2006 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 4-14-2006 

# C a s t ello -D i az 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 . 03-4457

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_2006

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 2006 D e c i sion s b y an author i 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 " C as t e llo -Di az v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1267. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/1267NOT 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 os . 03- 4457 & 05- 3166 AB EL CA STEL LO- DI AZ, Pet i t i oner v. *AT TO RN EY G EN ER A L O F TH E U N I TED STA TES, R es pondent (* S u b s titu te d p u rs u a n t to R u le 4 3 (c ), F e d . R . A p p . P .)

O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of a D eci s i on of the B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( B I A N o. A 29 109 758) (I m m i grat i on Judg e: H on orabl e C rai g D eB ernar dis )

N o. 03- 4457 Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ar ch 10, 2005 N o. 05- 3166 Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J ul y14, 2005 B e f o re : S C IR IC A , C hi ef

Judge , R O T H a n d A L D IS E R T , C i r cui tJudges ( Fi l ed A pr i l 14, 2006)A lso b e f o re th is C o u rt is C a ste llo -D iaz ’s P e tit io n f o r W rit o f

H a b e a s C o rp u s, f

iled in 1 t he East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a, N o. 05- 3166. Pur s uantt o t he R eal I D A ctof 2005, Pub. L . 109- 13, 119 St at . 231 ( 2005) , habea s corpus pet i t i ons br oughtbyal i ens c h a llen g in g a n o rd e r o f re m o v a l, an d p e n d in g a s o f M a y1 1 , 2 0 0 5 , are to b e c o n v e rte d to p e titio n s f

o r r e v ie w a n d tr a n s f

e rr e d to th e a p p ro p ri a te C o u rt o f A p p e a ls . See R e a l ID A c t, P u b . L . 1 0 9 -1 3 , D iv . B , T itl e I, § 1 0 6 (c ). P e r C a ste llo -D iaz ’s r e q u e st (in h is M o tio n to C ons ol i dat e and t o R emand Sel ect ed I s s ue t o t he D i s t r i ctC our t ) , beca us e hi s habea s pet i t i on and hi s pet i t i on forr evi ew r ai s e s ubs t ant i al l ys i m i l ari s s ues , the ca s es ar e her eby cons ol i dat ed. A ddi t i onal l y , C as t el l o- D i az r eques t s thatw e exa m i ne w hether8 U . S. C . § 1229b( d) has been pr oper l ycons t rued, and ar gues thati t s i m pacton 8 U . S. C . § 1254( a) ( r epea l ed) cr eat es an “a bs ur d r es ul t ” thati s “noti n t he i nt er es t s of j us t i ce orfai r nes s . ” B eca us e the iss u e w a s n o t ra ise d in e ith e r h is h a b e a s p e tit io n o r h is p e tit io n f o r re v iew , an d b e c a u se it is u n c lea r o n w h a t b a sis C a ste llo -D iaz a sk s u s to re in terp re t 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 9 b (d ), w e w ill notaddr es s t he i s s ue. Fi nal l y , C as t el l o- D i az r eques t s thatw e w i t hhol d ourdeci s i on i n N o. 03- 4457, and re m a n d N o . 0 5 -3 1 6 6 to th e D istric t C o u rt. F o r re a so n s s tate d b e lo w , w e w ill d e n yb o th request s. O n M ar ch 1, 2003, t he I N S ceas ed t o exi s tand i t s funct i ons w er e tr ans ferr ed t o t he 2 B ur eau of

C i t i zens hi p and I m m i gr at i on Ser vi ces w i t hi n t he D epart m entof H om el and S e c u ri ty. See H om el and Secur i t yA ct , 6 U . S. C . § 271, Pub. L . 107- 296, 116 St at . 2135 (N o v . 2 5 , 2 0 0 2 ). 2 OPI NI ON O F THE COURT S C IR IC A , C hi ef

Judge . Pet i t i onerA bel C as t el l o- D i az appeal s the fi nal or derof the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) ent er ed on N ovember4, 2003. W e w i l l denythe pet i t i on. 1 Backg r ound C as t el l o ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es on M ay3, 1986. I n 1991, the I m m i gr at i on and N atur al i zat i on Ser vi ce ( “I N S”) comm ence d deport at i on pr ocee di ngs agai ns tpet i t i oner 2Sect i on 244( a) ( 1) of the I m m i gr at i on and N at i onal i t yA ct , 8 U . S. C . § 1254( a) ( 1) , w as 3 r epea l ed byt he I l l egal I m m i gr at i on R eform and I m m i gr antR es pons i bi l i t yA ct ( “I I R I R A ”) , Pub. L . 104- 208, 110 St at . 3009 ( Sept . 30, 1996) A n al i en w as el i gi bl e fors us pens i on of deport at i on underform ers ect i on 1254( a) 4 upon s how i ng: ( 1) he had be en “phy s i cal l ypr es enti n t he U ni t ed St at es fora cont i nuous p e ri o d o f n o t le s s th a n s e v e n y e a rs im m e d ia te ly p re c e d in g th e d a te o f [ th e ] a p p lic a tio n ,” (2 ) h e w a s a “ p e rso n o f g o o d m o ra l ch a ra c ter ,” a n d (3 ) d e p o rta tio n w o u ld re su lt i n “extr eme har ds hi p” t o t he al i en oran i m m edi at e fa m i l ym emberw ho w as a U . S. ci t i zen or law fu l perm an en t r esid en t. IN A § 2 4 4 (a)(1), 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 4 (a)(1) (rep ea led). 3 th ro u g h iss u a n c e o f

a n O rd e r to S h o w C a u se (“ O S C ” ), ch a rg in g h im w ith d e p o rta b ili ty u n d e r 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 1 (a )( 2 ) f o r r e m a in in g in th e U n ite d S ta te s lo n g e r t h a n p e rm itte d . A fi nal hear i ng w as s chedul ed bef or e I m m i gr at i on J udge R ober tD . V i ni koorforD ece m ber 12, 1991. A tt he h eari ng befo re I J V i nikoor, peti t i on er conced ed d epo rt abil i t yand his case wa s t r a n s f

e r r e d t o I J Go s s a r ti n t h e I mm i g r a t i o n Co u r ti n Ba l t i mo r e , M a r y l a n d . An i ndi vi dual cal endarhear i ng w as s chedul ed forA pr i l 24, 1992. T hi s hear i ng w as then r es chedul ed, byI J G os s ar t , forJ ul y21, 1992. O n J ul y21, 1992, I J G os s ar tdeni ed pet i t i oner ’ s appl i cat i on fors us pens i on of depor t at i on, on t he gr ounds t hathe w as s t atut or i l yi nel i gi bl e fors us pens i on underform er 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 4 (a )(1 ) d u e to p e tit io n e r’s 1 9 8 8 c o n v ictio n f o r re tail th e f

