2005 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 7-25-2005 

# D iPepp e v . S ecret ary H omel and 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 . 04-3443

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_2005

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 2005 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
" DiP eppe v

. S e cr e t ary H ome l and " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 783. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/783NOT 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. 04- 3443
RI TA D I PEP PE, A ppel l ant

v. T OM RI DGE , S E CR E T AR Y OF DE P AR T M E NT OF HOMEL AND S E CU RI T Y; M I CH AE L GAR CI A, AC T I NG DI RE CT OR , UNI T E D S T A T E S IM M IG R A T IO N & C U S T O M S E N F O R C E M E N T ; J OHN C AR BO NE , F I E L D OF F I CE DI RE CT OR , NE WARK OF F I CE OF DE P AR T M E NT OF HOMEL AND S E CU RI T Y I M M I GR AT I ON CU STO M S & EN FO RC EM EN T ( U SI CE ) ; D EPA RT M EN T O F

HO M ELAN D SECU RI TY APP EAL F ROM THE UNI TE D ST ATE S DI S TRI CT C OURT

FOR TH E DI STRI CT O F NEW J ERSEY D . C . C i vi l N o. 04- cv- 02298 D i s tr i ctJ udge: T he H onor abl e W i l l i am G . B as s l er Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J ul y1, 2005
B efor e: R O T H , R E N D E L L , and B A R R Y , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed: J ul y25, 2005) OP I NI ONO n N ovember1, 1991, D i Peppe pul l ed a gun f r om herpur s e and s hotand ki l l ed her 1 es tr anged hus band. A ppar ent l y , D i Peppe had s uffe r ed ment al and phy s i cal abus e att he hands of herhus band overthe cour s e of thei rtw enty - thr ee- y earm arr i age, and they s e p a ra te d a s s h e b e c a m e in c re a s in g ly em o tio n a lly u n s ta b le . T he I N S i s now the B ur eau of I m m i gr at i on and C us t om s E nfor cement( “B I C E ”) , and 2 oper at es w i thi n t he D epart m entof H om el and Secur i ty . See 6 U . S. C . § 271 ( 2002) ; s ee a ls o A m b a rt s o u m ia n v . A s h c ro f t, 3 8 8 F .3 d 8 5 , a p p . a t 9 5 n .6 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). T h e ter m s “ O rd e r to S h o w C a u se ” a n d “ d e p o rta b le” w e re re p lac e d w ith “ N o tice to 3 A ppear ” and “ r emovabl e, ” r es pect i vel y , bythe 1996 pas s age of the I l l egal I m m i gr at i on R ef o rm an d Im m igran t R esp o n sibil ityA ct. S ee D iPe p p e v . Q u ara n ti ll o (“D iPe p p e I” ), 3 3 7 F . 3 d 3 2 6 , 3 3 0 n . 9 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). 2 B A R R Y , C i r cui tJ udge R i t a D i Peppe ( “D i Peppe”) appea l s the deni al of hers econd pe t i t i on fora w r i tof hab eas corpus, con t end i ng that the ex ecuti on of the fi nal or der of rem ov al enter ed ag ai nst h e r w ill c a u se h e r to c o m m it su icid e , the re b yv io latin g h e r su b sta n tiv e d u e p ro c e ss rig h ts underthe Fi fth A m endment . W e di s agr ee. I . Backg r ound D i Peppe i s a nat i ve and c i t i zen of I t al yw ho has been a l aw ful perm anentr es i dent in th is c o u n trysin c e 1 9 5 5 . A f ter p lea d in g g u iltyin 1 9 9 2 to a g g ra v a ted m a n sla u g h ter in th e sh o o tin g d e a th o f

h e r h u sb a n d , sh e w a s s e n ten c e d to a ter m o f tw e n ty -se v e n y e a rs in 1 pr i s on w i th ni ne y ear s of par ol e i nel i gi bi l i ty . T he I m m i gr at i on and N atur al i zat i on Ser vi ce (“I N S ”) subsequ entl yserved D i P epp e w i th an O rdert o S ho w C ause, chargi ng her as a

