## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

____________ N o. 06

- 3228 A RTHU R G. B AKA R I AN, P etitio ner, v. M ICHAEL B. M UKASE Y, A tto rneyGenera l ofthe U ni ted S tat es, R es pond ent
.

____________ O n Pet i t i on f or Re v i ew of a n O r der o f t h e B o ard o f I m m igrati o n A p p eals.

N o. A 43 003 461

____________ A RG UE D M AY 29, 2008

— D ECI DE D S EP TE MBE R 4, 2008

____________
Befo re F LA UM, M A NI ON, a nd E VANS, C ircu it Judges. M A NI ON, C ircu it Judge. Arth ur Baka ri an, a nati ve of the for m erS ovi et U ni on, was char ged w ith bei ng r em ovab l e as ha ving b ee n c o nv i ct ed o ft wo c r i m es i nv o l ving m or altur pitud e no t a ri si ng o ut o fa si ngl e s chem e o f cr i m i na l mis co nduc t unde r S ec ti o n 2 37 ( a) ( 2) ( A)( i i i ) o fthe I m m igr ati on a nd N ati onal i ty A ct ( “I N A ”)

. Bakar i an fi l ed f orcanc ellat i on o fr em ova l and w ai vero fi nadm i ssibi l i ty.2 N o. 06

- 3228 The I m m i gr ati on J ud ge ( “IJ ”) d eni ed Bakar i an’ s a pp l i cati on, and the Board o fI m m i gr ati on Ap peal s ( “BI A ”) affi r m ed. Bakar i anpe ti ti o ns thi s co ur t f o r r ev i ew, a nd w e D EN Yh i s p e t i t i o n f o r r e v i e w.

I. On June 9 , 2 00 5, the Depart m ent o fH om el and Secur i ty ( “DH S”) i ni ti a t e d r e mov a lp r o c e e ding s a gainst Baka ri an by fi l i nga Not i ce t o Appea r i n i m m i g r at i o n c o ur t, c ha r g i ng hi m with r em ovabi l i ty und er8 U

. S. C. § 1 227( a) ( 2) ( A ) ( i i ) , as ana l i enc o nv i ct ed oft wo o r mor e cr i m es i nv o l ving m oraltur pitud e no t a ri si ng o ut o fa si ngl e s chem e o f cri m i nal m i sco nd uct. The N oti ce a l l ege d that Bak ar i an w as a nat i ve and ci ti zen o fU kr ai ne wh o w as a d m itte d to th e U n ite d Sta te s o n or a b ou t M ay 25 , 199 3, as an im m igr ant. The N oti ce continued to l i st f our separ ate co nvi cti ons f orf or ger y, i nti m i dati on o fa victi m , and two thefts ofpro perty, not i ng tha t those “cr i m es did notar i se out of a s in gle sc h em e o f cr im in al m isc on d u c t.” Bakar i an appeare d bef or e the IJ o n Se ptem ber6, 20 05, and adm i tte d, w hi l e under oath , the al l ega ti ons setf or th i n the Not i ce . Ba k ar i ans ta te d tha t he fi r stc ame t o the U ni ted S tat es i n 198 9, then w ent b ack to M osc ow to s tudy, an d rec eiv e d h i s p er m an en t re sid en t v isa in 1 99 3. T h e IJ then went thr ough e ach o fthe f our convi cti ons l i ste d o n th e n o t i c e . T h e fi r s tw a s a f o r g e r y c o n v i c t i o n fr o m a W i sco nsi n sta te cour t on N ove m ber13 , 20 03, and Bakar i an ex pl aine d tha t th i s o ff en se i nv o l ve d a s to l enc he ck

. The secon d w as a N ovem b e r 1 3, 2003 , W iscons in state cou rt c o nv i c t i o n f o r the o ffe ns e o f“ I nt i mi da t e V i c t i m/ Di s s ua deN o. 06

