### INTHE U NI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 60261 Su m m ar y Cal endar
J U L IA N N IE T O H E R N A N D E Z , P et i t i on er v. E R IC H . H O L D E R , J R ., U . S . A T T O R N E YG E N E R A L , R esp on d en t

P et i t i on f

or R evi ew of

an O rder of

t h e B oard of

I m m i grati on A pp eal s
B ef ore K IN G , D AV IS, an d H AY N E S , C i rcui t Ju dg es. H AY N E S , C i rcui t Ju dg e: P et i t i on er Jul i an N i et o H erna n dez ( “ N i et o” ) peti t i on s t h i s c ou rtf or r evi ew o f t he Boa r d o f

I m m i gr ati on A ppea l s ’ s ( “ BI A” ) de c i s i o n a f f i r m i ng t he Im m ig r a tio n J u d g e ’ s (“I J ”) d e n ia l o f h is p e tit io n fo r ca n c e lla tio n o f r e m o v a l. W e fin d n o e r r o r in th e B IA ’ s d e c is io n . A c c o r d in g ly , w e D E N YN ie to ’ s p e tit io n .

I . F A CT UA L A ND P ROC E DUR A L B A CK GRO UND N i et o i s a nati ve an d c i t i zen of M exi co. H e w as adm i t t ed i n t o t h e U n i t ed S t ates i n 198 1. In 199 7, N i et o w as convi ct ed of sec on d d egree f

el on y possessi on of m ar ij uana under Texas H eal t h & Safet y Code ( “ TH SC ” ) § 481. 121. O ne ye ar United States Court of A pp eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D December

30, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 09- 60261

2 l at er , N i et o w as convi c t ed of u nl aw f ul poss es si on of

a f i r ear m u nder T exas Penal C o d e (“T P C ”) § 4 6 .0 4 (a ). B eca u se o f h i s con victi on s, th e D ep a rtm en t of H om elan d S ecu ri ty (“ D H S ”) ch a rg e d N ieto w ith re m o v a l u n d e r th e Im m igr a tion a n d N a tion a li ty A ct (“IN A ”). At h i s r e m o v a lh e a r i n g , Ni e t o c o n c e d e d t hat hi s c o n v i c t i o n u n d e r T HSC § 481
. 121 m ad e hi m subj ect t o rem oval u n der t h e I N A
. To av oi d being rem oved to M e x ic o, N i eto pe ti ti on ed th e I J to ca n cel h i s rem ov a l u n d er 8 U
. S .C . § 122 9b(a) , w h i ch gran t s the A t t orney G en erald i scr et i on ary au t h ori t y t o cancel t he r em ovalof an ot her w i se r em ovab l e al i en. To be ent i t l ed t o c ance l l at i on, an a l i en m u st sh ow tha t he “ha s n ot be en con vic te d of a n y a gg ra va ted felon y.” 8 U
. S. C
. § 1 2 29b( a) ( 3)
. The I J f ound t hat N i et o’ s c onvi c t i on under TP C § 46. 04
w as f or an “aggr a v a te d fel on y” u n der 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1101 ( a) ( 43)( E ) ( i i )
. Sect i on 110 1( a) ( 43)( E ) ( i i ) def i n es “ agg ravated fel on y” as i n cl u di n g “ an of fen se descr i bed in s e c tio n 9 2 2 (g )(1 ) .
. . o f tit le 1 8 , U n ite d S ta te s C o d e .” U n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 (g)( 1 ), i t i s u n l a w ful f or a n y p e r s on w h o h a s be en con victed of a felon y to pos se ss , i n oraf

