FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT APRI L16, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [PUBLIS H]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 06- 1012 0

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D
. C. D oc ke t N o. A 75- 434- 010 NELSON FERNANDO ALVAREZ ACOSTA,
Pet it io ne r,
ve rs us U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, Res po nd en t.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Petition for Reviewof a D ecision of the Bo ar d of I m m igr at ionAppe al s

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (A pr il 16, 200 8) Be fo re T JO FL A T , BA RKE T T and KRA V IT CH , Ci rc uit Jud ge s.Ac c or din gto t he I J’s d e c isi on , o n o r a

bo ut Augus t 6, 19 93 , A lva re z ple d n olo 1 contende re to possession of dr ugpara pherna lia (Count I ) and dr iving unde r the influenc e (Count I I ). At sentenc ing, the court withheld a djudication on Count Iand plac ed Alvar ez on six months p r o b ati o n ; t

h e c o ur t a d ju d ic ate d A lv ar e z gu il ty

o nCo un t I Ian d

p la c e d h im o na c o n c ur r e n t s ixmonths’ term of probation. As a condition of probation, Alvarez was to (1) perf orm 50 hours community

service , subject to his rig ht to buy out the community service at the rate of $10 a n ho ur , a nd (2 ) atte nd

DU Isc ho ol. O nN o v e mb e r

1 9 , 1 9 9 3 , th e c o urtr e v o k e d A l v ar e z ’ s p r o b at i o no nC o un t s I an d II, 2 TJO FL AT , C ircuit Judg e: N el son Fe rn an do A lvare z- A co sta ( “ A lvare z” ), a

Co lom bian nativ e an d ci tiz en , pe tit ion s th is c ourt t o r ev ie wthe de ci sio n of the Bo ar d of

I m m igr at ion Appe al s ( “ BI A ”) a ff

irm ing the de ci sio n of

an I m m igr at ionJud ge ( “ IJ ”) de ny ing his m otion for a continu ance of his rem oval proceedings. The I J denied Alavar ez’ s m otion on num erous ground s, am ong th em that Alvare z had been
re m ove d f

ro m the U nit ed

S ta te s in199 7 f

oll ow ing his 199 3 c onvi ct ionf or poss essing d rug paraphernalia. W e conclude that we lack subjec t m atter j urisdictio n to hear A lvarez’ s petition because A lvarez’ s 1993 conviction wa s of a crim e “ relating to a controlled sub stance” under 8 U .S .C. § 1182 (a)( 2)(A )(i)( II) , and the petitio n presents no con stitut ional claim or question of law
. See 8 U. S. C. §§ 12 52(a)(2)( C) and (D). I. I n 1 9 9 3 , Al v a r e z wa s c o n v i c t e di n th e C i r c u i tC o u rto f B r o w a r dC o u n t y, Fl or ida , of

pos se ssi on o f dr

ug p ar ap he rn al ia
. O n M ar ch11, 199 7, an I m m igr at ion 1adjudicate d Alvare z guilty on Count I , suspended the se ntence on that count, and plac ed him on a new six-months ’ term of

probation, with a spec ial condition that he re turn to the DUI school. In a dd iti on

to f ind ingAl va

re z ina dmi ssi ble du e to h is 1 99 3 c onvic tio n, the I J found him 2 inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a) (6)( C)(i), for misrepre sentinga mater ial fac t in connection with his admissi on into the United States, and under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a) (7)( A)(i) (I I ), for i n s u f f i c i e n td o c um e n t at i o nf

o r a dm i s s i b i l i ty. 8 U.S.C. § 11 82 (a )( 2) (A )( i) pr ov ide s th at: 3 [A]ny a lie n c onvic te d o f, or

wh o a dmi ts h avin gc omm itt e d, or wh o a dmi ts committing ac ts which constitute the essential e lements of . . . (I I ) a violation of (or a conspirac y

or attempt to violate) a

ny law or r egulation of a State, the United States, or a f

oreign country

relating to a c ontrolled substance (as de fined in sec tion 802 of Title 21), is inadmissible. 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a) (2)( A)(i)
. Although A lvare z orally waived his right to appeal, his attorne y nonetheless f

iled a 4 Notice of Appea l, and the B IA af

firmed the Immigration J udg e’s de cision. Alvare z did not petition this court to re view the B IA’s dec ision as to his 1997 deportation. 3 Judg e found him