- 3228 3 Re po r ting, ” whi chBa k ar i ans ta te d o cc ur r ed whi l e he was o uto n b o nd o n the f o r g ery c ha r g e. He v i o lated o ne ofthe condi ti ons ofh is b ond, wh i ch w as not to have c o nt a c t wi th the v i c t i ms. Th e thi r d c o nv i c t i o n w as a Sep tem ber 25, 1996 , con viction from th e m un ici p al court i n L o s A n g e l e s C o u n t y, Ca l i f o r n i a f o r th e fto n S e p t e mber18 , 19 96. The fina l convi cti on was al so a Los A ngel es County theft convi cti on f ora theft o n A ugust 3 , 19 96. Regar ding the fi rs t of these thefts, Bakar i an state d that h e h ad le ft h is fa th er ’s h ou se an d w as h u n gr y s o h e s to le som e m eat, and the seco nd theft he sto l e v od ka . In an att em pt to as cer tai n w hetherBakar i an wa s eli gibl e for c an c ella tio nof re m ov al a s a p er m an en t re sid en t, th e IJ questi oned Bakar i an abo ut wh en he enter ed the countr y. The IJ gave Bakari an an a pp l i cati on t o fi l e forcance l l ati on ofr em ova l and dir ecte d Bakari an to fi l l o ut the appli cati on and b ring i t back to the IJ on Se ptem ber 14, 2005

. The IJ al so reques te d fr o m DHS a c o py o fBa k ar i an ’ s i m m i g r an t vis as , evid en c e s h ow in g t h at B ak ar ian w as firsth er e in 1989 , and the gov er nm ent’ s posi ti on on w hetherBakar i an was e li gibl e f o r c an ce l l at i o n o fr emov al

. The IJ c o nti nued the hear i ng unti l S eptem ber14 , 20 05. On Septem ber14 , 20 05, Bakar i an ag ai n appeare d bef or e the IJ, and this tim e he subm i tte d an appli cati on f or can c e l l a t i o n o f r e mov a l

. Acc o r di ng t o hi s a pp l i c a t i o n f or cancel l ati on o fr em oval, Bakari an ente re d the Un i ted States on N ovem ber 15, 1987, as a B -2 vi sitor, and l eft tha ts a me y e a r t o r e t urn t o the S o v i e tUni o n. Ba kar i an al so stated onhi s appl i ca ti o n tha t he c ame b ac kt o the Uni te d S ta te s o n Aug us t 20, 198 9, a s a l awfulpe r m an en t r e s i d e n t
. Ho we v e r, d o c u me n ta r y e v i d e n c e fr o m D HS4 N o. 06

- 3228 estab li sh ed that he d id n ot c o m e back i nt o this cou nt ry un tilM ar ch5 , 1 99 0. I n r es po ns e to the IJ ’ s i nqui r y, the gov er nm ent s tat ed that i t had no re cor d ofBakar i an ob ta in in g re sid en c y in 19 89 . D e s p ite th e 1 99 0 d at e o n h is i m m i gr ant v i sa and no docum entat i on o fan e ntryi nto th e U n ite d S tat es i n 198 9, Bakar i an i nsi ste d to the IJ that hi s fi r stent r y i nt o the Uni te d S ta te s as a l awfulpe r m an en t r es i den t to o kpl ac e i n 1 98 9. A t so m e po i nta fte r a tt aini ng l aw ful perm anent re si dence st atus, Bakar i an te sti fi ed that he r etur ned to M osc ow, w here hi s pass port h ad bee n st o l en . Ba k ar i ant estifi ed th athe g o t hi s r epl ac ement gr ee n ca rd in 1 99 2 a n d ret u rn ed to th e U n ite d Sta te s in 1993

. Towards the end of the hear i ng, Bakar i an r equeste d that hi s ca se be t ra nsfer re d to L os A ngel es, Cal i f or ni a, w here he s tat ed hi s f ather w as i n the hospi tal, para l yze d a ft e r a h e a r ta t t a c k

. T he IJ r e s po nd e d: Si r, her e’ s the di ffi cul ty you f ace. I n or der t o be el i gib le f orcance l l ati on o fr em ova l, yo u have to have reside d i n th e U nited States for seven yea rs after a l awfula dm i ss i o n a nd pr i o r t o c o m m i tting a ny depo r tabl e o ffen se s. Now, i f you g o t y o urr es i den t sta tus in 198 9, yo u w oul d have to show that y ou have a cl ea n r ecord f orse ven y ear s a fterthatev en to appl y f o r c an ce l l at i o n o fr emov al

