2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 7-1-2010 

# J orge P e re z 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 . 09-3778

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_2010

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 2010 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 " J org e P e r ez v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1048. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1048NOT 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. 09- 3778

___________ J OR GE L. PEREZ, Pet i t i oner 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 derof the B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( A gencyN o. A 045- 628- 544) Im m i grat i on Judg e: E ug ene P ug l i ese

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

A pr i l 12, 2010 B efor e: M cK E E , C hi ef J udge, FU E N T E S and N Y G A A R D , C i r cui tJ udges ( O pi ni on fi l ed: J ul y1, 2010)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM P e tit io n e r Jo rg e P e re z , a c iti z e n o f P e ru , se e k s re v iew o f

a f in a l o rd e r o f

re m o v a l. F o rth e r e a s o n s t h a tf

o l l o w, we wi l l d e n yh i s p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.T hats t atut e pr ovi des t hatt he G overnm enthas di s cr et i on t o “r emove t he condi t i onal 1 b a sis o f th e p e rm a n e n t re sid e n t sta tu s f o r a n a lien ” if

h e d e m o n stra tes th a t, ev e n th o u g h it di s s ol ved, t he mar r i age i n ques t i on w as ent er ed i nt o i n good fai t h. “ In th e c a se o f

a n a lien w ith p e rm a n e n t re sid e n t sta tu s o n a c o n d iti o n a l b a sis . . ., if 2 the A t t orneygener al det erm i nes , befor e the s econd a nni ver s aryof the al i en’ s obt ai ni ng the s t atus of l aw ful admi s s i on forperm anentr es i dence , thatthe qual i fy i ng m arr i age w as ent er ed i nt o fort he purpos e of pr ocur i ng an al i en’ s admi s s i on as an i m m i gr ant , orhas been j udi ci al l yannul l ed ort erm i nat ed, ot herthan thr ough t he dea t h of a s pous e . . . the A t t orneyG ener al s hal l s o not i fyt he part i es i nvol ved and, . . . s hal l t erm i nat e the perm anentr es i dents t atus of the al i en ( oral i ens ) i nvol ved as of the dat e of the d e te rm in a tio n .” 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 8 6 a (b )( 1 ). T h e a ff idav italso ind icated that P ri ce h ad n o t m et P ere z u n ti l th e d aytheyw ere 3 m a rrie d . A p p a re n tly , P ric e p a ss e d a w a yth e sa m e y e a r sh e p ro d u c e d th e a f f id a v it. 2 I P e re z e n te re d th e U n ite d S ta te s w ith o u t in s p e c tio n o n a n u n s p e c if ie d d a te . A ccor di ng t o Per ez, he metT any a Pr i ce, a U ni t ed St at es ci t i zen, i n 1994 t hr ough a mut ual acqua i nt ance . I n M ar ch 1995, Per ez a nd Pr i ce w er e mar r i ed. Per ez e ventual l yr ece i ved condi t i onal perm anentr es i dent( “C PR ”) s t atus bas ed on thatm arr i age. T he pai rdi vor ced, h o w ev er, i n Ju ly2 0 0 2 . T o stayin the U n it ed S tat es, P ere z f il ed an ap p li ca ti o n fo r a har ds hi p w ai verunder8 U . S. C . § 1186a( c) ( 4) ( B ) . I n February2006, the appl i cat i on w as 1 deni ed, and Per ez’ s C PR s t atus t erm i nat ed, bas ed on the G overnm ent ’ s det erm i nat i on t hat Per ez e nt er ed i nt o hi s m arr i age t o Pr i ce f orthe s ol e purpos e of pr ocur i ng an i m m i gr at i on b en ef it . T h at de term ination resu lt ed fro m the G o v ern m en t’ s p rod u cti o n o f a F eb rua ry 2 2000 aff i davi tfr om Pr i ce w hi ch cl ai m ed thats he w as pai d $5000 i n excha nge forher m arr i age t o Per ez. 33

