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 9-21-2005 

# R ich ard s 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 . 05-1305

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 " R ich ar d s v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 513. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/513NOT 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 S. 05- 1305 & 05- 3129

________________ CH A RL ES I SA A C R I CH A RD S, A p p e llan t, v. ATTO RN EY G ENER AL O F THE UN I TED STATES

____________________________________ O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r der o f th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( A gencyN o. A 29- 356- 677) ( 05- 1305 i ni t i al l ydocket ed as an appe al fr om M D PA N o. 04- cv- 02682) ( 05- 3129 i ni t i al l ydocket ed as a habe as pet i t i on atE D PA N o. 05- cv- 01592

and tr ans ferr ed pur s uantt o the R eal I D A ctof 2005)

__________________________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

A ugus t12, 2005 B efor e: A L I T O , SM I T H and C O W E N , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed Sept ember21, 2005)

_________________ OP I NI ON

_________________ P E R C UR I AM A p p e llan t C h a rle s Is a a c R ich a rd s, a n a tiv e a n d c iti z e n o f Ja m a ica , w a s illeg a lly pr es enti n t he U ni t ed St at es w hen, i n O ct ober2001, he pl eade d gui l tyi n the A l l egheny C o u n tyC o u rt o f

C o m m o n P lea s to p o ss e ss io n o f c o c a in e in v io latio n o f

3 5 P a . C o n s. S tat.D ue t o a def ecti n s ervi ce, the dec i s i on w as r ei s s ued on M ar ch 25, 2005. 1 2 A nn. § 780- 113( a) ( 16) , and pos s es s i on of a s m al l amount of m ar i j uana i n vi ol at i on of 35 Pa. C ons . St at . A nn. § 780- 113( a) ( 31) . R i char ds w as s ent ence d t o pr obat i on w i thout v e rd ic t f o r 1 3 m o n th s p u rs u a n t to 3 5 P a . C o n s . S ta t. A n n . § 7 8 0 -1 1 7 . As a r e s u l to f

h i s c o n v i c t i o n s , th e Bu r e a u o f I mmi g r a t i o n a n d Cu s t o ms E n f o rc e m e n t ch a rg e d R ich a rd s w ith re m o v a b ili tyu n d e r Im m ig ra tio n & N a tio n a lityA c t § 212( a) ( 6) ( A ) ( i ) , 8 U . S. C . § 1182( a) ( 6) ( A ) ( i ) , as an al i en pr es entw i thoutbei ng admi t t ed orpar ol ed, and § 212( a) ( 2) ( A ) ( i ) ( I I ) , 8 U . S. C . § 1182( a) ( 2) ( A ) ( i ) ( I I ) , as an al i en convi ct ed of a contr ol l ed s ubs t ance vi ol at i on. A n I m m i gr at i on J udge found Ri char ds re m o v a b le a s c h a rg e d , an d o rd e re d h im re m o v e d to C a n a d a , an d sh o u ld C a n a d a f a il t o acc epthi m , t o J amai ca. T he I J al s o deni ed hi s appl i cat i ons foras y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval , and pr ot ect i on underthe C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e. On No v e mb e r2 3 , 2 0 0 4 , th e Bo a r d o f I mm i g r a t i o n Ap p e a l s a f f i r me d . On

1 D e c e m b e r 1 3 , 2 0 0 4 , R ic h a rd s f ile d a p e titio n f

o r w ri t o f

h a b e a s c o rp u s u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 2241 i n the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe M i ddl e D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a. See R i char ds v. D i s tr i ctD i r ect orof I . C . E . , D . C . C i v. N o. 04- cv- 02682. I n i the cl ai m ed that h e c o u ld n o t b e re m o v e d o n th e b a sis o f h is s e n ten c e to p ro b a tio n w ith o u t v e rd ict, beca us e thi s di s pos i t i on does nots at i s fythe def i ni t i on of “c onvi ct i on” underfede r al i m m i gr at i on l aw , hi s offe ns es w er e notaggr avat ed fe l oni es , and he w as ent i t l ed t o a w ai verunderI N A § 212( h) , 8 U . S. C . § 1182( h) . T he D i s tr i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed the pet i t i on3