t. C a ste llo 3 appea l ed thi s or dert o t he B I A on J ul y23, 1992. O n D ece m ber9, 1995, t he B I A r emanded pet i t i oner ’ s cas e t o t he I m m i gr at i on C our tbeca us e dur i ng t he t i m e hi s cas e w as pendi ng befor e the B I A , pet i t i onerhad b ec o m e e li g ible fo r sus p en sion o f d ep o rt ati o n u n d er 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 4 (a). O n F eb rua ry 4T her e i s no evi dence t hatC as t el l o r eques t ed r e- s chedul i ng. A l l change s t o t he dat e of 5 h is h e a rin g a p p e a r to h a v e b e e n in iti a ted b yth e c o u rt. Pr i ort o t he ena ctm entof I I R I R A , char gi ng document s w hi ch bega n deport at i on 6 p ro c e e d in g s w e re c a lled O rd e rs to S h o w C a u se . A s p a rt o f th e c h a n g e in th e o v e ra ll sc h e m e o f

im m ig ra tio n law , C o n g re ss c h a n g e d th e n a m e o f th is d o c u m e n t to a “ n o tice to ap p ea r. ” 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 2 9 (a). 4 23, 1996, I J D ebernar di s expl ai ned t o C as t el l o t hathe w as r e- el i gi bl e fors us pens i on of dep ort at i on du e t o h i s accrual of seven y ears of co nti nu ou s pres ence in t he U nit ed S t at es, a n d a h e a rin g o n th e m e rits w a s s e t f o r M a y1 5 , 1 9 9 6 . O n M a y1 5 , 1 9 9 6 , IJ D e b e rn a rd is r es chedul ed the hea r i ng forJ ul y23, 1996. O n J ul y23, 1996, I J D ebernar di s r es chedul ed th e h e a rin g a g a in , this tim e f o r O c to b e r 2 5 , 1 9 9 6 . B yth e d a te o f C a ste llo ’s h e a rin g in 5 O ct oberof 1996, C ongr es s had ena ct ed the I l l egal I m m i gr at i on R eform and I m m i gr ant R esp o n sibil ityA ct (“IIR IR A ”), Pu b . L . 1 0 4 -20 8 , 1 1 0 S tat . 3 0 0 9 (S ep t. 3 0 , 1 9 9 6 ). A tt he O ct ober25, 1996 hear i ng, the I N S chal l enged pe t i t i oner ’ s el i gi bi l i t yfor s us pens i on undernew l yenac t ed § 309( c) ( 5) of I I R I R A , w hi ch pr event ed an a l i en fr om ac cru ing “c o n ti n u o u s p h y sical pre sen ce ” f o ll o w ing serv ice o f a n o ti ce to ap p ea r. 6 C as t el l o w as s erved w i t h an O SC i n 1991, appr oxi m at el yfoury ear s and ni ne mont hs aft er ent er i ng t he U ni t ed St at es . I J D ebernar di s r es erved hi s rul i ng on t he I N S’ s chal l enge a nd a llo w e d p e titio n e r t o p re s e n t a ll e v id e n c e in s u p p o rt o f h is a p p lic a tio n f

o r s u s p e n s io n . T h e p a rties w e re d ire c ted to su b m it m e m o ra n d a re g a rd in g a p p lica tio n o f IIR IR A § 3 0 9 to pet i t i oner ’ s appl i cat i on fors us pens i on of deport at i on.5

O n Sept ember27, 1997, al m os ta y earaft erpet i t i oner ’ s hear i ng, the I J i nform ed t he part i es t hathe had r es erved dec i s i on pendi ng r evi ew of I n r e N- J - B- , 21 I . & N . D ec. 8 1 2 (B IA F eb . 2 0 , 1 9 9 7 ), in w h ich th e B IA h eld s erv ice o f a n O S C en d ed an ali en ’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 . B eca us e the A t t orney G ener al had vac at ed the N- J - B- deci s i on, how ever , the I J i nform ed the part i es on S e p tem b e r 2 7 , 1 9 9 7 , tha t h e w a s g o in g to a d v ise th e C h ief Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e o f

h is des i r e t o gr antpet i t i onerappl i cat i on fors us pens i on of deport at i on cont i ngentupon t he avai l abi l i t yof vi s a number s . T he C hi ef I J , how ever , had or der ed al l s us pens i on of depor t at i on appl i cat i ons t o be del ay ed bec aus e C ongr es s w as pl anni ng t o enac tnew legislat ion clarify ing IIR IR A § 3 0 9 (c)(5). O n N ovember19, 1997, C ongr es s enac t ed the N i car aguan A dj us t m entand C entr al A m er i can Rel i ef A ctof 1997 ( “N A C A R A ”) , Pub. L . N o. 105- 100, 111 St at . 2160, w hi ch cl ar i fi ed that , upon s ervi ce of an O SC , an al i en s t ops acc rui ng t i m e t ow ar d t he s even- y ear phy s i cal pr es ence . T he I J gr ant ed pet i t i onerthe oppor tuni t yt o fi l e a mot i on as s ert i ng w hetherhe had e s t abl i s hed s even y ear s of cont i nuous r es i dencyi n t he U ni t ed St at es d e s p i t e h i s a b s e n c e i n t h e m i d - 1 9 8 0 s w h i l e h e s e r v e d i n th e S p a n i s h m i l i t a r y. O n M ay3, 1999, t he I J deni ed pet i t i oner ’ s appl i cat i on fors us pens i on of depor t at i on on t he gr ounds t hathe coul d notm eetthe cont i nuous phy s i cal pr es ence re q u ire m e n t: B utforhi s i nabi l i t yt o m eetthi s r equi r ement , the I m m i gr at i on C our tw oul d have g ra n ted su sp e n sio n o f

d e p o rta tio n to th e re sp o n d e n t. H is c rim in a l co n v ictio n is“Sus pens i on of deport at i on” w as a form of r el i ef f r om depor t at i on pr i ort o t he pas s age 7 of I I R I R A . Sect i on 308( b) ( 7) of I I R I R A el i m i nat ed “s us pens i on of deport at i on, ” and § 3 0 4 cre ated a n ew fo rm o f re li ef k n o w n as “ ca n ce ll ati o n o f re m o v al. ” B ec au se C astell o ’s pr ocee di ngs w er e i ni t i at ed pr i ort o t he ef fec t i ve dat e of I I R I R A , s us pens i on of depor t at i on w as t he type of r el i ef pot ent i al l yavai l abl e t o hi m atthatt i m e. 6 n o w m o re th a n ten y e a rs in th e p a st. H e w o u ld in d e e d su f f e r “ e x tre m e h a rd sh ip ” if re q u ire d to d e p a rt f

ro m th e U n ited S tate s a t th e p re se n t ti m e . A ll o f h is f a m ily m e m b e rs liv e in th e U n ite d S ta te s , a ll o f w h o m h a v e le g a l s ta tu s in th is c o u n tr y . Re s p o n d e n th a s d e v o t e d h i ms e l f t o wo r k i n g a s a p r a c t i c a l n u r s e i n a n u r s i n g h o me form anyy ear s , t hor oughl yi nt egr at ed hi m s el f i nt o t he comm uni t yof the U ni t ed St at es , and pr ovi ded good w or ks forthe comm uni t yas w el l . W i t h t he exc ept i on of t he one y eart hathe s penti n t he Spani s h arm y , the r es pondenthas l i ved i n t he U n ited S tate s f