excludable under 8 U. S. C. § 118 2(a)( 2)(A ), which provides that an alien convicted of violatin g “ a lawor regulation” “ relating to a controlled subs tance” is inadm issib le to the United States. 8 U. S. C. § 118 2(a)( 2)(A )(i)( II)
. 2 3 The I J ordered A lvarez e xcluded and d eported from the United State s. A lvarez
w ai ve d hi s r igh t t o a

ppe al the j udge ’ s de ci sio n to the BI A and w as de porte d to Colom bia. 4 InAugus t 20 01, A lvare z re en te re d th e U nit ed S ta te s, in San D ie go, California, without insp ection. O n June 19 , 2002, he w as placed in rem oval pr oc ee din gs p ur suant t o 8 U
. S. C. § 11 82( a) (6 )( A )( i) , a s an a lie n pr es en t i n th eUnited Nations Convention Ag ainst Torture a nd Other Crue l, Inhuman or De g rading 5 Treatment or Punishment, art. 3, Dec . 10, 1984, 1465 U.N.T.S. 85, see 8 CF R § 208.17 (2002). The purpose of an I -130 is to establish that there is a le g al re lationship between the 6 petitioner and the benef

iciary of the I -130, such that the be nefic iary is entitled to apply

for a chang e or a djustment of status based on that leg al re lationship. I f the be nefic iary is the spouse of an United States c itiz en, as he re, the n the appr oved I -130 provides the evidentiar y basis for the benef iciary ’s adjustment of status via F orm I -485, Application to R eg ister Permane nt Residence or Ad jus t Status . 4 United States w ithou t having been adm itted or paroled. H e w as personally served
w ithaN oti ce to Appe ar

on June 24, 200 2. O n M ar ch12, 200 3, A lvare z ap pe ar ed w ithc ouns el be fo re the I J, in Mi am i, Fl or ida , and c onc ed ed

his r em ova

bil ity and the f ac tua l a lle ga tio ns i n th e N oti ce to Appe ar . H e ap pli ed

f or a sy lum and, a lte rn at ive ly , r eque ste d w ith hol din g of
rem ov al un de r th e Imm ig rat io n a ndNati on al it y Act (“ INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1231 (b )( 3) , and w ith hol din g of r em ova l purs uant t o A rt ic le 3 of the Co nve nti on A ga ins t T ortur e (“ CA T ”)
. T he I J sc he dul ed ahe ar ing on A lvare z’ s a ppl ic at ion 5 fo r Jul y 15, 200 4. O n June 24, 200 4, A lvare z, thr oughc ouns el , m ove d th e IJto co nti nue the
rem oval proceeding on the following groun ds: (1) on Novem ber 21, 2003, he had
m ar ri ed aU nit ed S ta te s c iti ze n, Mari a A de la ide W ise m an , w ho, on J anuary 5, 2003 , had f

iled a Form

I-130 Petition for A lien Relative (“ I-130") in his behalf; 6 (2) Bull v. I .N .S ., 790 F.2d 869 (11t h Cir. 1986 ), suppo rted the granting of aWe addre ss Bull’s application infra, at note 14. 7 T h e d e c i s i o nc o n t a i n e d th i s n o t at i o nh a

n d w r i t t e nb y

th e I J: 8 The c ourt is unable to re set the ca se due to its ag e. More over, r espondent ha s claimed that he last entere d without inspection on August 10, 2001, and he is not e lig ibl e un de r s e c tio n 2 H5 (I ) [s ic ]. L a stl y , r e sp on de nt’ s p ri or c onvic tio ns , h is prior exclusion and deportation and his ill eg al entrie s may aff ect his elig ibilit y

for relief statutorily

and as a matter of disc retion. Alvare z presented the I J with severa l exhi bits in support of his m otion for a 9 c o n t i nu an c e . T h e y i n c l u d e d th e O c t o b e r

2 5 , 2 0 0 1 j u d g m e n to f

th e C i r c u i tC o urto f

D a d e C o un ty, Florida , dissolving Alvar ez’s marria g e to Marg arita Car dona Alvar ez. Marg arita Car dona g ave birth in the United States to two of his children. Prior to marr ying Ca rdona, A lvare z married another woman, whose name he did not disclose, in a relig ious cere mony in Colom bia, S.A. He told the I J that he did not know whethe r that marr iag e wa s valid or whethe r it had bee n terminated. 5 continu ance; and (3) a c ontin uance w ouldprej udice no on e. T he IJ denied