aft erful l ycons i der i ng R i char ds ’ ar gum ent s on the mer i t s , and, on J anuary29, 2005, R i char ds appea l ed t o t hi s C our tatC . A . N o. 05- 1305. M eanw hi l e, on A pr i l 7, 2005, and w hi l e the appe al fr om R i char ds ’ D ece m ber2004 h a b e a s p e t i t i o n wa s p e n d i n g h e r e , Ri c h a r d s f i l e d a n o th e rh a b e a s p e t i t i o n u n d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 2241, thi s t i m e i n U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe East ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a, i n w hi ch he r ai s ed the s ame i s s ues . See R i char ds v. D i s tr i ctD i r ect orforI . C . E . , D . C . C i v. N o. 05- cv- 01592. T he governm enti ni t i al l ys ubm i t t ed an a ns w ert o the pet i t i on, ar gui ng thati tw as dupl i cat i ve of the D ece m ber2004 pet i t i on, w hi ch had be en ful l ycons i der ed and deni ed on the mer i t s . A w eek l at er , how ever , the governm entm oved t o tr ans fert he pet i t i on t o t hi s C our tpur s uantt o t he new l yenac t ed R eal I D A ctof 2005, § 106( c) , Pub. L . N o. 109- 13, D i v. B , 119 St at . 231 ( M ay11, 2005) . T he D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed the m ot i on and tr ans ferr ed the ca s e, now docket ed atC . A . N o. 05- 3129. I ni t i al l y , w e addr es s w hethertr ans ferof the A pr i l 2005 pet i t i on w as appr opr i at e, a n d th u s wh e th e rth e a p p e a l d o c k e t e d a tNo . 0 5 - 3 1 2 9 i s p r o p e r l yb e f o r e u s , a n d we concl ude thati tw as , and i s . T he R eal I D A ctamended the j udi ci al r evi ew s t atut e of the I m m i gr at i on and N at i onal i tyA ctt o s tr i p di s tr i ctcourt s of j ur i s di ct i on overhabea s pet i t i ons fi l ed bycr i m i nal al i ens s uch as R i char ds , s eeki ng r evi ew of fi nal or der s of r emoval . 8 U . S. C . § 1252( a) ( 2) ( C ) ( M ay11, 2005) . J ur i s di ct i on overfi nal or der s of re m o v a l n o w lie s e x c lu s iv e ly in th e c o u rt s o f a p p e a ls p u rs u a n t to a p e titio n f o r r e v ie w . 8 U . S. C . § 1252( a) ( 1) and ( 5) . T he A ct , i n s ect i on 106( c) , al s o pr ovi ded fortr ans ferof4

habea s pet i t i ons curr ent l ypendi ng i n the di s tr i ctcourt s t o the court s of appe al s , and fur therpr ovi ded thatthe mandat oryand j ur i s di ct i onal 30 dayt i m e per i od forfi l i ng a pet i t i on forr evi ew , 8 U . S. C . § 1252( b) ( 1) , s hal l notappl yt o tr ans ferr ed ca s es . I ns ofaras R ic h a rd s w a s f

o u n d re m o v a b le u n d e r I N A § 2 1 2 (a )( 2 )( A )( i) (I I) , 8 U .S .C . § 1182( a) ( 2) ( A ) ( i ) ( I I ) , as an al i en convi ct ed of a contr ol l ed s ubs t ance vi ol at i on, and had fi l ed a ha beas pet i t i on i ns t ead of a pet i t i on forr evi ew w hi ch w as pendi ng i n the D i s tr i ct C our tw hen the A ctw enti nt o eff ect , tr ans ferunderthe R eal I D A ctw as r equi r ed. N extw e cons i derw hetherthe R eal I D A ctext ends t o pendi ng appea l s fr om an or derdeny i ng a habe as pet i t i on, and thus w hetherthe appe al docket ed atN o. 05- 1305 sh o u ld b e treated as a p eti ti o n fo r rev iew . W e c o n clud e tha t i t sho u ld b e. In B o n h o m etre v. G on zal es, — F . 3d — , 20 05 W L 16 53 64 1 (3d C i r. Jul y15 , 20 05 ), w e held that tho se appea l s fr om the deni al of a ha beas pet i t i on thatw er e pendi ng befor e thi s C our ton the effecti ve d at e of the R eal ID A ctare pr op erl ycon vert ed to pet i t i on s for r eview . B ecause R ich a rd s’ h a b e a s p e tit io n s ra ise id e n tica l issu e s, w e n o w h a v e w h a t is in e f f e c t a s in g le peti t i on for r eview . B on ho m et re, 20 05 W L 16 53 64 1, at*2 (i n R eal ID A ctC on gress s o u g h t to s tr e a m lin e p ie c e m e a l r e v ie w o f o rd e rs o f