2 d e p o rt a b le a lie n b a s e d o n h e r c o n v ic tio n f o r a n a g g ra v a te d f

e lo n y . C f. 8 U .S .C . §

3 1227( a) ( 2) ( A ) ( i i i ) ( “A nyal i en w ho i s convi ct ed of a n aggr avat ed fe l onyatanyt i m e af t erU nderthe r egul at i ons i n pl ace i n 1992, i tw as nece s s aryt o fi l e w i th the I m m i gr at i on 4 C o u rtto tr igg er d ep o rt ati o n p roc ee d ing s. S ee 8 C . F . R . § 2 4 2 . 1 (a)-(b) (19 9 2 ). W hen D i Peppe pl ed gui l tyi n 1992, § 212( c) r el i ef w as avai l abl e t o anyperm anent 5 r es i dental i en w ho had bee n l aw ful l ydom i ci l ed i n the U ni t ed St at es fors even c ons ecut i ve y ear s , as l ong as thatal i en had notbeen c onvi ct ed of a n aggr avat ed fe l onythatcaus ed hi m orhert o s erve a pr i s on t erm of atl eas tfi ve y ear s . See D i Peppe I , 337 F. 3d at328, 330. I n 1996, the pr ovi s i on w as r epea l ed i n i t s ent i r ety , and w as r epl ace d bya new pr ovi s i on thatal l ow ed forcanc el l at i on of r emoval , butnoti f the al i en had be en convi ct ed o f a n a g g ra v a ted f

e lo n y . S e e id . at 3 2 8 -2 9 . S e c tio n 2 1 2 (h ) a lso u n d e rw e n t a c h a n g e in 1996. A l though § 212( h) had pr evi ous l yal l ow ed fora di s cr et i onaryw ai veri n the ca s e of an al i en convi ct ed of a cr i m e of mora l turpi tude w ho coul d demonstr at e thata deni al of s uch a w ai verw oul d caus e extr eme har ds hi p t o the al i en’ s ci t i zen s pous e, par ent , orchi l d, aft er1996 i tbeca m e unava i l abl e fora perm anentr es i dental i en w ho had bee n convi ct ed of an a ggr avat ed fe l ony . See i d. at327- 28. 3 admi s s i on i s deport abl e. ”) . Forr eas ons thatar e uncl ear , the O r dert o Show C aus e w as n e v e r f iled w ith th e Im m ig ra tio n C o u rt. 4 O n A u g u st 2, 20 0 0 , the IN S issue d , an d this t im e f il ed , a N o ti ce to A p p ea r, c h a r g i n g Di P e p p e wi th r e mo v a b i l i tya s a n a l i e n c o n v i c t e d o f a n a g g r a v a t e d f

e l o n y . On O ct ober31, 2000, D i Peppe w as par ol ed and t aken i nt o I N S cus t ody . She s ought d is c re tio n a ry re lie f

f ro m re m o v a l b e f

o re th e IJ , w h ic h w a s d e n ie d o n D e c e m b e r 1 8 , 2 0 0 0 . O n J une 8, 2001, the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) aff i r m ed, and on J ul y5, 2 0 0 1 , D iPe p p e f

il ed h er f ir st pe ti ti o n fo r a w ri t of h ab ea s co rpu s in the U . S . D istri ct C o u rt fo r th e D istri ct of

N ew Jerse y , see k ing reli ef u n d er tw o p rov isi o n s w h ich a ll o w fo r a di s cr et i onaryw ai verof deport at i on, §§ 212( c) and 212( h) of the I m m i gr at i on and N atur al i zat i on A ct . T he D i s tr i ctC our tdeni ed herappl i cat i on underthe form er 5 pr ovi s i on, butgr ant ed i tunderthe l att erand r emanded the ca s e, w hi ch pr ocee ded t o aH e a lso f o u n d e v id e n c e o f