7 A lvare z’ s m oti on o n Ju ly 1, 200 4. 8 O n Ju ly 15, 200 4, the I J he ld the sc he dul ed he ar ing on A lvare z’ s a

ppl ic at ion fo r as y lum

and a lte rn at ive r eque st w ith hol din g of r em ova l un de r the I N A , and CAT relief

. At the outset of the hearing, Alvare z, through counsel, renew ed A lvare z’ s m oti on f

or ac ont inu an ce ; the c ourt de cl ine d to c ont inu e the c as e an d 9 pr oc ee de d w iththe he ar ing
. On Au g u s t4 , 2 0 0 4 , t h e c o u rt en t er ed an o ra l d ec i s i o n o n Al v ar ez ’s application for asy lum , w ithho lding of rem oval, and CA T r elief. Bef ore proceeding to th e m erits of A lvarez’ s application, the IJ explained why she had de nie d A lvare z’ s m oti on f or ac ont inu an ce of

the r em ova l pr oc ee din g: g ranti ng aThe I J found Alvar ez’s testimony – that he fe are d he would be pe rsec uted if he 10 returne d to Colom bia – inconsistent and unbelieva ble. In particula

r, what Alvare z said conflicted wi th t he inf or matio n h e ha d p ro vid e d in his a sylum

a pp lic atio n a

nd a le tte r h e ha d s ub mitte d to e xpla in t he date s o f h is r e sid e nc e in C olo mbi a and tr ave l to the Un ite d St ate s, a s w e ll a s th e tim e pe ri od in whic h h is c hil dr e n r e sid e d in Col omb ia . T he I J fur

the r n ote d th at – e ve n if

his te sti mony wa s c re dib le – s he wo uld , in the e xer c ise of

he r d isc re tio n, de ny

him a sylum du e to h is entry without inspection, criminal history , and the dubious leg ality of his marria g e to Wiseman. 6 co nti nuanc e w oul d f

urthe r de lay

atw o- y ear- old

c as e by up t o 80 0 day s ( the
es t i m at ed wa i tp er i o dfo r t h e a d ju d i ca t i o n o f Wi s eman ’s I- 1 3 0 p et i t i o n ); Al v ar ez ’s
cr im ina l, im

m igr at ion , and m ar ita l hi sto ry r ai se d se ri ous que sti ons ab out his el igi bil ity f or an a dj ustm en t of

status ; and i t w as dub iou s w he the r ana dj udi cator would, in an exer cise of discretion, a djust Alvar ez’ s status even if he was d et er m i n ed t o b e e l i g i b l e f o r a n ad ju s t m en to f s t atu s . Th e I J th en d en i ed Al v ar ez ’s ap pli catio n f

or a sy lum and w ith hol din g of

r em ova l un de r the I N A and C A T , and 10
o rd er ed Al v ar ez re m o v ed t o Co l o m b i a. Al v ar ez ap p ea l ed th e i m m i g ra t i o n ju d g e’s ruling to the BIAand requested that the proceedings be rem anded so th at, if his I130 w as late r ap pr ove d, he c oul d se ek a dj ustm en t of

status . O n D ec em

be r 8, 200 5, in a pe r curi am opi nio n, the BI A a dopt ed and affir m ed the im

m igration judge’ s decision d eny ing Alvarez’ s m otion for a
co nti nuanc e. T he Bo ar d tr eate d hi s m oti on t o r em an d a s th oughit w er e a m oti on to reopen his rem oval proceedings, and held th at A lvarez had f ailed to m ake a pr im a fa ci e show ing of

e lig ibi lity

f or a dj ustm en t of

status .Al va re z do e s n ot s e e k r e vie w o f t he de nia l of

his a pp lic atio n f

or a sylum and his 11 reque sts for withholding of remova l and CAT re lief. On its face , § 1252(a) (2)( C) is lim ited to “final orde r[s] of re moval.” Alvar ez 12 petitioned for a

revie w of B IA’s orde r af firmingthe I J ’s simultaneous denial of his motion for a continuance and fina l order of remova l. Thus, it is impossibl e to pass on the leg itimacy of the denial of his motion for a c ontinuance of remova l proce eding s without also passing on the leg itimacy

of the re moval order ; in this case , they eff ectively merg e. Ac ceptingjurisdiction over the de nia l of