Per ez w as i s s ued a N ot i ce t o A ppeari n M ar ch 2006. A ta hea r i ng befor e an I m m i gr at i on J udge ( “the I J ”) , Per ez de ni ed the cha r ges agai ns thi m : thos e bei ng thathe e n ter e d th e U n ited S tate s illeg a lly , an d th a t h e h a d e n ter e d in to h is m a rria g e to P ric e in bad fa i th. Per ez a gai n appl i ed fora har ds hi p w ai verpur s uantt o § 1186a( c) ( 4) ( B ) . A ft er hear i ng Per ez’ s t es t i m ony , t he I J det erm i ned thatPer ez ha d notcarr i ed hi s bur den for estab li sh ing eli g ibil ityfo r th e w aive r an d P ere z w as o rde red to b e re m o v ed to P eru . In su p p o rto f h is ru li n g , the IJ stated that “the g u n w ith the m o st sm o k e c o m ing o u t of ith ere t odayi s t hi s s w or n s t at ementfr om [Pr i ce] . ” The I J al s o chas t i s ed Per ez f orthe i ncons i s t enci es i n hi s t es t i m ony , forhi s demeanorw hi l e t es t i fy i ng ( “[Per ez] l acks any s ens e of l i vel i nes s , of ani m at i on. T her e i s s i m pl ynothi ng i n t erm s of emot i on t o anyt hi ng he has s ai d. E veryt hi ng her e t odayw as del i ver ed i n a fl at , l ow m onot one, cr eat i ng the im p ression in the C o u rt ’s m ind that [P ere z] w o u ld rathe r be so m ew h ere else tha n h ere tes tify in g to d a y ” ), an d f o r h is f a ilu re to b rin g a n ysu p p o rtin g a f f id a v its o r w itn e ss e s to te s tif yo n h is b e h a lf. T h e B o ard o f Im m igrati o n A p p ea ls ( “B IA ”) d ism issed P ere z’s a p p ea l. T h e B IA fi r s tr ej ect ed Per ez’ s cl ai m t hatt he G overnm ent ’ s del ayi n pr oces s i ng hi s w ai ver a p p lic a tio n d e n ie d h im d u e p ro c e s s . O n th a t p o in t, a n d re lyin g o n M u d ri c v . A tt’ yG e n ., 469 F. 3d 94, 98- 99 ( 3d C i r . 2006) , t he B I A s t at ed thatal i ens “have no cons t i tut i onal r i ght t o have the appl i cat i ons cons i der ed as qui ckl yas theydes i r e. ” The B I A al s o r ej ect ed Per ez’ s ar gum entt hatt he G overnm ents houl d have be en es t opped fr om us i ng the Pr i ce4

a f f id a v it at th e h e a rin g b e c a u se th e G o v e rn m e n t h a d im p ro p e rly“ c o n c e a led ” th e a f f id a v it fors i x y ear s . T he B I A agai n ci t ed M udr i c, thi s t i m e t o s uppor ti t s concl us i on thatPer ez had notm ett he r equi r ement s t o equi t abl yes t op the G overnm entfr om us i ng the Pr i ce a f f id a v it. P e re z a p p e a le d . II W e h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n to re v ie w f in a l o rd e rs o f

re m o v a l u n d e r 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (a ). S e e A b d u lai v . A sh c ro f t, 23 9 F .3 d 5 4 2 , 5 4 7 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 1 ). “W h e re th e B IA re n d e rs its o w n d ec isi o n an d d o es n o t m ere lyad o p t th e o p inion o f th e IJ, w e re v iew the B IA ’s d e c is io n , n o t th a t o f

th e IJ .” W o n g v . A tt’ yG e n ., 5 3 9 F .3 d 2 2 5 , 2 3 0 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). W e r evi ew de novo cons t i tut i onal cl ai m s and ques t i ons of l aw r ai s ed on appe al . Y us upov v. A tt’ yG e n ., 5 1 8 F .3 d 1 8 5 , 1 9 7 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). III Cl a i ms c o n c e r n i n g t h e P r i c e a f f i d a v i tp r e d o mi n a t e P e r e z ’ s o p e n i n g b r i e f. He ar gues t hatt he Pr i ce a ffi davi ti s fal s e, thati ti s “mar kedl youtof cont extw i t h t he e v id e n c e o f

[ h is] jo in t m a rrie d life ,” a n d th a t “[ b ]yw ith h o ld in g f ro m m e m o re th a n six y ear s t hatcr i t i cal pi ece of evi dence , . . . D H S l eftm e no r eas onabl e opportuni t yt o r ebut the s tat em en t. ” P ere z a lso a rgu es th at th e P ri ce af fid av itlack s su ff

ici en t evid en ti ary foundat i on, and that“t ] he pas s age of t i m e l entthi s s t at ementa cr edi bi l i t ythati tdi d not des erve. ” Tw o cl ai m s ar e r eadi l yappar entfr om thi s l i ne of a r gum ent . O n t he one ha nd, P e re z c o n ten d s th a t th e G o v e rn m e n t’s p ro d u c tio n o f th e P ric e a f

f id a v it i n 2 0 0 0 , an d itsT o th e e x ten t P e re z is a lso c laim in g th a t th e G o v e rn m e n t’s d e lay i n p ro c e ss in g h is 4 canc el l at i on of r emoval appl i cat i on depr i ved hi m of due pr oces s , w e mustr ej ectthat cl ai m forthe s ame r eas on gi ven i n t he B I A ’ s deci s i on. 5 i ntr oduct i on of the af