P o st-T ra u m a tic S tre ss D iso rd e r a n d B ip o lar P e rso n a lity 6 D isord er. 4 heari ng befo re an I J on the § 2 12 (h) cl ai m atapp roxi m at el ythe sam e t i m e t hat cr ossappea l s t aken f

r om the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s deci s i on w er e pendi ng befor e us . M eanw hi l e, D iP e p p e w a s re le a s e d o n b o n d . O n A pr i l 30, 2002, the I J found D i Peppe el i gi bl e forr el i ef unde r§ 212( h) , and gr ant ed a w ai verand adj us t m entof s t atus . B uton J ul y18, 2003, w e i s s ued ourdeci s i on o n the c ross -ap p ea ls, co n clud ing that D iPe p p e w as in eli g ible fo r reli ef u n d er b o th pr ovi s i ons and r ei ns t at i ng the fi nal or derof r emoval , ther ebynul l i fy i ng the ef fec tof the I J ’ s deci s i on. See D i Peppe v. Q uar ant i l l o, 337 F. 3d 326, 331- 32 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . I tdoes
n o ta p p e a r , h o w e v e r , th a tD i P e p p e h a s b e e n r e tu rn e d t o c u s t o d y. I n th e f a l l o f 2 0 0 3 , D i P e p p e ’ s a d u l td a u g h t e r s h a d h e rm e n t a l h e a l th e v a l u a t e d b y a lic e n s e d p s y c h o lo g is t, D r. A lla n C o o p e rs te in , a n d a p s y c h ia tr is t, D r. C la n c yM c K e n z ie . D r . C ooper s t ei n not ed thatD i Peppe had be en hos pi t al i zed tw i ce i n 1986 for“depr es s i on w i th s ui ci dal i deat i ons , ”and thats he had a t t empt ed s ui ci de thr ee t i m es w hi l e i n pr i s on s ervi ng heraggr avat ed mansl aught ers ent ence . H e di agnos ed herw i th M aj orD epr es s i on 6
a n d w a rn e d th a t s h e w a s “ e x p e ri e n c in g re c u rr e n t th o u g h ts re la te d to a s u ic id a l a c t.” A 5 7 . D r . M cK enzi e’ s eval uat i on focus ed on the ef fec tthatdeport at i on w oul d have on D iP e p p e . H e c o n c lu d e d th a t “[ i]t is w ith o u t d o u b t th a t th is . . . w o m a n w ill sh if t in to s ever e depr es s i on once mor e, w i l l be extr emel ys ui ci dal , and pr obabl yw i l l m ove bac kT hi s i s the deport at i on dat e gi ven i n the l ett ers entt o D i Peppe’ s l aw y erfr om J ohn 7 C arbone, the l ocal Fi el d O ffi ce D i r ect orforB I C E ; how ever , D i Peppe’ s s econd ha beas pet i t i on and the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s s econd ha beas opi ni on both gi ve the dat e of A pr i l 19, 2 0 0 4 . D iP e p p e w a s a n in p a tien t u n til A p ril 2 9 , 2 0 0 4 , an d th e n b e c a m e a n o u tp a tien t, 8 r ece i vi ng tr eatm entatthe hos pi t al ei ghthour s a day , fi ve day s a w eek. I ti s uncl ear w h e th e r sh e is s til l re c e iv in g tre a tm e n t. 5 in to p sy c h o sis .” A 6 8 . H e a d d e d th a t “it is c lea r th a t d e p o rta tio n m o st lik e lyis a d e a th
s ent ence t o her , ” i d. , a phr as e D i Peppe her s el f had pr evi ous l yus ed t o des cr i be her f e e lin g s . O n M ar ch 10, 2004, D i Peppe aga i n s oughtdi s cr et i onaryr el i ef, thi s t i m e i n the fo rm o f d ef

erred ac ti o n . T h e re q u est w as d en ied, an d D iPe p p e w as in stru cted to rep o rt f o r re m o v a l to Ita lyo n A p ril 1 2 , 2 0 0 4 . A s th a t d a te a p p ro a c h e d , D iP e p p e ’s m e n tal s tate 7 appar ent l ydet er i or at ed t o s uch an e xt entthat , on A pr i l 18, 2004, one of he rdaught er s had hercomm i t t ed t o Fr i ends Psy chi atr i c H os pi t al i n Phi l adel phi a, Penns y l vani a. 8 D i Peppe w as gi ven a ne w deport at i on dat e of M ay24, 2004. I ns t ead of r eport i ng forr emoval , how ever , on M ay18, 2000, s he fi l ed hers econd ha beas pet i t i on, “al l egi ng th a t th e e x e c u tio n o f