o r th e p a st 2 5 y e a rs. A ll o f h is f o rm a tiv e e x p e rie n c e s h a v e b e e n in t hi s countr y . D epor t at i on fr om the U ni t ed St at es atthi s s t age i n hi s l i fe w i l l i ndeed be an “ extr eme har ds hi p” forhi m . N evert hel es s , the r es pondenti s unabl e t o m eet t h e c o n t i n u o u s p h y s i c a l p r e s e n c e r e q u i r e me n to f th e l a w. Im m igrati o n C o u rt , M ay3 , 1 9 9 9 (J. A . at 14 -15 ). P u rsua n t t o 8 C . F . R . § 1 0 0 3 . 1 (e)(4) (2 0 0 3 ), o n N o v em b er 4 , 2 0 0 3 , the B IA aff i r m ed w i t houtopi ni on t he I J ’ s deci s i on thatC as t el l o w as i nel i gi bl e fors us pens i on of d e p o rt a tio n . T h e o ra l d e c is io n o f th e IJ is th e f

in a l a g e n c yd e te rm in a tio n . See 8 C .F .R . § 7 1003. 1( e) ( 4) ( i i ) . C as t el l o fi l ed a t i m el ypet i t i on of r evi ew i n t hi s cour t . W e have juri sd ict ion u n d er 8 U . S . C . § 1 1 0 5 (a) as a m en d ed b yIIR IR A § 3 0 9 (c)(4). St andard of R evi ew W hen the B I A aff

i r m s w i t houtopi ni on under8 C . F. R . § 1003. 1( e) ( 4) , w e r evi ew th e IJ ’s o p in io n . D ia v . A sh c ro ft , 353 F. 3d 228, 245 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( en banc ) . W e r evi ew f a c tu a l f in d in g s f o r s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e a n d le g a l d e te rm in a tio n s d e n o v o . See W ang v. A sh c ro ft , 3 6 8 F . 3 d 3 4 7 , 3 4 9 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ).7 D i s cus s i on C as t el l o cl ai m s t hatt he I J err ed i n i t s appl i cat i on of I I R I R A ’ s “s t op- t i m e” p ro v is io n s to th e c a lc u la tio n o f h is c o n tin u o u s p h y s ic a l p re s e n c e in th e U n ite d S ta te s . A cc o rdin g to p eti ti o n er, th e d elay s in h is de p o rt ati o n p roc ee d ing s— w h ich h e c lai m s w ere caus ed ent i r el ybyt he I N S— r es ul t ed i n appl i cat i on of m or e s t r i ngentcal cul at i on sta n d a rd s th a n w o u ld h a v e b e e n a p p lied h a d h is c a se b e e n e v a lu a ted o n th e m e rits w h e n it w as fi r s ts chedul ed forhear i ng. I f the I J had notr epea t edl yr es chedul ed hi s hear i ng, C as t el l o ar gues , hi s cas e w oul d have be en dec i ded underthe pr e- I I R I R A and pr eN A C A R A ru les . U n d e r th e se ru les , h is a p p lica tio n f o r su sp e n sio n o f

d e p o rta tio n w o u ld h a v e b e e n g ra n ted . H e b e liev e s th e Im m ig ra tio n C o u rt’s d e lays, th e re f o re , v io late d h is due pr oces s r i ght s byeff ect i vel ydeny i ng hi m r el i ef w hi ch w oul d have otherw i s e bee n a v a i l a b l e t o h i m. I. P rio r to 1 9 9 6 , § 2 4 4 (a ) o f th e IN A g a v e th e A tto rn e yG e n e ra l b ro a d d isc re tio n to g ra n t s u s p e n s io n o f

d e p o rt a tio n to ille g a l a lie n s w h o s a tis f ie d c e rt a in re q u ir e m e n ts . See 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 4 (a ) (1 9 9 4 ) (re p e a led 1 9 9 6 ). “S u sp e n sio n o f d e p o rta tio n ” w a s a v a ilab le to al i ens w ho coul d demonstr at e s even y ear s cont i nuous phy s i cal pr es ence i n t he U ni t ed S tate s, g o o d m o ra l ch a ra c ter , an d p ro sp e c tiv e “ e x tre m e h a rd sh ip ” to h im se lf o r to h is im m e d ia te f

a m ily m e m b e rs u p o n h is re m o v a l. I d. O n e o f th e d ef

ec ts of § 2 4 4 ’s di s cr et i onaryr el i ef w as t hati tencour aged i l l egal al i ens t o pr ol ong t hei rdepor t at i onsT he fu l l t ext of 8 U . S . C . § 1 22 9b (b) (1) reads: 8 

### Th e Att orney

Generalm ay

cancelre m ov alof

, andadju st

to the s tatus of an ali en l awful ly a dmi tt e d for

pe rm ane nt

r e s i de nc e , an a l i e n who i s i na dmi s s ibl e or d ep o rtab le f

ro m th e Un itedS tates if

th e alien

— (A ) h as b eenp hy sically p resent in th e Un itedS tates f

o r a co ntinu o u s p erio do f n o t less th an1 0 years imm ed iately prec eding the dateof

such applic ation; (B) has been a pers onof go odm oral charac te r during such p eriod; (C) has no t been convict ed of an of fense und er sectio n1 1 8 2 (a)(2 ), 1 2 2 7 (a)(2 ), o r 1 2 2 7 (a)(3 ) o f th is title (ex cep t ina case desc ribed in sec ti on12 27 (a)( 7) of this ti tl e where t

he Attorney

Generalexerci se s d iscretio nto g rant a w aiv er); an d(D ) estab lish es th at rem o v al w o u ldresu lt in e xc ept i ona land e xtr e m e ly unus ua lhar ds hip t o the a l i e n' s s pous e , par e nt , or c hi l d, who i s ac i t i z e n of the Uni t e d St at e s or an a l i e n l awful ly

a dmi tt e d for

pe rm ane nt re si dence. 8 pr ocee di ngs , i n or dert o acc rue s even y ear s of r es i dencyi n t he U ni t ed St at es and then a p p ly f o r s u s p e n s io n o f

d e p o rt a tio n . W i t h t he ena ctm entof I I R I R A i n 1996 C ongr es s m ade s ever al s i gni fi cantchange s t o t he i m m i gr at i on l aw s , i ncl udi ng l i m i t i ng the ava i l abi l i t yof di s cr et i onaryr el i ef f r om depor t at i on. Par t i cul ar l yr el evantt o t hi s cas e, I I R I R A l i m i t ed the ava i l abi l i t yof

“ su sp e n sio n o f

d e p o rta tio n .” C o n g re ss re p lac e d “ su sp e n sio n o f d e p o rta tio n ” w ith “c an ce ll ati o n o f re m o v al” a n d m ad e the eli g ibil ityreq u ir em en ts som ew h at stri cter, c h a n g in g th e re q u ir e d p e ri o d o f p h y s ic a l p re s e n c e f

ro m s e v e n to te n y e a rs . See 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 9 b (b)(1 )(A ). 8 A k e yc h a n g e i n i mmi g r a t i o n l a w u n d e rI I RI RA c o n c e r n s h o w t o c a l c u l a t e th e t i me of an a l i en’ s “cont i nuous phy s i cal pr es ence ” i n t he U ni t ed St at es forpurpos es of el i gi bi l i t yforcanc el l at i on of r emoval . Pr i ort o t he ena ctm entof I I R I R A i n 1996, acc rual of “c ont i nuous phy s i cal pr es ence ” bega n upon t he al i en’ s entr yi nt o t he U ni t ed St at es andS ect i on 12 29 b(d)( 1), t i t l ed “T erm i nati on of C on t i nu ou s Peri od , ” provides as fol l ow s: 9 