Al va re z’s mot ion

fo r a c ontin ua nc e wo uld

su bv e rt Con g re ss’ s inte nt t o e lim inate fede ral c ourt revie w of re moval order s ag ainst cer tain criminal aliens; an a lien fac ing a final remova l order w ould only need to move f

or a c ontinuance of

the re moval proce eding s at his or h e r f in a l r e mo v a l h e ar in gto p u t w it h in o ur ju r is d ic ti o nth e I J’ s f

in a l r e mo v a l o r d e r . We distinguish Alvere z’s case, which is outside our jurisdiction under subsec tion (C) of § 7 A lvare z nowpe tit ion s th is c ourt f or ar ev ie wof

the BI A ’ s de ci sio n af fi rm ing the I J’ s de nia l of

his m oti on f

or ac ont inu an ce , arg uin g th at the 11 decision was contrary

to our ruling in Bull v. I. N. S. , 790 F. 2d 86 9 (11th Cir. 1986 ), and violated hi s due process und er the F ifth Am endm ent of the United St at es Co nst itu tio n. II. W e lack j urisdictio n to consi der A lvarez’ s appeal under 8 U. S. C § 1252 (a)( 2), a s am ended by the RE AL ID Ac t of 2005, Pub. L . N o. 109-13, D iv. B, 119 St at . 231 , § 10 6. S ec tio n 12 52( a) (2 )( C) pr ovi de s th at “ no c ourt sh al l have j ur isd ic tio n to r ev ie wany f ina l or de r of

r em ova l a ga ins t an a lie n w ho i s r em ova ble by vir tu e o f ha vi ng co m

m it te d acri m in al off

en se co ve redin 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (a)( 2),” includin g an offense “ relating to a controlled sub stance” under § 11 82 (a)( 2) (A)(i )(II)
. Not wit hs ta nd in g § 12 52 (a)( 2) (C), h owe ve r, § 121252(a) (2), f rom our dec ision in Zaf

ar v. U .S. Att’y

Gen., 461 F .3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2006), which deal t w it h a d eni al o f a m ot io n fo r a co nt in uan ce thatwas in ou r j uri sd ict io n u nd er s ub sect io n (B) of the same section. We dec line to ext end our pr evious dec ision to t he petitions of aliens, like Al va re z, who are “ re mov a

ble by vir tue of havin gc omm itt e d” a

dr ug -r e late d c ri me , a s w e dis c us s further in note 13. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2) (C). 8 1252 (a )( 2) (D ) ve sts the c ourts o f ap pe al s w ithj ur isd ic tio n ov er a ll ap pe al s pr es en tin g “ co nst itu tio na l c la im s or que sti ons of

law . ” RE A L I D A ct

§ 1 0 6 (a )( 1 )( A) (i i i ), co d i fi ed at8 U.S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (a )( 2 )( D) ; Ba l o g u n v . U. S. At t ’y G en . , 425 F
. 3d 1 356, 136 0 ( 11th C ir
. 200 5) ( expla ini ng tha t the pur pose of the RE A L I D A ct

w as to al lowc ri m ina l a lie ns t o r ai se ha be as c or pus- ty pe arg um en ts on direct reviewof rem oval orders and thereby obviate the need for collatera l review ). O f course, “ we retain j urisdictio n to determ ine whether the statutory
co ndi tio ns f

or li m iti ng j udi ci al r ev ie we xis t. ” V uksanovi c v. U
. S. A tt’ y G en . , 439 F. 3d 1 308, 131 0- 11 ( 11th C ir
. 200 6) ( de te rm ini ng tha t Vuksanovi c’ s se co nddegree ar son conv iction am ount ed to a crim e involv ing m oral turpitude, such that
we lacked j urisdictio n und er § 1252(a)(2) to consider his petition ). A. A lvare z w as c onvi ct ed

of pos se ssi on o f dr

ug p ar ap he rn al iaand l at er f ound
ex cl uda ble and d ep orte d un de r § 11 82( a) (2 )( A )( i) (I I) f or vio la tin g alaw“ re la tin g to a c ontro lle d su

bst an ce . ” H e w ai ve d hi s r igh t t o a ppe al that r

uli ng. H e now contends , how ever, that poss ession o f drug paraphernalia is not a cr im inalAlthough A lvare z was most rece ntly in removal proc eeding s for e nteringthe United 13 States without inspection or parol, he ha s alrea dy been de ported onc e for

a drug -re lated conviction, and ther efor e he still “is remova ble by rea son of havingcommitted a cr iminal offe nse” c overe d in 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2) (A)( i)(I I ). 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)( 2)(C). As a prac tical matte r, an a lie n who wa s d e po rt e d f or a dr ug -r e late d c onvic tio n a

nd wh o th e n s ne ake d b a c k into the country

falls within jurisdiction li mitations of § 1252(a) (2)( C): the motivation behind Alvare z’s clandestine re entry undoubtedly

was to avoid re moval “by rea son of havingcommitted a cr iminal offense ” “r elated to a controlled substanc e.” See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2) (A)( i)(I I ).