th e re m o v a l o rd e r w o u ld v io late h e r su b sta n tiv e d u e p ro c e ss rig h ts p u rsu a n t to th e F if

th A m e n d m e n t . . . as th e e x e c u tio n o f th e o rd e r w o u ld lik e ly p rec ipit ate a d ee p p sy ch o sis l ikelyresu lt ing in su ici d e.” B r. at 4. T h e D istri ct C o u rt hear d or al ar gum enton J une 21, 2004, and deni ed the pet i t i on thats ame day . A s t ayof
r emoval pendi ng appea l w as gr ant ed, and D i Peppe ther eaf t ert i m el yfi l ed the appe al now befo re us.W e make tw o otherpoi nt s conce rni ng ourj ur i s di ct i on. Fi r s t , w e not e thatD i Peppe 9 p r o t e s t s a n a c t i o n th e g o v e r n m e n ti s o n l y pr epar i ngt o t ake, and has noty ett aken. T hat fac t , how ever , does notdepr i ve herof s t andi ng i n thi s cas e. See Spence rv. K emna, 523 U .S . 1 , 7 (1 9 9 8 ) ( e x p la in in g th a t, to h a v e s ta n d in g , a p la in tif f “ m u s t h a v e s u f

f e re d , orbe th re a ten e d

w ith , a n a c tu a l i n

j u r y t r a c e a b l e t o th e d e f e n d a n ta n d l i k e l y t o b e r e d r e s s e d b y a favor abl e j udi ci al deci s i on. ” ( i nt ernal ci t at i on om i t t ed) ( emphasi s added) ) . Second, b e c a u se th is a p p e a l is n o w b e in g tre a ted a s a p e tit io n f o r re v iew , w e d o n o t n e e d to 6 I I . D i s cus s i on T h is case ca m e to u s as a n ap p ea l from the D istri ct C o u rt ’s de n ial o f D iPe p p e’s
s econd a ppl i cat i on fora w r i tof habe as corpus . Pr evi ous l y , w e w oul d have c ons i der ed
su c h a n a p p e a l u n d e r th e ju risd ictio n a l sc h e m e o f 2 8 U .S .C . § § 1 2 9 1 a n d 2 2 4 1 . B u t, w ith th e p a s s a g e o f

th e R e a l I D A c t o f

2 0 0 5 , 

### Pub L. No. 109- 13, 119 St at . 231 ( May 11, 2005) , the n a tu re o f

o u r ju risd ictio n h a s c h a n g e d . A s w e v e ryre c e n tlye x p lain e d in B onhom etr e v. G onzal es , N o. 04- 2037, __ F. 3d __, __ ( 3d C i r . 2005) , al l al i ens ar e now l i m i t ed t o “one bi t e of the appl e, ” s ee i d. at__, and w e ar e t o cons i derchal l enges t o a f in a l o rd e r o f