. The Go ve r nm en t attor ney i s co ntending that you didn’tge t y our re siden ts t a t us u nt i l 1 9 9 0 , a nd y o urc o nv i c t i o n r e c o r ds show that you w er e convi cted of theft i n A ugust of‘ 96 an d S ept embe r o f‘ 06 , a nd y o u w ou ld no t ha ve a cc um u lat ed th e sev en ye ar s ne c es sa ry to ap p ly for ca n c ell at i o n ofre m o va l

. So i t’ s v ery c r i ti ca l t o t r y t o c o m e up w i th som e e vi dence to sho w wh etheryo u re al l y g otN o. 06

- 3228 5 y o urv i sa i n 1 98 9 o r w as i t the ye ar[ 19 90 ] , b ec au se the Gov ernm en t r ec o r ds th atthe y ha ve s ubmi tt ed to the Court today show that you got your re si dence i n 199 0. The IJ had f ound that Baka ri an was deportabl e be cause o fhi s cr i m i na l r ec o r d, a nd t o l d Bak ar i antha t he “ th o ug ht y o u mi g ht be e l i g ibl e to a ppl y f o r c an ce l l at i o n o fy o ur r emov al, a nd tha t’ s why Ipr o vi ded y o u tha t appl i ca ti o n, but i fyo u don’t have seve n yea rs i n the U ni ted S tat es pri or to co m m iss ion of yo u r c rim i n al off en se , th en you w ou ld not be eli gible for can cellati on of rem oval, and the record shows that you do not have seve n yea rs.” The IJ as ked Bakar i an i fhe ha d an att or ney, and B aka ri an r esponded that he di d not a nd was not el i gib le forr epres entat i on f r o m l e g a l a i d. T he IJ the n s t a t e d, W hat I ’ m goi ng to d o i s find that you’ re n ot el i gibl e t o ap p ly for can cellati on of rem oval, becau se you can ’t m ee t t h e re q u ire m en ts fo r t h at be n efit . A n d w h at I’ll do i s I ’ l l j u s t d i c t a t e a d e c i s i o n . I ’ m g o i n g t o h a v e th e offi cerf ax you r appli cati on t o yourCourt

. A nd then you w i l l d ec id e whether ornotyo u w ant t o appeal m y deci si on or n ot. N ow, you getto desi gnate to w hi ch countr y you w oul d b e deporte d t o, but if that countr y won’tacc ept y ou, then al ternati vel y y ou w i l l be deporte d to the Ukraine. The IJ the n n o ti fi ed Bak ar i ano fv arious o pti o ns tha t he m i g h t p u r s u e t o s e e k a wa i v e r o f r e mo v a l

. T h e IJ se t th e ne xth e a r i ngf o r S ept e mbe r 2 7, 2 0 0 5 , o n Ba k a r i a n’ s a ppli cati on t o tr ansferhi s case to Los An gel es, hi s e l i gibi l i ty f o r wai ve r o fr emov alunde r S ec ti o n 2 12 ( c) o fthe I N A, a nd w h et h er h is e lig i b ility for c an c ella tio n of re m ov al “ is go in g t o b e h eld .”6 N o. 06

- 3228 O n Sep tem ber 27, 2005, th e IJ rec onv en ed Ba karian’s hear i ng. The IJ not ed that the g ove rnm ent had presente d tw o i m m i gr ant v i sas forBakar i an: o ne dated M ar ch 5, 1990 , and a s eco nd dated M ay 25, 19 93

. Bakar i an st ate d that he go t a st am p i n hi s p ass portfr om the U ni ted S tat es em bass y in M osc ow in A ugust 1989 and that pas spor t had been sto l en. In r es ponse t o the IJ ’ s quer y, Bakar i an st ate d that he di d not r em em berwh en he cam e into the Unite d S ta te s. Ba karia n di d a ckno wl edg e th atthe do cument sta ti ng tha t the fi rs t ti m e he enter ed the U ni ted S tat es in 19 90 w a s righ t, bu t s ta te d th at h e c am e a s a vis ito r in 1987st a y i ngf o r s i x o r s e v e n mon ths