9 vio la tio n “ re la tin g to ac ontro lle d su bst an ce , ” be ca

use he c oul d have use d th e dr ug para phe rn al iahe pos se sse d w ithany c ontro lle d su

bst an ce , not

“ a” spe ci fi c
co ntr oll ed

sub stanc e. P et iti one r’ s R ep ly Br
. a t 5. W e fi nd h is p en ci l- thi n in te rp re ta tio n of § 11 82( a) (2 ), w hic h sp eaks i n broad strokes, unpersuasive. See 8 U. S. C. § 118 2(a)( 2)(A )(I ) (“ [A ] ny alien
co nvi ct ed of
. . . avio la tio n of

( or ac onsp ir ac y

or a tte m pt t o vi olate ) an y

lawor
re gul at ionof

aS ta te , the U nit ed

S ta te s, or

af or ei gn c ountry

r el at ing to a
co ntr oll ed

sub stanc e . . . is ina dm iss ibl e” ). Mo re ove r, a s apr ac tic al m atte r, it is unf athom ab le that C ongr es s w oul d e xc lud e fr om our j ur isd ic tio n a

ppe al s br ough t by tho se c onvi ct ed

of pos se ssi ng, say , ac oc ai ne f re eb as e kit , but

not tho se
co nvi ct ed of pos se ssi ng s ca le s, r az or

bla de s, and p la sti c ba ggi es , sim ply be ca use the latte r para

phe rn al iapr ovi de m or e ve rs at ili ty in vio la tin g alaw“ re la tin g to a
co nt ro ll edsu bs ta nc e.” 13 B. Nonetheless, A lvarez argues that we have j urisdictio n und er §Alvare z point s to our decision in Bull v. I .N.S., 790 F.2d 869 (11th Cir. 1986), f or the 14 pr op os iti on

that “ re fu sa l to g ra

nt a c ontin ua nc e in d e po rt atio n p ro c e e din g s whe n a vis a pe tit ion is pendingthat would allow a pe rson to file for adjustment of status in the United States may be an abuse of discretion.” Petitioner’ s Br . at 7. In Bull, we held that the I J abused his discre tion when he denie d Bull’s re quest for a continuance of the re moval proce edingbeca use “the leg al conclusion upon which the denial wa s based [was] incorre ct.” B ull, 790 F.2d at 872. Specifica lly , the I J based his denia l on the incorre ct leg al conc lusion that there wa s no way the petitioner could be come e ligible f or an a djustment of status because of his prior convic tion of a “cr ime involving mora l turpitude” as de fined in 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a) (9). B ull, 790 F.2d at 872. The I J had fa iled to note, howeve r, that due to his marr iag e to a United States c itiz en, B ull might potentially

qualify for a waiver of inelig ibilit y

under § 1182(a) (9). B ull, 790 F.2d at 872. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h). Unlike the petitioner in B ull, Alvarez does not ar gue that the I J misunderstood or misapplied the law. As a side note, Alvar ez’s case is further c ontrasted with B ull’s in that Alvare z is not eligible f

or a w aiver

of his ineligibility

for a djustment of status under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a) (2)( A)(i) (I I ), due to his conviction of a crime “ relating to a c ontrolled substance .” See 8 U.S.C. 1182(h) (allowing , in cer tain circ umstances, f

or a w aiver

of inelig ibilit y

under § 1181(a) (2)( A)(i) (I I ), “insofa r as it re lates to a sing le offe nse of simple possession of 30 g rams or less of marijuana ”). 10 1 2 5 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( D ) b e c au s e h e p r e s e n t s al e g a l qu e s t i o nan dac o n s t i tu t i o n a l c l a i m. 1. A lvare z ar gue s th at

the I J a buse d he r dis cr et ionby

f ai lin g pr ope rl y

to w ei gh the f ac tua l sc en ar io h e pr es en te d. S uc h agard en -v ar ie ty abuse of dis cr et ion argum ent – which can be m ade by virtually every alien subjec t to a final rem oval order – does not am ount to a legal question under § 125 2(a)( 2)(D ). If it did, then the r em ai nde r of