re m o v a l th a t (1 ) w e re f iled a s a p p e a ls f

ro m a d istric t co u rt’s d e n ial o f a w rit
o f h a b e a s c o rp u s, a n d (2 ) w e re p e n d in g b e f o re u s w h e n th e R e a l ID A c t w a s e n a c ted , to be pet i t i ons forr evi ew . See i d. at__. U nderthi s s cena r i o, w e exe r ci s e j ur i s di ct i on under 8 U . S. C . § 1252. T he s cope of ourr evi ew , how ever , does notchange ; w e s t i l l anal y ze the al i en’s l egal cl ai m s de novo . See B onhom etr e, __ F. 3d at__. H er e, i tw as concl uded that “exe cut i on of [D i Peppe’ s ] r emoval does notdepr i ve [D i Peppe] of hers ubs t ant i ve due p r o c e s s r i g h t s . ” D i P e p p e v . R i d g e , N o . 0 4 - 1 9 5 4 , s l i p o p . a t8 ( D . N . J . J u n e 2 1 , 2 0 0 4 ) . We agr ee. 9a d d r e s s Di P e p p e ’ s a r g u me n tth a ts h e s a t i s f i e s th e “ i n c u s t o d y ” r e q u i r e me n to f 2 8 U. S . C. § 2241, forthati nqui r yi s no l ongerr el evantt o ourexer ci s e of j ur i s di ct i on. W hen a l egi s l at i ve ac ti s bei ng chal l enged a s a s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s vi ol at i on, 10 c o u rts m u st d e ter m in e w h e th e r th e c laim im p lica tes a f u n d a m e n tal rig h t o r lib e rtyin ter e st, as defi ned byourcountr y ’ s hi s t ory , l egal tr adi t i ons , and pr act i ces . See W as hi ngt on v. G luck sb u rg, 52 1 U . S . 7 0 2 , 7 1 0 , 7 1 9 -72 3 (19 9 7 ). 7 It is c lea r th a t th e F if

th A m e n d m e n t’s d u e p ro c e ss p ro tec tio n s a p p lyto a lien s in
r emoval pr ocee di ngs . See R eno v. Fl or es , 507 U . S. 292, 306 ( 1993) . “The t ouchs t one of due pr oces s i s pr ot ect i on of the i ndi vi dual agai ns tarbi tr aryact i on of governm ent . ” C o u n tyo f

S a c ra m e n to v . L e w is, 5 2 3 U .S . 8 3 3 , 8 4 5 (1 9 9 8 ) (q u o tin g W o lf f v . M c D o n n e ll, 418 U . S. 539, 558 ( 1974) ) . Subst ant i ve due pr oces s ther efor e l i m i t s w hatthe governm ent c a n d o in b o th its leg isla tiv e a n d e x e c u tiv e c a p a c iti e s, b u t th e “ c riter ia to id e n tifyw h a t is fat al l yarbi tr arydi ffe r ” depe ndi ng on w hi ch of thes e ca paci t i es the governm enti s act i ng i n w hen i tt akes the cha l l enged a ct i on. See i d. at846. W her e, as her e, an i ndi vi dual
a lleg e s “ a b u siv e e x e c u tiv e a c tio n . . . o n lyth e m o st e g re g io u s o f f icia l co n d u c t ca n b e sa id t o b e ‘arbitraryi n the con st i tuti on al sense. ’” See i d. (quoti ng C oll i ns v. H arkerH ei gh t s, 5 0 3 U . S . 1 1 5 , 1 2 9 (19 9 2 )). 10 T hus , the t es ti s w hethers uch an a ct i on “s hocks the cons ci ence . ” See i d. at846- 47, C ol l i ns , 503 U . S. at128; s ee a l s o R ochi n v. C al i forni a, 342 U . S. 165, 172- 73 ( 1952) ( form ul at i ng the s hocks
- the- cons ci ence t es t ) , B enn v. U ni v. H eal th Sy s . , 371 F. 3d 165, 174 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( fr ami ng as the “thr es hol d ques t i on” w hetherthe exe cut i ve ac t i on atT he governm entpoi nt s t o C havez v. M art i nez, 538 U . S. 760 ( 2003) , as author i tyon 11 the s hocks
- the- cons ci ence t es t , s ee Br. at6, 8. C havez , how ever , w as a pl ur al i tyopi ni on, and the port i on of J us t i ce Thom as ’ s opi ni on thatthe governm entr el i es on i s notthe opi ni on of the C our ton t he s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s i s s ue. See C havez , 538 U . S. at774- 77. I ns t ead, J us t i ce Sout erw r ot e thatpartof the opi ni on forthe C our t , and i tcons i s t ed of one s ent ence i ns truct i ng thatthe ca s e be r emanded on thati s s ue. I d. at779- 80. 8 i s s ue “s hock[s ] the cont empora r ycons ci ence ”) ( ci t i ng L ew i s , 523 U . S. at847 n. 8) . T he 11 S u p re m e C o u rt h a s re c o g n ize d th a t th e re is a sp e c tru m o f e x e c u tiv e c o n d u c t th a t, dep end i ng on i t s context , w ou l d reach “the po i nt of con sci ence sh ock i ng . ” S ee L ew i s, 5 2 3 U .S . at 8 4 9 . C o n d u c t th a t w o u ld m o st lik e lysu p p o rt a c laim u n d e r th is te st is “conduc ti nt ended t o i nj ur e i n s om e w ayunj us t i fi abl e byanygovernm enti nt er es t . ” S ee id.; see also A . M . v . L u ze rne C o u n tyJu v en il e D et. C tr . , 3 7 2 F . 3 d 5 7 2 , 5 7 9 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). D i Peppe has s ei zed upon the w or d “cont empora ry ” us ed bythe Lew i s C our ti n, and onl yi n, footnot e 8 of i t s opi ni on t o des cr i be w hos e cons ci ence w e s houl d t es tfor shock . S ee B r. at18 -21; L ew i s, 52 3 U . S . at84 7 n . 3. A s m anycou rt s, i ncludi ng ou rs , h av e a lso f