re m o v a l) . T he j udi ci al r evi ew s t atut e, aft erpas s age of the R eal I D A ct , s t i l l pr ovi des that court s of appe al s l ack j ur i s di ct i on overa pet i t i on forr evi ew fi l ed byan al i en convi ct ed of a c o n tr o lle d s u b s ta n c e v io la tio n . 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (a )( 2 )( C ); 8 U .S .C . § 11 82 (a) (2) (A )( i )( II ). R i chards’ O ct ob er 2001 con vict i on for po sses si on of co cai ne is a5

v io latio n o f

a S tate law re latin g to a c o n tro lled su b sta n c e . P e n n sy lv a n ia’ s s tatu te cri m i nali zi ng po sses si on of co cai ne, 35 P a. C on s. S t at . A nn . § 7 80 -113(a)( 16 ) ( W est S u p p . 2 0 0 5 ), b yits o w n te rm s re la te s to a c o n tr o lle d s u b s ta n c e . H ow ever , the R eal I D A cthas cl ar i fi ed thatw e mayexer ci s e j ur i s di ct i on over cons t i tut i onal cl ai m s orques t i ons of l aw r ai s ed bya cr i m i nal al i en i n a pet i t i on for r evi ew . See Tra n v. G onzal es , — F. 3d — , 2005 W L 1620320 ( 3d C i r . J ul y12, 2005) (c iti n g 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (a )(2 )(D )). R ich a rd s’ s tatu to rya rg u m e n ts th a t h is s e n ten c e to pr obat i on w i thoutver di ctdoes nots at i s fythe def i ni t i on of “c onvi ct i on” underfede r al i m m i gr at i on l aw , hi s offe ns es w er e notaggr avat ed fe l oni es , and he w as ent i t l ed t o a s ect i on 212( h) w ai verar e ques t i ons of l aw thatw e mayr evi ew . See al s o Papageor gi ou v. G onzal es , — F. 3d — , 2005 W L 1490454, at*2 ( 3d C i r . J une 24, 2005) . W e r evi ew R i chard’s cl ai m s de novo. T r an, 2005 W L 1620320, at*3. W e w i l l denythe cons ol i dat ed pet i t i on forr evi ew . I n A cos t a v. A s hcr oft , 341 F. 3d 2 1 8 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 3 ), th e a lien p lea d e d n o c o n tes t to a c h a rg e o f p o ss e ss io n o f

h e ro in in v io latio n o f

3 5 P a . C o n s. S tat. A n n . § 7 8 0 -1 1 3 (a ). L ik e R ich a rd s, h e w a s s e n ten c e d to p rob ati o n w ith o u t verd ict . H e c o m p let ed p rob ati o n an d the c h arg es a g ains t him w ere dis m i ssed pursuant t o 3 5 P a. C on s. S t at . A nn . § 7 80 -117, j ustas theyw ere agai nst R ic h a rd s . T h e a lie n a rg u e d , in re lia n c e o n P e n n s y lv a n ia la w , 3 5 P a . C o n s . S ta t. A n n . § 780- 117, and the Feder al Fi r s tT i m e O ffe nder s A ct( “FFO A ”) , 18 U . S. C . § 3607, thatt he di s m i s s al cons t i tut ed an e xcept i on t o the I N A ’ s defi ni t i on of a c onvi ct i on.6

We h e l d th a tth e t e r m “ c o n v i c t i o n ” a s d e f i n e d i n 8 U. S . C. § 1 1 0 1 ( 4 8 ) ( a ) ( A) encompas s es the s ent ence of pr obat i on w i thoutver di ct . W her e no form al j udgm entof gui l thas been e nt er ed bya court , an al i en i s cons i der ed t o have be en convi ct ed i f the d isp o sitio n o f