### For pur pos e s of thi s s e c t i on, any pe ri od of c ont i nuous r e s i de nc e or c ont i nuous phy s i c a lpre s e nc e i n the Uni t e d St at e s s ha l lbede e m e d t o e nd ( A) e xc ept i n the c a s e of an a l i e n who a

ppl i e s for c anc e l l at i on of r e m ova lunde r s ubs e c t i on (b) ( 2) of thi s s e c t i on, whe n the a l i e n i s s e rve d anot i c e t o a ppe ar unde r s e c t i on 1229( a) of thi s t i t l e , or

( B) whe n the a l i e n ha s c ommi tt e d an offe ns e r e fe rr e d t o i n s e c t i on 11 82 (a)( 2) of

this ti tl e that renders the a li en inadmis sible t o the Un it ed Stat es un der s ec ti on11 82 (a)( 2) of this ti tl e or r emov ablefrom the Unite d S tate s und er sectio n1 2 2 7 (a)(2 ) o r 1 2 2 7 (a)(4 ) o f th is title, wh ich ev er is earliest. 8 U .S.C. § 12 29 b(d)(1). 9 cont i nued t o acc rue dur i ng depor t at i on pr ocee di ngs . U nderI I R I R A , how ever , the i ni t i at i on of r emoval pr ocee di ngs bythe I N S “s t ops the cl ock” on an al i en’ s acc rual of 9 “cont i nuous phy s i cal pr es ence . ” Thi s change w as s peci fi cal l ydes i gned t o el i m i nat e the pr obl em of al i ens pr ol ongi ng t hei rdepor t at i on pr ocee di ngs i n or dert o s at i s fythe cont i nuous phy s i cal pr es ence r equi r ement . I I R I R A § 309( c) ( 5) now pr ovi des that“any p e rio d o f c o n tin u o u s re sid e n c e o r c o n tin u o u s p h y sic a l p re se n c e in th e U n ited S tate s s h a ll be dee m ed t o end . . . w hen the al i en i s s erved a not i ce t o appea runders ect i on 1229( a) of t hi s t i t l e” orw hen the al i en i s convi ct ed of one of s ever al s peci fi ed off ens es , “w hi cheve r is e a rlies t.” 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 9 b (d )(1 ); s ee al s o NAC AR A § 3 0 9 ( c ) ( 5 ) ( a me n d i n g I I RI RA § 309 t o cl ar i fyt hatt he new acc rual rul es appl i ed t o pr ocee di ngs i ni t i at ed byw ayof an O rd e r t o S h o w C a u s e , in a d d itio n to th o s e in itia te d b ys e rv ic e o f a N o tic e to A p p e a r) . T hi s i s r efe r r ed t o as t he “s t op- t i m e” rul e. D ep o rt ati o n p roc ee d ing s p en d ing at th e ti m e o f IIR IR A ’s en ac tm en t w ere gener al l yexcl uded fr om t he A ct ’ s change s . C ert ai n pr ovi s i ons , how ever , w er e made10

appl i cabl e t o pendi ng cas es as w el l as new cas es . Sect i on 309( c) ( 5) of I I R I R A , as mod i f i e d b ys e c t i o n 2 0 3 ( a ) ( 1 ) o f NA CA RA ( Tr a n s i t i o n a l Rul e s W i t h Re g a r d To S u sp e n sio n O f

D e p o rta tio n ), sta tes in re lev a n t p a rt th a t th e sto p -tim e ru le “ sh a ll ap p lyto or der s t o s how caus e . . . i s s ued bef or e, on, oraft erthe dat e of the ena ctm entof thi s A ct . ” IIR IR A w as e n ac ted S ep tem b er 3 0 , 1 9 9 6 an d too k ef fe ct A p ri l 1, 19 9 7 . N A C A R A ’s a me n d me n t s t o i twe r e e f f e c t i v e “ a s i f

i n c l u d e d i n th e e n a c t me n t ” o f I I RI RA. NACARA § 2 0 3 (f); 8 U . S . C . § 1 1 0 1 n o te (S u p p . IV 1 9 9 8 ). T h e tex t o f

th e se sta tu tes e sta b lish e s C o n g re ss ’s in ten t to a p p lyth e sto p -tim e ru le t o al l cas es , i ncl udi ng t hos e— l i ke C as t el l o’ s — w hi ch w er e pendi ng as of Sept ember30, 1 9 9 6 . N A C A R A § 2 0 3 (f ); s ee al s o “Expl anat orySt at ementof the Senat e C om m i t t ee on A ppr opr i at i ons , ” 143 C ong. R ec. S12658- 01, S12660 ( 1997) ( “Sect i on 203 m odi fi es cert ai n t r ans i t i on rul es es t abl i s hed byI I R I R A w i t h r egar d t o s us pens i on of deport at i on and ca ncel l at i on of r emoval . T he cha nges s t at e thatthe ‘ s t op t i m e’ rul e es t abl i s hed by t hatA cti n s ect i on 240A of the I N A s hal l appl ygener al l yt o i ndi vi dual s i n deport at i on pr ocee di ngs befor e A pr i l 1, 1997, w i t h cert ai n exce pt i ons . ”) . A ccor di ngl y , for depor t at i on pr ocee di ngs pendi ng on Sept ember30, 1996, acc rual of “c ont i nuous phy s i cal pr es ence ” i n t he U ni t ed St at es forpurpos es of s us pens i on el i gi bi l i t yended upon s ervi ce o f a n OSC .11 II. T he I N S i ni t i at ed deport at i on pr ocee di ngs agai ns tC as t el l o i n t he w i nt erof 1991 by se rv ice o f

a n O rd e r to S h o w C a u se . T h e IJ r e a so n e d th a t b e c a u se IIR IR A ’s s to p -tim e ru le appl i ed t o C as t el l o, t he O SC s t opped the cl ock on hi s acc rual of cont i nuous phy s i cal pr es ence i n t he U ni t ed St at es . B eca us e onl yfoury ear s had pas s ed atthe t i m e pr ocee di ngs comm ence d, t he I m m i gr at i on J udge found Cast el l o i nel i gi bl e fors us pens i on of d ep o rt ati o n u n d er IN A § 2 4 4 (a) as a m en d ed b yIIR IR A § 3 0 9 (c). Pet i t i oner ’ s pr i m aryar gum enton appea l i nvol ves the del ay s w hi ch occ urr ed dur i ng hi s depor t at i on pr ocee di ngs . H ad hi s hear i ngs pr ocee ded as s chedul ed, he cl ai m s , he w oul d have be en eva l uat ed undert he more l eni entrul es i n pl ace pr i ort o enac t m entof II R IR A . H e ci t es A oun v. I . N . S. , 3 4 2 F .3 d 5 0 3 (6 th C ir. 2 0 0 3 ), f o r su p p o rt. I n A oun , t he IN S com m enced dep ort at i on proceed i ng s i n A ug ust19 85 against N e m e r A h m a d A o u n , a n ille g a l a lie n w h o e n te re d th e U n ite d S ta te s in O c to b e r 1 9 7 8 . A ft erfoury ear s of pr ocee di ngs , hi s cas e w as admi ni s t r at i vel ycl os ed bythe B I A . T he I N S m oved t o r e- cal endart he appe al i n l at e 1993. I n J une 2000, the B I A r ei ns t at ed the pr ocee di ngs and di s m i s s ed hi s appea l . A oun m oved t o r eopen hi s appl i cat i on for su sp e n sio n o f