fec t i ng i nt er st at e c om m er c e, any fi rea rm . The I J f ound t hat N ie t o ’s c o n v ic t io n u n d e r T P C § 4 6 .0 4 fe ll u n d e r 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1 1 0 1 (a )( 4 3 )( E )( ii )’s def i ni t i on of aggr avat ed fel ony, and, bas ed on t hat f i ndi ng, t he I J c onc l uded t hat N ie to w a s in e lig ib le fo r ca n c e lla tio n o f r e m o v a l. N i e t o a ppe al e d t he I J’ s c anc e l l at i o n de c i s i o n t o t he BI A. I n hi s b r i e f t o t he B IA , N i et o argu ed that t h e IJ erred i n fi n di n g t h at h i s f i rearm s c on vi ct i on un der T P C § 4 6 .0 4 (a ) c o n s tit u te d a n a g g r a v a te d fe lo n y . S p e c ific a lly , h e a r g u e d th a t h is
c o nvi c t i o n und e r TPC § 4 6. 04 ( a) w as no t a n a gg r av at e d f e l o ny as “ de s c r i be d i n” 1 8 U
. S
. C
. § 92 2 (g)( 1 ) b eca u se T P C § 46
. 0 4 (a) d i d n ot con tain an i n te r s ta te com m erce elem en t, w h ere a s § 9 2 2 (g)( 1 ) d i d
. T h e B IA rejected N i eto’ s ar gu m en t,N o. 09- 60261

Nietoonlyapp eal s theIJ and the BIA’s cancell atio n decisi on. Thus, the only issue 1 befo re us is wheth er the BIA erred in affirmi ngth e IJ’s conc lusi on that Ni eto was in eli gible fo r ca n ce ll ati ono f re mov al. 3 f i ndi ng t hat i t w as f

o r e c l o s e d b y i t s de c i s i o n i n V a sq u ez -Mu n iz , 2 3 I. & N
. D ec. 207 ( B
. I. A
. 200 2 ), w h ic h hel d that st ate f el on - i n - possessi on of fen ses n eed n ot h av e a n i nt e r s t at e c o m m e r c e e l e m e nt i n o r de r f o r t he o f

fe ns e t o b e a n o f

fe nse “d e s c r ib e d in ” 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 (g )(1 ). N i e t o t h e n a p p e a l e d t h e B I A ’ s d e c i s i o n t o t h i s c o u r t , p r e s s i n g t h e s a me a r g u m e n t t h a t h e mad e b e f o r e t h e BI A. 1 I I . DI S CU S S I ON N i et o argu es t h at t h e B IAerr ed i n f i n di n g t h at hi s f

i rearm s c on vi ct i on u n d e r T P C § 4 6 .0 4 (a ) w a s a n “a g g r a v a te d fe lo n y ” u n d e r 8 U .S .C . § 110 1( a) ( 43)( E ) ( i i ) , w h i ch defi n es “ agg ravated fel on y” as i n cl u di n g an of fen se

“ described i n ” 18 U
. S
. C
. § 922(g)(1 )
. N i et o argu es t h at hi s f i rearm s c on vi ct i on w as notan of

fens e d escr i bed i n 18 U
. S. C
. § 922( g) ( 1) be c ause TP C § 46. 04( a) do e s no t c o nt ai n an i nt e r s t at e co m m e r c e el e m e nt
. W e ho l d t hats t at e f e l o n- i np oss ess i on off

en ses , s u c h a s T P C § 46
. 0 4 (a), n ee d n ot h a ve an i n tersta te c om m er c e e l em ent i n or derf ort he o f

fens e t o b e a n of

fens e “ des c r i b ed i n” 18 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 (g )(1 ). A c c o r d in g ly , w e d e n y N ie to ’ s p e tit io n fo r re v ie w . A
. Ju r i s d i c t i o n a n d S t a n d a r d of R e v i e w T h i s C ou rtha s j u ri sdi ct i on t o revi ew “ l egal an d consti t u t i on al i ssues ra i sed p erta i n i n g t o rem ov a lord ers.” V asqu ez- Mart i n ez v. Hol d er , 564 F. 3d 712, 715 ( 5th C i r. 200 9)
. “ T h e B IA ’ s det erm i n ati on t h at an al i en i s i n el igi bl e f or di sc r et i onar y r el i ef

i n t he f

or m of c ance l l at i on of rem ov a li s a ques t i on o f l aw th a t w e rev i ew de n ov o.” Id
. I n c o n d u c t i n g o u r a n a l y s i s , we f i r s t r e vi e w t he BI A’ s i nt e r pr e t at i o n o f t he I N A i t s e l f, i nc l udi ng i t s de f i ni t i o n o f

