ed a s i m i l ari s s ue, and found thatthe r equi r ement s of 8 U . S. C . § 1182( h) di d notvi ol at e the pet i t i oner ’ s equal pr ot ect i on r i ght s . 501 F. 3d 788 ( 7th C i r . 2007) . T he Seventh C i r cui tr ej ect ed the pet i t i oner ’ s as s ert i on thatthe s t atut e made an i m pr operdi s t i nct i on betw een pe r s ons w ho

“ h a v e le f t th e c o u n tr ya n d re tu rn e d , a n d th o s e w h o h a v e s ta y e d a n d a p p lie d f o r a . . . w a iv e r d ire c tly ,” s tatin g th a t: [the] l i ne thatC ongr es s has dr aw n i s betw een thos e cr i m i nal al i ens w ho s eek t o be adm i t t ed to th e U n ite d S ta te s a n d th o s e . . . w ho ar e bei ng depor t ed f r omth e U n ited S tate s. In th e c a se o f th e f o rm e r, a h u m a n itaria n w a iv e r is a v a ilab le u n d e r § [ 1 1 8 2 (h )]. In th e c a se o f th e latte r, C o n g r e ss h a s c o n sp icu o u sly r efus ed t o i ncl ude a pr ovi s i on fora di s cr et i onaryw ai verof depor t abi l i tyfr om the appl i cabl e s t atut e. Id . a t 7 9 1 -9 2 (e m p h a s is in o ri g in a l) . A s the Seventh C i r cui topi ned, “[t ] her e ar e anynum berof r at i onal gr ounds on w h ich C o n g ress c o u ld ch o o se to d raw a li n e b etw ee n tho se w h o co m m itted c ri m es b ef o re appl y i ng t o ent erthe countr y( m aki ng them i nadmi s s i bl e) and thos e w ho have c om m i t t ed cr i m es s i nce a r r i vi ng ( m aki ng them depor t abl e) . ” I d. at792. O ne s uch r eas on i s that C o n g re ss m a yh a v e w a n ted p e o p le w h o w e re c o n v icte d o f c e rta in c rim e s to re m a in o u ts id e th e c o u n tr yw h ile th e ira p p lic a tio n s f o r t h e w a iv e r a re c o n s id e re d . Id . a t 7 9 2 -9 3 . T h e S ev en th C ir cu it ’s rati o n ale in K lem en tano v sk yis sou n d , an d w e f ind that M o n tano ’s equal pr ot ect i on r i ght s have notbeen vi ol at ed. F o r t h e f o re g o in g re a s o n s , w e d e n yM o n ta n o ’s p e titio n f o r r e v ie w .

7