d e p o rta tio n , w h ich w a s s u m m a rilyd e n ied b yth e B IA o n g ro u n d s th a t, u n d e r th e IIR IR A , h is c o n tin u o u s p h y sic a l p re se n c e in th e U n ited S tate s e n d e d w ith s ervi ce of

t he O SC on A ugus t15, 1985. D ue t o hi s fai l ur e t o s at i s fythe cont i nuous12

p re s e n c e re q u ir e m e n t, th e B IA f o u n d h im in e lig ib le f

o r s u s p e n s io n . A oun , 342 F. 3d at 504–05. T he Si xt h C i r cui tr ever s ed, not i ng thatthe l engthydel ay s i n hi s cas e, w hi ch ca us ed h is e lig ib ili tyto b e e v a lu a ted u n d e r stric ter ru les , w e re n o t h is f a u lt: H ad A oun’ s appl i cat i on notbeen de l ay ed byan “a dm i ni s t r at i ve cl os ur e” of h is a p p lica tio n b yth e IN S in th e late 1 9 8 0 s, h e w o u ld h a v e h a d h is appl i cat i on rul ed on w el l befor e the new rul es t ook eff ecti n 1997 and he wo u l d h a v e b e e n s u b

j e c tt o t h e f

o r me rru l e th a ta l l o we d h i m t o a c c ru e t i me t ow ar ds cont i nuous phy s i cal pr es ence dur i ng the pende ncyof the p roc ee d ing s. . . . A s a re su lto f th e IN S ’s ad m inistrati v e c losu re o f A o u n ’s appea l , he w as deni ed the bene fi tof the ea r l i er , m or e l eni entrul es conce r ni ng acc rual of t i m e t ow ar ds cont i nual phy s i cal pr es ence i n t he U ni t ed St at es . B eca us e the admi ni s t r at i ve cl os ur e w as notthe fa ul tof A oun, he s houl d nots uffe rt he extr emel yadver s e r es ul t s thatfl ow ed fr om t hatdeci s i on. I d. at507. C as t el l o ar gues t he r eas oni ng of A oun compel s a s i m i l arr es ul ti n hi s cas e. A l i ens i n r emoval pr ocee di ngs ar e ent i t l ed t o due pr oces s , though the pr ocedur al pr ot ect i ons acc or ded t o t hem i n t hatcont ext“meas ur e l es s than the panopl yavai l abl e t o a cr i m i nal defe ndant . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Torr es , 383 F. 3d 92, 103 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( ci t i ng D ia v . A sh c ro ft, 353 F. 3d 228, 238- 39 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( en banc ) ) . I n t he r emoval cont ext , “due pr oces s r equi r es t hatan al i en w ho fac es [r emoval ] be pr ovi ded ( 1) not i ce of the cha r ges a g a in st h im , (2 ) a h e a rin g b e f o re a n e x e c u tiv e o r a d m in istra tiv e trib u n a l, an d (3 ) a f a ir oppor tuni t yt o be hea r d. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. L op ez- O rt iz, 313 F. 3d 225, 230 ( 5th C i r . 2002) ( ci t i ng Kw ong H

ai C hew v. C oldi ng, 344 U . S. 590, 597- 98 ( 1953) ) . C as t el l o does not c o n ten d h e w a s d e n ied a n yo f th e se . R a th e r, h e a rg u e s th a t th e re p e a ted d e lay of h is13

m erit s h ea ri n g u lt im atelyd en ied h im d u e p roc ess b ysu b jecti n g h im to n ew er— an d m o re stri ng ent— el i gibi l i t yrul es. B utcanc el l at i on of r emoval r el i ef i s di s cr et i onary , and i ti s w el l - es t abl i s hed thatno due pr oces s vi ol at i on ar i s es fr om t he deni al of di s cr et i onaryr el i ef. I n U ni t ed Stat es v. Torr es , this C o u rt jo in e d o u r sis ter c irc u its in h o ld in g th a t “b e c a u se d isc re tio n a ryre lief is n e c e ss a rilya m a tter o f

g ra c e ra th e r th a n o f

rig h t, alien s d o n o t h a v e a d u e p ro c e ss lib e rty in ter e st in c o n sid e ra tio n f o r su c h re lief.” 3 8 3 F .3 d a t 1 0 4 . C a ste llo h a d n o “ rig h t” to rel i ef from dep ort at i on ; thu s denial of suc h rel i ef can no tri se t o the l evel of a du e process v io la tio n . See al

s o P i nho v. I

. N . S. , 249 F. 3d 183, 189 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ( s us pens i on of depor t at i on i s di s cr et i onaryr el i ef thatdoes noti m pai ranyves t ed r i ght s and does notgi ve rise to d u e p ro c e ss v io latio n s); Tef el v. R eno , 1 8 0 F . 3 d 1 2 8 6 , 1 3 0 1 ( 1 1 t h Ci r . 1 9 9 9 ) ( “ No cons t i tut i onal l ypr ot ect ed i nt er es tar i s es fr om the I N S’ s act i ons i n gr ant i ng ordeny i ng appl i cat i ons fors us pens i on beca us e the A t t orneyG ener al exer ci s es ‘ unfett er ed’ di s cr et i on overappl i cat i ons fors us pens i on. T her efor e, r egar dl es s of the ul t i m at e di s pos i t i on of an a p p lica tio n f

o r su sp e n sio n o f

d e p o rta tio n , P lain tiff

s d o n o t p o ss e ss a c o n stitu tio n a lly p rotec ted in terest i n their ex p ec tanc yo f re ce iving su sp en sion . ”). III . N ext , C as t el l o cl ai m s t hathe w as deni ed due pr oces s and equa l pr ot ect i on byt he C hi ef I m m i gr at i on J udge’ s di r ect i ve thatdeci s i ons i n cas es pendi ng i n O ct ober1997 be r es erved unt i l N ovember14, 1997, due t o t he pos s i bi l i t yof congr es s i onal l egi s l at i onO n a r el at ed i s s ue, C as t el l o- D i az r eques t s thatw e w i t hhol d ourdeci s i on and r emand 10 t hi s i s s ue t o t he D i s t r i ctC our ti n or derforthe part i es t o pr es entfur t herevi dence thatt he (c o n tin u e d ...) 14 c lar if y in g IIR IR A § 3 0 9 (c ). W ith re sp e c t to C a ste llo ’s d u e p ro c e ss c laim , o u r h o ld in g in S e c tio n II c o n tro ls. B e c a u se C a ste llo h a d n o c o n stitu tio n a llyp ro tec ted in ter e st in s us pens i on fr om depor t at i on, a di r ect i ve fr om the C hi ef I m m i gr at i on J udge i n l i ghtof pen ding l egis l at i on cann ot operat e t o d epri ve ap pell ant of du e process. C as t el l o al s o cl ai m s he w as deni ed equa l pr ot ect i on underthe l aw beca us e other al i ens had thei rcas es hear d and rul ed on betw een February1996 and O ct ober1997, w hen h is case w as u n d erg o ing d elay . B u t th e re co rd c o n tai n s n o ev iden ce that C astell o ’s appl i cat i on fors us pens i on of deport at i on w as tr eat ed di ffe r ent l ythan w er e the ap p li ca ti o n s o f o ther sim il arly -si tuated ap p li ca n ts. T o the c o n tr ary , the C h ief IJ’s d ire c tiv e a p p lied to a ll ap p lica tio n s f o r su sp e n sio n o f

d e p o rta tio n p e n d in g im m e d iate ly p r i o rt o t h e e n a c t me n to f NAC AR A. I n l i ghtof the dr amat i c cha nges w r oughton t he i m m i gr at i on l aw s bythe ena ctm ent o f IIR IR A a n d b yth e im m in e n t en a c tm e n t o f N A C A R A , the C h ief