t he I N A’ s w o r dsN o. 09- 60261

Altho ugh unp ubl is hed opinion s aren ot pr ecede nt, this case addressed the ex act 2 que stion presented here , inte rpreting the same statut es in the cont ext of ase ntencin g calc ulation . We find the reaso nin g of th at opinionper suasive and adopt it here
. Th e B IA’si nte rp re tatio ni s b a se d onaNinthC ircuitd ec is io n , Un ited St atesv . 3 Cast illo-Rivera , 2 4 4 F
. 3 d 1 0 2 0 , 1 0 2 4 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) (“W e th u s h o l d th at a state felonin possessionoffe nse is not required to include a c ommerce nexus a s on e o f its eleme nts in order to qualifyas anaggrav ated felo nyfor s ente nci ngpurposes.”). Nietoasserts in his brief that the Ninth Circuit’s decisi on in Cast illo-Rivera was overruled. Nieto’s assertio n is incorrect. Th e NinthCircuit recentlyaffirmed and appli ed the hol ding in Cast illo-Rivera in An ay a- Ort iz v. Muk asey , 55 3 F .3d 1 266 , 12 72 (9th Cir. 200 9) (statin g that apetition er’s cont ention that his convicti on was no t a n ag gravated fe lony as de scribe d in§ 922 (g)(1 ) be cau se “a n inte r s tatecom me rceelem ent [wa s] not pre se nt” w a s “ for eclo se d by United States v. Cast illo-Rivera , whichh eld that astat e crime of co nvicti on nee d n ot h ave th e inter state-co mme r ce e lement contain ed in 18 U.S.C. § 9 22(g)(1) toqu alify as an ag gravated fe lony und er § 1 1 0 1 (a)( 4 3 )( E )(ii)”). 4 a n d p h r a s e s . O m a ri v
. G o n zal es , 419 F
. 3d 303 , 306 ( 5th C i r. 200 5)
. W e t h en r evi ew de novo w h eth er a pe ti ti on er’ s con victi on u n d er a state sta tu te consti t u t es an “aggrava t ed fe lon y” an d rend ers h i m i n el i gi bl e f or c an cel l ati on o f r e m o v a l. Se e i d. a t 3 0 6 ; Un i t ed S t ate s v. G arza , 250 F
. A pp ’ x 67 (5t h C i r. 2 0 0 7 ) ( u n p u b li sh e d ). 2 B. Me a n i ngof

8U. S. C. §1 1 0 1 (

a ) ( 4 3 ) ( E) 8 U
. S .C . § 110 1( a) ( 43)( E ) ( i i ) def i n es “ agg ravated fel on y” as an of fen se

“ des c r i bed i n” 18 U
. S. C
. § 922( g) ( 1)
. Acc or di ng t o t he B I A , foran of fens e t o b e

“ des c r i bed i n” 18 U
. S. C
. § 922( g) ( 1) , i t onl y has to have t he s am e s ubst ant i ve elem en ts as § 9 2 2 (g)( 1 ); j u ri sd i cti on a lelem en ts, su ch as § 92 2 (g)( 1 )’ s i n tersta te c o m m e r c e e le m e n t, a r e irr e le v a n t. S ee V a sq u ez -Mu n iz , 23 I
. & N
. D ec . at 210- 1 1 , 2 1 3
. T h e B I A a p p li e d th is in t e r p r e t a t io n o f t h e I N A in a ff ir m in g th e I J ’s f i n di n g t h at N i et o’ s c on vi ct i on un der T P C § 46. 04(a) consti t u t ed an aggrav ated fe lo n y a s d e s c r ib e d in § 9 2 2 (g )(1 ). N ie to a r g u e s th a t t h e B IA ’ s in te r p r e ta tio n is 3N o. 09- 60261