th e a lien ' s c rim in a l p ro c e e d in g sa tisf ies a tw o p a rt tes t: ( i ) a j udge orj uryhas found the al i en gui l tyorthe al i en has ent er ed a pl ea o f g u iltyo r n o lo c o n ten d e re o r h a s a d m itt e d su f f icie n t f a c ts to w a rra n t a f in d in g o f g u ilt ; an d (ii) th e ju d g e h a s o rd e re d so m e f o rm o f p u n ish m e n t, p e n a lty, o r r e s tr a in t o n th e a lie n ' s lib e rt yto b e im p o s e d . 8 U . S. C . § 1101( a) ( 48) ( A ) . T he s t atut e unambi guous l ypoi nt s t o the conc l us i on thatt he dis po si t i on of R i chards’ cr i m i nal cas e i n the C ou rtof C om m on P l eas con st i tutes a c o n v ic tio n . A c o s ta , 3 4 1 F .3 d a t 2 2 2 . A lth o u g h S e c tio n 1 7 o f th e P e n n sy lv a n ia C o n tro lled S u b sta n c e A c t p ro v id e s th a t, upon compl et i on of pr obat i on w i thoutver di ct , the courts hal l di s char ge the per s on and di s m i s s the pr ocee di ngs , and the di s char ge and di s m i s s al s hal l notcons t i tut e a c onvi ct i on foranypurpos e underPenns y l vani a l aw , 35 Pa. C ons . St at . A nn. § 780- 117, the Penns y l vani a Legi s l atur e ca nnotdet erm i ne how the t erm "c onvi ct i on" i s t o be cons trued u n d e rf e d e r a l l a w. Ac o s t a , 3 4 1 F . 3 d a t2 2 3 . I n a d d i t i o n , e v e n th o u g h we ma ya s s u me thatan exc ept i on t o t he I N A ’ s defi ni t i on of “c onvi ct i on” exi s t s foran al i en w ho r ece i ves pr obat i on w i thoutconvi ct i on underFFO A , the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ’ pr es ent in terp re tatio n th a t sta te l aw char ges of s i m pl e pos s es s i on of a c ontr ol l ed s ubs t ance that h a v e b e e n d ism iss e d a re a c o n v ictio n f o r p u rp o se s o f

se c tio n 1 1 0 1 (a )(4 8 )(A ) is e n tit led to defe r ence . I d. at225.I n hi s i nform al br i ef, R i char ds appea r s t o ar gue thathe i s ent i t l ed t o adj us thi s s t atus 2 beca us e of hi s m arr i age t o a U ni t ed St at es ci t i zen. H ow ever , on M ar ch 24, 2005, the D istric t D ire c to r o f

th e U .S . C iti z e n sh ip a n d Im m ig ra tio n S e rv ice s c o n c lu d e d th a t h is w i fe’ s I - 130 Pet i t i on forA l i en R el at i ve had be en dee m ed aba ndoned. 7 Fur therm or e, equal pr ot ect i on does notm andat e the s ame t r eatm entforal i ens char ged i n s t at e court , beca us e ther e i s a r at i onal bas i s fordi s t i ngui s hi ng betw een a l i ens w h o se c ri m inal ca ses a re d ism issed u n d er the fe d era l FF O A an d tho se w h o se c h arg es a re handl ed unders i m i l ars t at e s chemes . “C ongr es s coul d have w orr i ed thats t at e cr i m i nal j us t i ce s y s t ems, underthe pr es s ur e cr eat ed byheavycas e l oads , m i ghtperm i tdanger ous o f f e n d e rs to p lea d d o w n to sim p le p o ss e ss io n c h a rg e s a n d tak e a d v a n tag e o f th o se sta te s chemes t o es cape w hati s cons i der ed a c onvi ct i on unders t at e l aw . ” I d. at227. R i char ds ci t es t o cas es fr om otherci r cui t s w hi ch he f eel s s uppor thi s ar gum ent , but A cos t a i s the l aw i n t hi s ci r cui t . I n addi t i on, R i char ds w as notfound r emovabl e on the bas i s of an a ggr avat ed fe l ony , and, thus , w e nee d notaddr es s w hetherhi s contr ol l ed s ubs t ance vi ol at i on i s a drug tr aff i cki ng offe ns e, s ee ge ner al l ySt eel e v. B l ackman, 236 F. 3d 130, 135 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ( conce ptof tr adi ng ordeal i ng excl udes s i m pl e pos s es s i on or tr ans ferw i thoutcons i der at i on) . Fi nal l y , R i char ds i s notel i gi bl e fora s ect i on 212( h) w ai ver , beca us e he pl eade d gui l tyt o pos s es s i on of coc ai ne and the w ai verhe s eeks appl i es t o “a s i ngl e off

ens e of s i m pl e pos s es s i on of 30 gr ams orl es s of m ar i j uana, ” 8 U . S. C . § 1182( h) . E ven i f R i char ds coul d s how thatextr eme har ds hi p w oul d r es ul tfr om h is r em o v al, h e is sti ll ineligible f o r a se cti o n 2 1 2 (h) w aive r. 2 We wi l l d e n yth e c o n s o l i d a t e d p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.