o cu sed o n that ad

jecti v e, see , e.g., R ivera v . R . I. , 4 0 2 F . 3 d 2 7 , 3 6 (1st C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) , T e rr e l l v . L a r s o n , 3 9 6 F . 3 d 9 7 5 , 9 7 8 ( 8 th Ci r . 2 0 0 5 ) , Be n n , 3 7 1 F . 3 d a t1 7 4 , we w i l l as s um e thatthe Lew i s C our ti nt ended f ori tt o be i ncorpor at ed i nt o the t es ti tl ai d out i n the t extof i t s opi ni on. W hi l e D i Peppe l i s t s and di s cus s es , atl ength, “ca s es thatr efl ect an evol ut i on of the conduc tthata ci vi l i zed s oci etyw i l l nott ol er at e, ” B r . at19, s he neve r ti es th at su p p o sed ev o luti o n to the fa cts o f h er c ase . Instea d , sh e sim p lystat es th at “the re9

i s an i ncr eas i ng need t o r egul at e exc es s i ve author i tyw i thi n . . . cus t odi al s ett i ngs . ” I d. at 20. E ven ac cept i ng thatt o be true, w e ca nnots ee how the governm ent ’ s exec ut i on of the fi nal or derof r emoval ent er ed aga i ns tD i Peppe w oul d s hock ourcons ci ence , cont empora r yorot herw i s e. T her e i s no al l egat i on thatoffi ci al s w or ki ng forthe form er IN S o r th e c u rre n t B IC E h a v e in ter f e re d w ith o r d e p riv e d D iP e p p e o f p sy c h iatric tr eatm ent , nori s ther e anyi ndi cat i on thattheyar e try i ng t o deportD i Peppe w i th the i nt ent th a t sh e c o m m it su icid e . In d e e d , B IC E o f f icia ls h a v e “ lo c a ted p ro v id e rs in v a rio u s p a rts o f Ita lyw h o a re a b le to o f f e r th e ra p y , m e d ica tio n , m o n ito rin g , an d o th e r m e n tal h e a lth
s ervi ces as neede d. ” A 70. T heyhave a l s o confi r m ed thathercondi t i on w i l l notpr event her from travel i ng . F urtherm ore, the d epo rt at i on of cri m i nal al i ens i s a t lea st a ju stif iab le governm enti nt er es t , and B I C E ’ s neutr al , beni gn per form ance of s uch an a cti s not cons ci ence - s hocki ng. T her e i s al s o a r ecogni zed “ m i ddl e r ange” of cul pabi l i tythatcoul d gr ound a
s u b s ta n tiv e d u e p ro c e s s c la im : e x e c u tiv e c o n d u c t th a t e x h ib its d e lib e ra te in d if f e re n c e . See Lew i s , 523 U . S. at850. W hen oper at i ng i n thi s r ange, court s m us tcl os el yanal y ze the ci r cumst ance s s urr oundi ng the cha l l enged c onduct , as “[d] el i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence t hat
s hocks i n one envi r onm entm aynotbe s o pat ent l yegr egi ous i n another , ” i d. , and the Supr eme C our t“has al w ay s been r el uct antt o expand the conc eptof s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s . ” C ol l i ns , 503 U . S. at125.D i Peppe al s o ur ges us t o cons i derthat“s he has l i ved vi r tual l yherent i r e l i fe i n the 12 U n ited S tate s, [ h e r] c h ild re n h a v e b e e n ju d icia llyf o u n d to lik e lysu f