Ni e t o al s o ar gu e s th at th e B IA’ s i nt e r p r e t at i o n i s c o nt r ary t o th e S u preme Cou rt’s 4 decisi on in Lopez v. Gonzales , 549 U.S. 47 (200 6). Nieto ’s re liance on Lop ez is mispl aced. The Court’s de cisio n in Lop ez only consi dered wheth er “conduct treate d as a felony bythe St ate” butonlypuni s hable as a mi sdemean or u nder the federal C ontroll ed S ubstances Act coul d co n stitu tea n“ a g grav ate d fe lo ny” a s d ef in edb y8U .S .C
. § 1 2 2 7 (a)( 2 )( A )(iii)
. Id . at50 , 60 . The Court d idn otc onsider whe therstat e firear m offen ses ne ed toh ave th e sa me j uri sdictio nal eleme nts a s 18U.S.C . § 922 (g)(1 ) inord er t o fall un der 8 U.S.C . § 110 1(a)(4 3)(E)(ii)’s definitio n of a g grav ate d fe lo ny . See also C arachu ri-Rose ndov. Holder , 57 0 F .3d 2 63, 266(5th Cir. 2 009) (explainin g that Lop ez provides a “hypothet icalapp roach” where a c ourt“l ooks tocon duct proscribed bystat e l aw, n ot j ust the eleme nts o f th e state l aw o f f en s e an dc ompare s that co n du ctt o fe de ral law”) , cert . granted , 7 8U .S .L .W
. 3 3 5 9(U. S. De c. 1 4 , 2 0 0 9) (N o. 0 9 -6 0).

W e h av e p r e vi o u s ly s t at e d th at we “ af f o r d c o n s i d e r ab l e ‘ d e f

e r e n c e t o the BIA’s 5 inte rp re tati on’”o f th e I NA
. F ons e c a - Le i te v. I

NS , 961 F.2d60, 62 (5thCir. 1992) (“In conductin g ou r revi ews we are c onstraine d to givecon siderabledeferenc e toth e B IA’s inte rp ret atio n of the legis lative sc hem e it is entrus ted to adm inis ter .” (cit ing Ch ev ro nU .S.A ., In c. v. Natu ral Res. Def. C oun cil, I nc. , 4 6 7U .S
. 8 3 7( 1 9 8 4)) ).

5 i n corr ect
. W e n eed not determ i n e t h e preci se degree of deference t o be af

f orded 4 t h e B IA ’ s i n t erpret ati on becau se w e concl u de that i t i s c orrec t as a m a tte r of 5
s ta tu to r y in te r p r e ta tio n . S ee C h ev ro n U.S .A ., In c. v . Na tu ra l R es . D ef. Co u n cil, Inc. , 467 U
. S
. 837 , 843 n. 9 ( 198 4) ( “ If a court , em pl oyi n g t radi t i on al t ool s of st atutor y constr u ct i on , ascer t ai n s t h at C on gress h ad an i n t en t i on on the preci se q u e stio n a t iss u e , th a t in te n tion is th e law a n d m u st b e g ive n effe ct.”); se e al so Negre t e- R od rigu ez v. Mu ka sey , 5 18 F. 3d 4 97 , 5 03 ( 7t h Ci r . 20 08 ) ( ad o pt i ng t he B IA in te r p r e ta tio n a t is s u e ); G arza , 2 5 0 F . A p p ’ x a t 7 1 (“L o o k in g a t § 9 2 2 (g )(1), t he c o r e o f

t he o f fe ns e pr o s c r i be d i s c o nvi c t i o n of a fel ony and o w ne r s hi p a nd p o s s e s s io n o f a h a n d g u n .”). S e c t io n 1 1 0 1 ( a )( 4 3 )’s “p e n u lt im a t e s e n t e n c e ” s u p p o r t s th e B I A ’s i n terp reta ti on tha t j u ri sd i cti on a lelem en ts, su ch as § 92 2 (g)( 1 )’ s i n tersta te c om m er c e e l em ent , ar e no t nec es sa r y f oran of fens e t o b e a n “ aggr avat ed f el ony”
a s “d e s c r ib e d in ” § 9 2 2 (g )(1 ). Neg r e te -R o d r ig u e z, 518 F
. 3 d at 502; C ast i l l oR i vera , 2 4 4 F .3 d a t 1 0 2 4 ; see Un i t ed Stat es v. E veri st , 368 F
. 3d 517 , 519 ( 5th C i r.N o. 09- 60261