. Ba k a r i a n t e s t i fi ed that he then w ent b ack to the S ovi et U ni on t o fi ni sh som e business ther e fortwo m onths and then r etur ned to the Unite d Sta tes as a vi si torf orano thersi x m onths. ( H e had notte stified t o these departur es at the pr i or hear i ng norl i ste d them o n h is ap pli cati on f orcance l l ati on o fr em ova l

. ) Bakar i an st ate d that he l eft the U ni ted States again in 1989 to g o b ack th e Soviet U nion f or a m o nth a nd whi l e he was the r e he g o t a pe r m an en t r es i den t vi sa after hi s f ather, w ho w as l i vi ng i n the U ni te d Sta tes, a p p l i e d f o r o n e f o r h i m. Ba kar i an st ate d that fro m 19 90, he s tay ed i n the U ni ted St at es u n til 19 92 , a t w h ich tim e h e re tu rn ed to R u ss ia f orhi s g ra nd m othe r’ s funeral

. Bakar i an then cam e ba ck to th e U n ite d Sta te s in M ay 19 93 . Th e IJ n ot ed th at on h is appli cati on Baka ri an did n ot l i st the v ar i ous depar ture s ab ou t w h ich h e t es tifie d atth e h ea rin gs . W h en th e IJ i nquir ed abo ut thei r abse nce fro m the f or m , B aka ri an s t a t e d t ha thi s En g l i s h wa s n o ts o g o o d, a nd the IJ r e s c he dule d the hea ring f ora ti m e when a Russi an i nter prete r co ul d b e pr es en t to a ss i stBa k ar i an .N o. 06

- 3228 7 Bakar i an ag ai n appeare d bef or e the IJ o n N ove m ber22 , 20 05 , an d th is t im e a n int er p re te r w as p re se n t
. T h e IJ re vi ew ed the docum entar y e vi dence w i th Bakar i an, wh i ch i ncl ud ed docum ents re l ati ng to hi s f our cri m i nal co nvi ctio n s, tw o im m igr an t v isa s, h is a p p lica tio n for rem ov al, an d an affi d avit fr om h is f ath er. ( B akarian ’s f ath er’s affi dav i t st at ed th atBa k ar i an“ i s i n f ac t a Pe r m an en t Resi dent of th e U ni ted S tat es ofA m er i ca s i nce 19 89. ”) There w as a vi sa i ssued o n J anu ar y 18 , 19 90, wh i ch w as sta m ped on M arch 3, 19 90, desi gnating tha t Baka ri an w as a p erm an e n t res iden t. T he IJ rej ecte d Ba karian’s conte nti on that a se parat e f axed f or m in dica ted that Bak ar i ane nt er ed the Uni te d S ta te s as a pe r m an en t re si dent i n 198 9, part i cul ar l y in l i ght o fthe Jan u ar y 18, 1990 appli cati on date of i m m i gr ant vi sa. Bakar i an st at ed th athe e nt er ed th i s co unt r y fi ve t o s i x tim es , i nc l udi ng i n 2 00 0 an d i n 2 00 2; 2 00 2 was t he l as t ti m e he e nt er ed th e Uni t e d S t a t e s b e f o r e r e movalp r o c e e di ng s c o mm e nc e d. B ak ar ian te st ified th at h e first c am e to th e U n ite d Sta te s in 19 87a nd hi s l at err etur ns wer e i n 1 98 9, 1 99 2 o r 1 99 3, a nd 1994. W hi l e he w as i n Russi a in 199 2 ( w hen Bakar i an conte nd s that hi s docum ents w er e s tol en) , hi s f ather fi l ed a docum ent o n A pri l 10 , 19 92, wh i ch l i ste d Bakar i an’ s a dd re ss as Od ess a, U kr ai ne. At the he ar i ng, the IJ c onc lud ed tha t th er e was no evi dence to s u b stanti ate Bakar i an’ s cl ai m thathe ha d enter ed the U ni ted S tates a s p er m anent r esi dent i n 198 9, b u t fo u n d t h a t B ak ar ian as su m ed th at st at u s in 1 9 9 0