f e r e x tre m e h a rd sh ip if [ sh e ] is re m o v e d ,” a n d “ [ s]h e is f u llyA m e ric a n ize d in a ll res p e c ts, o th e r th a n th e th in p iece o f p ap er term ed a ‘C erti fica te of N atura li za ti o n . ’” B r. at 10 , 2 7 . W h il e w e a re s ym pathet i c t o D i Peppe and he rfami l y , the emot i onal pai n of deport at i on i s one fe l tby m anyal i ens fac i ng r emoval w ho al s o m us ts aygood- by e t o fr i ends , fami l y , and othert i es thatr emai n behi nd i n the U ni t ed St at es . T hus , the fa ctthata per s on w ho does nothave th a t “th in ,” b u t ex tre m e lysig n if ica n t, pie c e o f

p a p e r w ill b e d e v a sta ted to lea v e th is countryw hen or der ed t o do s o does nots hock the cons ci ence . 10 In l i gh tof thi s caut i on , w e w ou l d h ave to “defini t i velycal i brat e t he eg regi ou sness leve l” req u ir ed o f a claim that ex ec u ti o n o f a d ep o rt ati o n o rde r w o u ld tr igg er the ali en ’s
su ici d e. S ee B o y an o w sk i v. C ap it al A rea Interm ed iat e U n it , 2 1 5 F . 3 d 3 9 6 , 4 0 1 (3d C ir . 2000) . B utther e i s no cons t i tut i onal r i ghtt o as y l um , s ee A bdul r ahman v. A s hcr oft , 330 F .3 d 5 8 7 , 5 9 6 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 3 ), o r to d isc re tio n a ryre lief f ro m re m o v a l, w h ich is e ss e n tially
w hatD i Peppe r eques t s . See, e. g. , I N S v. Y ang, 519 U . S. 26, 30 ( 1996) ( “The A t t orney G eneral ’s suspensi on of d epo rt at i on . . . [i s] ‘an actof g race’ w hich i s accorded to [his ] ‘u n f e tte re d d is c re tio n .’” ) ( q u o tin g J a yv . B o y d , 3 5 1 U .S . 3 4 5 , 3 5 4 (1 9 5 6 )) ; c f. 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 9 b (r e p la c in g th e s u s p e n s io n o f d e p o rt a tio n re m e d yw ith “ c a n c e lla tio n o f re m o v a l” ). T h e re f o re , b e c a u se “ o th e r p re c e d e n t m a k e s c lea r th a t th is s o rt o f c laim c a n n o t p re se n t a s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s cl ai m i n the fi r s tpl ace [, ] ” w e w i l l notatt empt t o engage i n a defi ni t i ve ca l i br at i on. See B oy anow s ki , 215 F. 3d at401. I ns t ead, w e s i m pl yconcl ude that , r egar dl es s of w her e on the s pectrum of cul pabl e conduc tbel ow cons ci ence - s hocki ng th e g o v e rn me n t ’ s th r e a t e n e d a c t i o n ma yl i e , i f i te v e n l i e s a n ywh e r e o n th a ts p e c tru m, there i s no infri ng em ent of D i P epp e’s subst anti ve d ue p rocess ri gh t s. 1211 I I I . C oncl usi on Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , and havi ng r echa r act er i zed the appe al as a pet i t i on for
re v ie w in lig h t o f

th e R e a l I D A c t, w e w ill d e n yth e p e titio n f o r r e v ie w .