fi davi tatt he r emoval hear i ng, cons t i tut e foul pl ay . T hus , Per ez r ai s es the s ame equi t abl e es t oppel cl ai m thathe di d on appea l t o t he B I A . Separ at e and apartfr om t he equi t abl e es t oppel cl ai m , though, Per ez c hal l enges the admi s s i bi l i t yof the Pr i ce a ffi davi tas a mat t erof evi dent i aryl aw . W e w i l l addr es s thes e tw o cl ai m s i n tur n. 4 T o p rev ail o n h is eq u it ab le estop p el claim , P ere z “ m u st establish (1 ) a m i s r epr es ent at i on; ( 2) upon w hi ch he r eas onabl yr el i ed; ( 3) t o hi s detr i m ent ; and ( 4) aff i r m at i ve mi s conduct . ” M udr i c, 469 F. 3d at99. Pr oof of a ffi r m at i ve mi s conducton the partof the G overnm enti s a demandi ng bur den, s ee Y ang v. I N S, 574 F. 2d 171, 175 ( 3d C i r . 1978) , one thatPer ez ha s notcarr i ed; ther e i s no evi dence i n t he r ecor d t hateven re m o telysu g g e sts th e G o v e rn m e n t ac ted im p ro p e rlyin e ith e r o b tain in g th e P ric e a f f id a v it orpr es ent i ng i tatt he r emoval hear i ng. B eca us e Per ez ha s notes t abl i s hed af fi r m at i ve m isc o n d u c t b yth e G o v e rn m e n t, w e a g re e w ith th e B IA th a t h is e q u itab le e sto p p e l cla im m u s t f a il. Per ez a l s o chal l enges t he admi s s i bi l i t yof the Pr i ce a ffi davi tatthe r emoval hear i ng a s a m a tter o f

e v id e n tiary l a w . A lth o u g h th e F e d e ra l R u les o f E v id e n c e d o n o t ap p lyin re m o v a l p ro c e e d in g s, e v id e n c e c a n b e h e ld in a d m iss ib le if it i s n o t p ro b a tiv e a n d if its admi s s i on w oul d be funda m ent al l yunfai rt o t he al i en. See Ezeagw una v. A s hcr oft , 325 F. 3d 396, 405 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . H ow ever , w e ca nnotr eac h t he mer i t s of thi s cl ai m . T heW h ile o u r G a rc ia o p in io n m a yn o t h a v e b e e n a v a ilab le a t th e tim e P e re z f iled h is 5 ap p ell ate b ri ef

w ith the B IA , o u r op inion in B am idele v . IN S , 9 9 F . 3 d 5 5 7 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 6 ), w a s, a n d G a rc ia m e re lyre a f f irm e d B a m id e le’ s h o ld in g in lig h t o f IIR IR A ’s a m e n d m e n ts t o the i m m i gr at i on s t atut e. M or eover , Per ez’ s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons ar gum enti s not c o n stitu tio n a l in n a tu re , su c h th a t itw o u ld b e e x e m p t f ro m th e e x h a u stio n re q u ire m e n t. S e e M u d ri c , 4 6 9 F .3 d a t 9 8 . 6 j ur i s di ct i onal pr i nci pl e of i s s ue exhaus t i on pr ecl udes ourr evi ew of cl ai m s , l i ke thi s one, thatw er e nei t herpr es ent ed t o noradj udi cat ed bythe B I A . See H oxha v. H ol der , 559 F. 3d 157, 159 ( 3d C i r . 2009) ( an al i en must“r ai s e orexhaus thi s orherr emedi es as t o eac h cl ai m orgr ound forr el i ef [ befor e the B I A ] i f he ors he i s t o pr es erve the r i ghtof j udi ci al re v ie w o f

th a t c la im ” ). Fi nal l y , Per ez c l ai m s t hathe i s ent i t l ed t o r el i ef pur s uantt o 8 U . S. C . § 1256( a) ( fi ve- y earl i m i t at i ons per i od forgovernm entt o r es ci nd al i en’ s adj us t m entof s t atus bas ed o n ali en ’s frau d in ac q u ir ing that statu s), an d G arc ia v. A tt ’yG en . , 5 5 3 F . 3 d 7 2 4 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) (re a f

f irm in g p rio r p re c e d e n t th a t h e ld § 1 2 5 6 (a )’s lim itatio n s p e rio d c a n b a r b o th res ci ssi on of st atus and r emoval pr ocee di ngs notcomm ence d w i t hi n fi ve y ear s of the a lien ’s a d

ju stm e n t o f

sta tu s). L ik e h is e v id e n tiary cla im , w e a lso lac k ju risd ictio n to cons i derPer ez’ s s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons cl ai m beca us e i tw as notr ai s ed on appe al t o t he B I A . See H oxha, 559 F. 3d at159. 5 Ac c o r d i n g l y , we wi l l d e n yP e r e z ’ s p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.