6 2004) ( des c r i bi ng § 922( g) ( 1) ’ s i nt er st at e c om m er c e el em ent as a “j uri sdi c t i onal
r e qui r e m e nt ” )
. I n i t s “ pe nul t i m at e s e nt e nc e , ” § 11 01 ( a) ( 43 ) s t at e s t h at “ [ t ] he t e r m [ ag gr av at e d f

e l o ny] a ppl i e s t o a n o f fe ns e de s c r i be d i n t hi s pa r ag r ap h
w h et h er i n vi ol ati on of F ederalor S ta te la w .” 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1101 ( a) ( 43). Sect i on 1101( a) ( 43) ’ s penul t i m at e s ent enc e pl ai nl y e vi denc es C ongr es s’ s i nt ent t hat an o f fe ns e c o ns t i t ut e an ag gr av at e d fe l o ny unde r § 11 01 ( a) ( 43 ) ( E) r e ga r dl ess of
w het her t he o f

fens e fal l s w i t hi n t he j uri sdi c t i on o f t he s t at es ort he f

ede r al gov er nm ent
. Becaus e § 922( g) ( 1) ’ s i nt erst at e c om m er c e e l em ent i s si m pl y an e le m e n t t h a t e n s u r e s fe d e r a l ju r is d ic tio n , fin d in g t h a t s u c h a n e le m e n t is
n e c e s s a ry f

or a state offen se to b e on e th a t i s “de scribed i n ” § 92 2 (g)( 1 ) w o u ld unde r m i ne Cong r e s s ’ s e vi de nt i n t e n tt h a tj u r i s d i c t i o n b e d i s r e g a r d e d i n a ppl yi ng th i s d efi n i ti on of “ag gr a va ted felon y.” Negre t e- R od rigu ez , 518 F
. 3 d a t 502 (“C le a r ly C o n g r e s s d id n o t in te n d [ § 9 2 2 (g )(1 )’s ju r is d ic tio n a l e le m e n t, w h ic h ] is
n ot n ece ssa ry i n state la w [,] t o be the fa ctor d eterm i n i n g w h eth er th e sta te o ffe n s e ca n b e co n s id e r e d th e e q u iv a le n t o f a § 9 2 2 (g )(1 ) o ffe n s e .”). The t e xto f

§ 1 10 1( a) ( 43 ) a l s o s ho w s t hatCong r e s s i nt e nde d m o r e t han a ne gl i gibl e num ber o f s t at e f

i r e ar m o f

fe ns e s t o b e e nc o m pa s s e d wi t hi n § 11 01 ( a) ( 43 ) ( E) ( i i ) ’ s de f i ni t i o n o f

“ ag gr av at e d f

e l o ny, ” a n d “ i nt e r pr e t i ng t he j uri sdi c t i onalel em ent of § 922( g) as ess ent i alfora s t at e o f fens e t o q ual i f

y as an a g g r a v a te d fe lo n y w o u ld ” u n d e r m in e th a t i n t e n t. S ee Negre t e- R od rigu ez , 518 F. 3d at 501- 02 ( di sc uss i ng C ast i l l o- R i vera , 244 F
. 3d at 102 3)
. Sect i on 1 1 0 1( a) ( 43) ’ s “ penul t i m at e s ent enc e” s how s t hat“ C ongr ess cl ea rl y in ten d ed state c r i m es t o se r ve as pre di c at e of fens es f or aggr avat ed fel oni es , ” and t he fac t t hat C on gress “ u sed t h e l ooser st an da rd ‘ described i n ’ f or [ § 110 1( a) ( 43)( E ) ] , rat h er th a n th e m o re p re cise p h ra se ‘ d e fin e d in ’ u s e d e lse w h e re in [§1 1 0 1 (a )(43 ),N o. 09- 60261