IJ n e c e ss a rilyh a d to h a v e f lex ib ili tyin f

o rm u latin g a c a se m a n a g e m e n t p lan f o r th o se a p p lica tio n s p e n d in g in t he Fal l of 1997. T he Equal Pr ot ect i on C l aus e r equi r es onl ythatthe C hi ef I J ’ s di r ect i ve ra tio n a lly f

u rt h e r a le g itim a te g o v e rn m e n ta l in te re s t, C l ebur ne v. C l ebur ne Li vi ng C ent er , 473 U . S. 432, 439–41 ( 1985) , w hi ch w e bel i eve i tdoes . A ccor di ngl y , w e fi nd no vi ol at i on of C as t el l o’ s r i ght s underthe Equal Pr ot ect i on C l aus e. 10( . . . cont i nued) 10 C hi ef I J ’ s i nt er fer ence depr i ved C as t el l o- D i az of due pr oces s , and cl ai m s thatour ju ri s d ic tio n to o rd e r t h e p a rt ie s to p ro v id e f u rt h e r e v id e n c e is b a rr e d u n d e r 8 U .S .C . § 1252( a) ( 1) . C as t el l o- D i az a r gues t hat , beca us e the i s s ue he r ai s es her e i s “the s ame i s s ue” ra is e d in a c la s s a c tio n s e ttle m e n t, se e B a ra h o n a -G o m ez v . A sh c ro ft , 243 F. Supp. 2d 1 0 2 9 ( N. D. Ca l . 2 0 0 2 ) , we s h o u l d g i v e Ca s t e l l o - Di a z th e o p p o r tu n i t yt o r e a c h th e s a me r es ol ut i on r eac hed ther e. W e d i s a g r e e wi t h Ca s t e l l o - Di a z f o rtwo r e a s o n s . Fi r s t , th e REA L I D A c t , Pu b . L. 109- 13, D i v. B , T i t l e I , § 106( c) , l i m i t s the di s t r i ctcour t s ’ habea s j ur i s di ct i on over re m o v a l o rd e rs . See Kam ar a v. A t t ’ y G en. , 4 2 0 F .3 d 2 0 2 , 2 1 0 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ) (“ [ I]t is rea d il yap p are n t, g iven C o n g ress’ clea r i n tent to h av e a ll ch all en g es to rem o v al ord ers hear d i n a s i ngl e form ( t he courtof appe al s ) , thatthos e habe as pet i t i ons thatw er e pendi ng b e f o re th is C o u rt o n th e e f f e c tiv e d a te o f

th e R E A L ID A c t ar e p ro p e rlyc o n v e rte d to pet i t i ons forr evi ew and r et ai ned bythi s C our t . ”) ( ci t i ng B onhom etr e v. G onz al es , 414 F. 3d 442 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ) . Second, even a s s um i ng C as t el l o- D i az c oul d be ent i t l ed t o a r es ol ut i on obt ai ned bys et t l ementi n t he C our tof A ppeal s forthe N i nth C i r cui t( and not th ro u g h a ju d icia l re so lu tio n o f a n o u tsta n d in g q u e stio n o f law ), th e se ttl e m e n t o u tco m e in B ar ahona w as t i ed t o an i nt ernal di r ect i ve conc erni ng §§ 304( a) ( 3) and 309( c) ( 7) of the I I R I R A

— pr ovi s i ons notati s s ue i n t hi s cas e. 15 I V. A. In the alt ernat i ve, C ast el l o clai m s the IJ erred byno tcou nti ng the seve n y ears ’ c o n tin u o u s p re s e n c e h e a c c ru e d s u b s e q u e n t to th e in itia l is s u a n c e o f th e O S C in 1 9 9 1 . A s s um i ng t he s t op- t i m e pr ovi s i on appl i es t o hi m , C as t el l o ar gues thati tdoes notpr ecl ude th e a c c u m u la tio n o f

a n e w p e ri o d o f

s e v e n y e a rs , b e g in n in g in 1 9 9 1 a n d g o in g f o rw a rd . W e dis agree. T hree cases i nfo rm ou r anal y si s. I n I n r e Mendoz a- Sandi no , 2 2 I. & N . D e c . 1 2 3 6 (B IA F e b . 2 3 , 2 0 0 0 ), 

### Sandra Carolina Mend oza- Sand ino enter ed the Unite d S tate s on F ebruary 28 , 198 6, and w as se rved with an Order to Sho w C auseand an arre st warrant the next day . By the time her16



### a ppl i c at i on for

s us pe ns i on of deport at i on wa s he ar d by an I mmi gr at i on Judge i n 1996, sh e h adaccru edsev enyears o f co ntinu o u s p hy sical p resen ce. A n 

### e n banc pane lof the BIA h el d that an ali en m ay no t a cc rue the re qu ired se ven years ’ c on tinu ou s phy si ca l p resen ce af

ter serv ice o f

anO rd er to S h o wC au se : T he l anguage of s ect i on 240A ( d) m akes i tcl earthatC ongr es s appr eci at ed the di ffe r ence betw een a “br eak” i n cont i nuous phy s i cal pr es ence and the “e nd” of cont i nuous phy s i cal pr es ence . C ongr es s has di s t i ngui s hed betw een c ert ai n act i ons t hat“end” cont i nuous phy s i cal pr es ence , i . e. , s ervi ce of a cha r gi ng documentor c o m m iss io n o f

a sp e c if ied c rim e , an d c e rta in d e p a rtu re s f ro m th e c o u n tryth a t o n ly t empora r i l y“br eak” t hatpr es ence . Ser vi ce of an O r dert o Show C aus e ora not i ce t o appea ri s noti ncl uded as an i nt errupt i ve eve ntunders ect i on 240A ( d) ( 2) , w hi ch m ere lyb rea k s co n ti n u o u s p h y sical pre sen ce . R athe r, u n d er se cti o n 2 4 0 A (d)(1 ), s uch s ervi ce i s deemed t o end an a l i en’ s pr es ence compl et el y . T her efor e, a r eadi ng of s ect i on 240A ( d) ( 1) t hatw oul d al l ow an al i en t o acc rue a ne w per i od of cont i nuous phy s i cal pr es ence aft erthe s ervi ce of a cha r gi ng documenti s not su p p o rt ed b ythe lan g u ag e o f e ith er se cti o n 2 4 0 A (d)(1 ) or (2 ). Id . at1240. T he B I A al s o s etfor t h the l egi s l at i ve hi s t oryof the I I R I R A , concl udi ng t hat i t s hol di ng i n Mendoz a w a s c o n sis ten t w ith th e g o a ls o f th e A c t: T h e H o u se a n d C o n f