§ 12 52( a) (2 ), w hic h e xe m pts c er ta in p et iti ons fr om

our j ur isd ic tio n, w oul d be m eanin gle ss. A lvare z doe s no t arg ue that the im m igr at ion j udge f ai le d to appl y

the c or re ct le ga l st an dard
. H e the re fo re doe s no t pr es en t a 14 le ga l qu es tio n un de r the m eanin g of § 12 52( a) (2 )( D ). S ee D e L a V eg a v.11

G onz al es , 436 F
. 3d 1 41, 146 ( 2d C ir
. 200 6) ( “ [C ] ha lle nge s to the e xe rc ise of
ro uti ne dis cr et ionby

the A tto rn ey

G en er al ( or

the BI A a s hi s de sig ne e) do n ot
ra ise ‘ co nst itu tio na l c la im s or que sti ons of

law , ’ and m ay

not the re fo re be review ed by

this court, notwithstandi ng Section 106 of the RE AL ID Ac t”). 2. W e have previously

noted that a petitio ner m ust present a “ subs tantial” –
m eanin g no n- fr ivo lou s – c onst itu tio na l c la im f or us t o th er eb y

have j ur isd ic tio n unde r § 12 52( a) (2 )( D ). Vuksanovi c v. U
. S. A tt’ y G en . , 439 F
. 3d 1 308, 131 2 ( 11th Ci r. 200 6)
. A lvare z ar gue s th at he w as de pr ive d of

ali be rty int er es t i n no t be ing
re m ove d f

ro m the U nit ed

S ta te s w ith out

due pr oc es s, in vio la tio n of the F if th A m en dm en t. T he r el ie f he sou ght he re , how ev er , w as ac ont inu an ce of his
r e mo v a l p r o c e e d i n g s o th a th e mi g h tp ur s u e an a d j u s t me n to f

s t a tu s . B o t h f

o rms of relief – a continuance of rem oval proceedings andan adj ustm ent of status – are discretionary ; as such, he w as deprived of no liberty interest, see Mej ia Rodriguez
v. Re no, 178 F
. 3d 1 139, 114 6- 1148 ( 11th C ir
. 199 9) , and h e pr es en ts n o subs tantial constit ution al claim that gives us j urisdictio n und er § 1252(a)(2)( D)
. Fo r the f or eg oin g r ea sons , the pe tit ionis DISMI SSED.12

BARKETT, Circ ui t J ud ge , DISSENTING: I believe w e have j urisdictio n in thi s case. A lvarez- Ac osta was not ordered
re m ove d ba se d onhis pr ior c ri m ina l c onvi ct ionf

or pos se ssi on o f dr

ug paraphernalia under 8 U .S .C. § 1182 (a)( 2)(A )(i)( II) which w ouldhave deprived thi s c ourt of

j ur isd ic tio n purs uant t o 8 U
. S. C. § 12 52( a) (2 )( C)
. R athe r, the Im m igration Ju dge ordered the rem oval of Alvare z-A costa from the United State s to Colom bia under § 212 (a)( 6)(A )(I ) of the I m m igration and NationalityAc t as an al ie n p res en t i n t he Uni te d S ta te s wi th ou t h av in g b een ad m it te d o r pa ro le d. A cc or din gly , I a gr ee w iththo se c ir cu its that have f ound that w e ha ve j urisdictio n to review c laim s in which the alien has been found rem ovable for a
reas on ot he r th an a cri m in al co nv ic ti on th atwou ldpo te nt ia ll y ba r jud ic ia l re vi ew. Se e H er nande z- Barr er a v. A shc ro ft , 373 F
. 3d 9 , 20 ( 1st Ci r. 200 4) ; L em

usRo dr igu ez v. A shc ro ft , 350 F
. 3d 6 52, 654 -5 5 ( 7thCi r. 200 3) ; A lvare z- Santo s v. IN S, 332 F
. 3d 1 245, 125 3 ( 9thC ir
. 200 3) ; Y ouse fi v. I N S, 260 F
. 3d 3 18, 325 ( 4th Ci r. 20 01 ). Nonetheless, on the m erits of A lvarez- Ac osta’ s petition , I would deny relief on the ba sis that the I m

m igr at ionJud ge did

not abuse he r dis cr et ionin de ny ing A lvare z- A co sta ’ s m oti on f or ac ont inu an ce of

the r em ova l pr oc ee din gs.