7 d em on strate s] th a t C on gr ess ‘ w a n ted m ore tha n a n eg l i gib le n u m b er of state [f i rea rm s] offen ses to cou n t a s ag gr a va ted felon i es.’ ” Id
. I nt er pre t i ng § 9 2 2 (g)( 1 )’ s i n tersta te c o m m e r c e elem en t “ a s esse n ti a lf or a state offen se to qu al i f y as an aggrav ated fel on y” w ou l d vi ol ate C on gress’ s i n t en t t o i n cl u de m ore t h an a “ n egl i gi bl e nu m ber” of st ate of fen ses u n der § 1101 ( a) ( 43)( E ) ( i i ) , “becau se st ate f i rearm s [ st atutes] w ou l d ‘ rarel y, i f ever’ [ contai n an i n t erst ate c om m erce e lem e n t a n d co n v iction s u n d e r s u ch s ta tu te s w o u ld ra re ly, if ev e r] sp e cify
w h eth er th e com m erce elem en t w a s m et. ” Neg ret e- R od rigu ez , 5 1 8 F. 3d at501- 02 ( “ T h at w ou l d el i m i n ate t h e i n t en ded i n cl u si on of m osts t at e s t at u t es, si n ce s t ates do notope r at e u n d er t he s am e j uri sdi c t i onalc ons t r ai nt s as t he f ede r al g o v e r n m e n t.” ); C ast i l l o- R i vera , 2 44 F
. 3d a t 102 3- 24 (“ C on sequ en t l y, w e do n ot b e lie v e th a t t h is m in im a l ju r is d ic tio n a l n e x u s w a s m e a n t [t o ] s u b s ta n tia lly
. . . n a rrow or to eli m i n a te the ran ge of state o ff en ses tha t C on gr e s s in te n d ed to in c o r p o r a te u n d e r § 1 1 0 1 (a )(4 3 )(E )(ii) . .
. . ”); G arza , 2 5 0 F . A p p ’ x a t 7 0
. W e concl u de that t h e B IA ’ s i n t erpret ati on of § 1101 ( a) ( 43)( E ) ’ s “ described i n” l ang uag e i s i n a c c o r d wi t h t he t e xta nd pu rpose of § 1 10 1( a) ( 43 ) ( E) ( i i ) , a nd
w e a d o p t it h e r e . C
. C a n ce lla tion of R em o v a l T h e I J an d the B IAf ou n d that N i et o w as i n el i gi bl e f or c an cel l ati on of
r em ovalbe c ause hi s f i r ear m s c onvi c t i on under T P C § 46. 04( a) c ons t i t ut ed an

“ ag gr av at e d fel on y” as “ de s c r i be d i n” 1 8 U
. S. C. § 9 22 ( g) ( 1)
. To de t e r m i ne w het her N i et o’ s f

i r ear m of

fens e c ons t i t ut es an “ag gr avat ed f el ony, ” w e a ppl y a

“ ‘ cat egori calapp roach, ’ un der w h i ch w e ref er onl y t o t h e st atutor y defi n i t i on of t he c r i m e f

orw hi c h t he al i en w as c onvi c t ed .
. . a nd ask w het her t hat l egi sl at i vel y- def

i ned of fen se nece ss ar i l y f

i t s w i t hi n t he I N A def i ni t i on o f

anN o. 09- 60261

In his brief, Nie to co nced es that his off ens e underTPC § 46.04 (a) fits wit hin 8 U.S .C. 6 § 1 101 (a)(43)(E)(ii)’s definition of “ag gravated felony” ineveryrespect exce pt for the fact th at T P C§ 4 6 .0 4 (a) do esn otc ontaina ni nte rs tatec om me rc e el em ent. T P C§ 4 6 .0 4 (a) h a s two el em entsth at arer el ev a nt to this de ci si on : (1 ) prio r fe lo nyc onvic ti ona n d (2 ) po sse ssiono f a firearm. 1 8 U .S.C. § 9 22(g)(1) h as three releva nt eleme nts: (1 ) pri or fe lony convicti on; (2) possessionof a firearm; and (3) interstate commerce requirement. Nietoconcedes in his brie f th at T P C§ 4 6 .0 4 (a)’ s twoe le me ntsc orre sp on d with1 8U .S .C
. § 9 2 2 (g)( 1 )’ s firs t twoe le me nts
. 8 a gg ra va ted felon y.” L ari n - Ul l oa v. G on zal es , 4 6 2 F .3d 4 5 6 , 4 6 3 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). W e c o nc l ude , a s w e di d i n G arza , th a t N i eto’ s offen se u n d er T P C § 46
. 0 4 (a) fi ts
w ith in 8 U .S .C
. § 1 1 0 1 (a )(4 3 )(E )(ii)’s d e fin itio n o f “a g g r a v a te d fe lo n y .” G arza , 6 250 F. A pp’ x at71. Acc or di ngl y, t he B I A di d not er r i n f i ndi ng t h a t N i et o w as in e lig ib le fo r ca n c e lla tio n o f r e m o v a l. I I I . C ONC L US I ON F o r th e fo r e g o in g re a s o n s , w e D E N YN ie to ’ s p e tit io n fo r re v ie w .