e re n c e R e p o rts m a k e it cle a r th a t th e leg isla to rs in ten d e d to re m o v e th e in c e n tiv e f

o r a lien s to p ro lo n g th e ir c a se s in th e h o p e o f re m a in in g in t he U ni t ed St at es l ong enough t o be el i gi bl e forr el i ef f r om depor t at i on. T her efor e, r eadi ng s ect i on 240A ( d) ( 1) t o al l ow an al i en t o acc rue a ne w per i od of cont i nuous p h y sic a l p re se n c e a f

ter th e iss u a n c e o f

a c h a rg in g d o c u m e n t w o u ld b e c o n tra ryto t h e i n t e n to f

Co n g r e s s a s e x p r e s s e d i n th e l e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o r yo f th e I I RI RA . I d. at 12 4 3 (i n terna l ci tat ion s o m itted). 

### Depart i ng fr om

thi s bri ght - l i ne r

ul e , the BI A i n In reIgna ci o Cis neros- Go nzalez , 23 I. &N. Dec . 668 (Sept. 1, 20 04 ), c r e at e d an e xc ept i on for a l i e ns s e rve d wi th c hargi ng d o cum ents o nsep arate o ccasio n s. Ignaci o C is neros- Go nzal ezwas s er ved w it h an O rder17



### to Sh owCause c harging h im with depo rt abil it

y onDecem

ber 28, 19 90 . He wasdepo rt ed t o Me xi c o on J anuary

10, 1991, and he r e t

urne d ( i l l e ga l ly) t o the Uni t e d St at e s the ne xt day . Te n ye ar s l at e r

he wa s a ga i n s e rve d wi th c hargi ng doc um e nt s by the INS ( now DH S). Gon za le z r equest ed cancel lati onof re m ov al , c on te nd ing h e s atis fied the 10 years c ont i nuous phy s i c a lpr e s e nc e r e qui r e m e nt of s e c t i on 240A. Appl yi ng M en d oza , the I mmi gr at i on Judge de ni e d hi s a ppl i c at i on. The BI A r e ve r s e d. The BI A i n Cisn ero s f

ram edth e issu e n arro w ly : “wh eth er analienwh o d ep arts th e Un itedS tates af

ter b ein g serv edw itha v alidch arg in g d o cum ent can , up o nh is subsequent re turn to the Unite d S tate s, ac cr ue a peri odof

continuo us phy si ca l pr e s e nc e—m e a s ur e d fr om the dat e of hi s r e t

urn—s o a s t o de m ons tr at e e l i gibi l i ty for cancel lati onof

re m ov al .” Id. at

669. Re lyi ng he avi ly

on both the s t at

ut e ’ s s tr uc t ur e and the l e gi s l at i ve hi s t ory of the s t op- t i m e r

ul e s , the BI A i n Ci

s ne roshe l d an a l i e n m ay

a c c r ue as e c ond pe ri od of co ntinu o u s p hy sical p resen ce un d er sectio n1 2 2 9 b (b )(1 ). I d. at 67 2. Th e BIA em ph as iz ed that

Cisneros-Gon za le z was invo lved in a s ec on d roundof re m ov al pr oc e e di ngs , and he l d the “ s t op- t i m e r ul e wa s not

i nt e nde d t o e xt e nd t o c hargi ng do cum ents is sued in earl ie r procee ding s. ” Id. at 672. Be c aus e s e rvi c e of the c l oc ksto p p in g n o tice to ap p ear ap p lies o n ly to th o se n o tices “serv edinth e p ro ceed in g s in wh ic h the al ie n app li es fo r c ance ll ation o f remov al ,”the BIA held that a s ec on d clock18



### had start ed and G on za le z had dem on strate d the re qu is it e c on tinu ou s phy si ca l pre se nce un d er § 1 2 2 9 b (b )(1 ). I

d. Al though the e n banc pane li n Ci s ne rosdid n ot explic itly

ov er rule M en d oza , it d id interp ret Me ndoza t o hol d that i t “ r e s ol ve d the que s t i on whe the r s e rvi c e [of an OSC] pr e c lude d an a

ppl i c ant for r e l i e f fr om

a c c r ui ng aqua l i fyi ng pe ri od of c ont i nuous phy si ca l pre se nce in th e p ro ceeding s th at aro se f

ro m serv ice o f

th at ch arg in g d o cum ent.” I d. at 67 0 (em ph as is added). By

im po sing an “in the proceedings” require m ent that e ff e c t i ve ly l i mi t s thea

pp l i c at i onof M

en d oza , the Ci

s ne rosru le lef

t o p enth e p o ssib ility that , in limit ed inst ance s, se ction 1 22 9b permit s m ultiple periods of

“c on tinu ou s phy si ca l pr e s e nc e . ” W e c ons i de r e d one s uc h i ns t anc e i n Okekev. Go nzales , 407 F.3d58 5 (3dCir. 2 0 0 5 ). Ande r s on Jude Oke ke , aNi ge ri an c i t i z e n, e nt e r e d the Uni t e d St at e s i n 1981 on a stu d ent v isa. In1 9 8 3 O k ek e w as arrestedf o r p o ssessio no f

m arij u an a an dsenten cedto f iv e years’ p ro b atio n . In1 9 8 4 , af ter a trip to N ig eria, O k ek e w as law f u lly readmittedto theUn i t e d S t at e s . Hel i ve d in theU. S. wi tho ut i nt e rr up t i ons i nc e the n. Heandhi s wi fe h adsixch ildren , all o f

wh o m are U .S . citizen s. In1 9 9 7 th e IN S serv edO k ek e w itha N o tice to Ap p ear, ch arg in g h im w ith r e m ovabi l i ty

for fa i lur e t o c om

ply wi th the t e rm s of hi s s t

ude nt vi s a . He a

ppl i e d for cancel lati onof

re m ov al . The IJfo un d h e had fail ed to es ta blis h the re qu ired se ven years o f co ntinu o u s p hy sical p resen ce, h o w ev er, b ecau se h is co ntro lledsub stan ce o f f en se in19



### 1 9 8 3 “sto p p edth e clo ck ” o nh is accru al. See8 U. S. C. § 1229b( d) ( 1) . Be c aus e Oke ke arri ve d i n the Uni t e d St at e s i n 1981 and c ommi tt e d the offe ns e i n 1983, the I Jhe l d he accru edo n ly

tw o years o f

co ntinu o u s p hy sical p resen ce un d er § 2 4 0 A . T h e IJ d en iedh is a ppl i c at i on. On a

ppe a l , the BI A a ffi rm e d. Thi s Court r e ve r s e d. The m a jori ty —i n two s epar at e opi ni ons—he l d Oke ke wa s e nt i t l e d t o r e l i e f. But Judg es Garth andAm

bro reac hed this res ult via diff erent route s. Judg e Garth re as on ed th at O k ek e’s law f

u l re-entry

into th e Un itedS tates in1 9 8 4 , at wh ichtim e h e w as still covered by

his s tudent visa , “ re -s tart ed” the cl ock f or purposes of

“c on tinu ou s phy si ca l pres ence .” O keke , 4 0 7 F .3 d a t 5 9 0 (G a rt h , J .). 

### Judg e Am bro, concurring, focused in steado nth e statute’s p lainlan g u ag e an dC o n g ress’ intent, statin g th at M en d oza was in co rrectly

d ecid ed . See i d. at597 ( A m br o, J . , concurr i ng) ( “C ongr es s i nt ended i n § 1229b( d) ( 1) t o al l ow t he cont i nuous phy s i cal pr es ence cl ock t o r es t artaft erthe c o m m is s io n o f

a s p e c if ie d o f f e n s e ” ). 

### Althou ghno sing le ra tio d ecid en di i s c l e ar , and alth o u g heachw o u ldcarv e o ut a ru le th at w o u ldallo wf o r th e accru al o f

th e requ isite pe ri od of t i m e s ubs e que nt t o s om e c l oc k- s t oppi ng e ve nt , ne i the r Judge s Garth’ s nor Judge Am

br o’ s opi ni on a l l ows us t o di s r e gard Ci s ne ros ’s rule—that “ se rvic e [of an OSC] pr e c lude [s ] an a

ppl i c ant for r e l i e f fr om

a c c r uing aqua l i fyi ng pe ri od of c ont i nuous phy s i c a lpr e s e nc e i n the pr oc e e di ngs that ar os e fr om

s e rvi c e of that

c hargi ng doc um e nt . ” 

### 23 I. & N. De c . at

670.20

A dopt i ng J udge G ar t h’ s r at i onal e w oul d notal t erthe appl i cat i on of C isneros to t hi s cas e. I nt erpr et i ng t he more s t r i ngentbr i ght - l i ne rul e i n Mend oza , Ju d g e G a rth d eterm ined itd id n o t add ress “ w h ethe r l aw f ulr eentr y aft ercomm i s s i on of an of fens e, r ender i ng t he al i en i nadmi s s i bl e, r es t art s the cl ock. ” O keke , 4 0 7 F .3 d a t 5 8 9 (G a rt h , J .). H e then i nt erpr et ed C isneros as cr eat i ng an exc ept i on t o Mend oza , al l ow i ng “forthe acc rual of a ne w per i od of cont i nuous phy s i cal pr es ence upon an al i en’ s r eentr yi nt o t he U n ite d S ta te s ,” a n d h e ld w h e re th e re is a “ la w f u l r e e n tr ya f

te r a c lo c k -s to p p in g e v e n t, . . . t he cl ock s t ar t s anew . ” Id . at590. H ow ever , her e, C as t el l o di d notl eave and then r eent er t he countr y . U nderJ udge G ar t h’ s r at i onal e, and appl y i ng the appr opr i at e s t andar d of d ef ere n ce , u n d er C h e v r o n U.S .A ., In c . v . N a tu r a l R e s . D e

f. C o u n c il, I

n c ., 467 U . S. 837 ( 1984) , t o bot h Mendoz a and C is n e r o s , w e ar e unabl e expa nd 

### Cisneros’ e xc ept i on t o the pres ent c as e. No r wo ul d a do pti onof

Jud geAm

bro’ s r e a s on i nga l t e r

thea pp l i c at i onof Ci

s ne ros . A f ter arg u in g th at Cisn ero s di d not a pply t o Oke ke ’ s c a s e , Judge Am br o s t at e d that

he woul d have he l d M

en d oza ’ s i nt e r

pr e t at i on of § 1229b( d) ( 1) —that “ the c l oc k c annot

be r e s e t s o that an a l i e n a c c r

ue s c ont i nu e s phy s i c a lpre s e nc e a ft e r thec om mi s s i onof

a spec ifie d o ff

ense ”—im

permis sible und er Che vron . I d. at 593. What e ve r

the m e ri t s of thi s r at i ona l e , the c l oc k di d not s t op for Ca s t e l l o be c aus e of hi s c ommi s s i on of any

“ s pe c i fi e d offe ns e ”( that

i s , hi s t i m e di d not

s t op be c aus e of the c ommi s s i on of any part i c ul ar c ri m e ) . I ns t e a d, the c l oc k s t oppe d be c aus e Ca s t e l l o wa s s e rve d wi th one , andTh e I J h a s d i s c r e t i o n a r ya u t h o r i t yt o r e o p e n a c a s e u p o n h i s o wn mo t i o n a ta n yt i me 11 pur s uantt o 8 C . F. R . § 1003. 23( b) ( 1) . C as t el l o arr i ved i n t he U . S. as a mi nor , and has been l i vi ng cont i nuous l yi n t hi s countr yforal m os ttw enty - one y ear s — fi ft een of w hi ch h a v e in v o lv e d lit ig a tio n a risin g f ro m th e in iti a l O rd e r to S h o w C a u se . H is f a m ilyliv e s in t he U ni t ed St at es , and he ha s w or ked as a nur s e i n a nur s i ng hom e fors ever al y ear s . E ven t hough he ca nnotpr evai l i n t hi s cas e, C as t el l o s eems t o be an a ppr opr i at e ca ndi dat e for di s cr et i onaryr el i ef

### . 21 

### o n ly o n e, O S C , p remisedo nh is stayin g inth e U .S . lo n g er th anp ermitted . Okeked ealt s pe c i fi c a l ly

wi th an i ndi vi dua lc onvi c t e d of ac ontr ol l e d s ubs t anc e offe ns e , and Judge Am br o foc us e d on M

en d oza ’s ef f ectiv e § 1 2 2 9 b (d )(1 ) ru le, th at “if yo uco mmit a spec ifie d o ff

enseyoucan n ever

get c ance ll ation o f remov alun der § 12 29 (b)(b)(1). ” I d. at 59 4– 95 . But this re as on ing d oes not exte ndfurther than Jud ge Am bro’s propo se d hol di ng i n Okeke . Eve n we r e we t o a gr e e that e i the r the bri ght - l i ne r

ul e i n M en d oza , or the m or e l i mi t e d r

ul e i n Cisn ero s, shou ld no t a pp ly to inst ance s in w hich an al ie n h as c ommi tt e d a“ s pe c i fi e d offe ns e , ” that l i mi t at i on on Me ndoza— and, by e xt e ns i on, Cisn ero s—wo uld n ot apply here . B. A ppl y i ng C is ner os , beca us e C as t el l o di d notacc rue s even y ear s of cont i nuous phy s i cal pr es ence pr i ort o i s s uance of a c har gi ng documentbythe I N S, w e fi nd no err or i n t he I J ’ s cal cul at i on. C oncl us i on Fort he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l denythe pet i t i on forr evi ew of the fi nal or derof d e p o rta tio n e n ter e d b yth e B IA o n N o v e m b e r 4 , 2 0 0 3 . W e d e n yth e m o tio n to w ith h o ld 1122

deci s i on i n N o. 03- 4475 and denyt he mot i on t o r emand i n N o. 05- 3166.