. Mo r e o v e r, th e IJ n o t e d th a tB a k a r i a n h a d s o me sig n ifica n t a b se n c es from th e U n ite d Sta te s s in c e 1 99 0: a yea r f ro m 19 92 to 1993 , a m onth a nd a hal fi n 199 4, se ver al8 N o. 06

- 3228

m onths i n 200 0, and sev er alm onths in 200 2. The IJ not ed th at Bak ar i an ha d be en a per m an en t r es i den t f o r m ore than fi ve yea rs and continued , “You a l so have to est abl i shtha t y o u ha ve b ee n c o nt i nuou sl y phy si ca l l y pr es en t i n the U ni ted S tat es f orse ven y ear s a ftera l aw ful adm i ss i o n to th e Uni t e d S t a t e s . . . a nd tha tda t e tha ttha te nd s w oul d be the date that you com m i tte d an offense whi chwoul d s ubj ec t y o u t o b eingr emov ed f r o m the U ni ted S tat es. ” A fter r evi ew i ng hi s Los A ngel es convi cti ons, the l ate st bei ng Septem ber18, 1996, the IJ deter m i ned that w as the c u t-o ffdate ofhi s per m anent r esi dence peri od. Because he f ound that Baka ri an ’s sta tus a s a perm anent r esi dent did notco m m ence unti l M ar ch 199 0, the IJ co n c lu d ed thatBakar i an co uld not“e stabl i sh se ven yea rs ’ co nti nuous physi calpre sence, and ther ef or e, cannot est abl i sh that[ he was] sta tutorily el i gibl e for c an c ella tio nof re m ov al.” The IJ pro ceeded t o expla i n other f or m s o fr el i efthat m i ght b e a vai l abl e t o B ak ar i an afterhe ind i cate d that his father w as going to fi le a v is a p etition on h is behalf. The IJ sch ed ule d anotherhear i ng wh i ch w as hel d on D ecem ber1 4, 2 00 5. W he n Ba k ar i ana ppea r ed f o r the Decem ber14 hear i ng, hi s f atherhad not yetfi l ed a s ubsequent vi sa peti ti on, and the IJ cl ose d the hea ring. On Apr i l 1 0, 2 00 6, the IJ i ss ue d a w ritte n de ci si o n a nd o r der. I n his o r der, the IJ s ta te d, “ I n the i ns ta ntc as e, the re spondent w oul d sati sfy the co n tinuous r esi dence r equi r ement [ ] i f he es tabl i sh es th at he r es ided i n the U ni ted St ate s continuousl y f or 7 yea rs after havi ng bee n ad m itt ed in a n y s ta tu s.” T h e IJ n ot ed th ath e p re vio u slyN o. 06

- 3228 9 f ound that Baka ri an’ s th ree theft co nvi cti ons i n 199 6 const i tuted cri m es i nvol vi ng m or al turpi tude, ther eby ending Bakar i an’ s co nti nuous r esi dence on A ugust 8 , 19 96 , the da te o fthe s ec o nd the ft. The IJ c o nt i nue d, “ [ i ] fthe offen se w as com m itte d w ithin 7 years of respon d en t’s adm i ssi on t o the Unite d Sta tes , t h e re spondent cannot es ta b lish th e re q u ire d co n tin u ou s re sid en c e.” Inh is or d er , th e IJ r eje c te d B ak ar ian ’s p os itio n th at h is c o nt i nu o us r e s i de nc e b e g a n i n 1 9 8 7wh e n he fi rs tv i s i t e d, st at i ng“ [ a] cc o r di ngt o hi s te st i m o ny, r es po nde ntwent backand f or th to the U SS R seve ra l ti m es f orm onths at a tim e a n d d id n otco m e t o re sid e in th e U n ite d Sta te s u n til 19 90

. ” The IJ a l so r ej ec te d Ba k ar i an ’ s co nt en ti o n tha t he becam e a la w ful perm anent r esi dent i n 198 9 be cause the docu m en tar y e vi dence l i ste d the date as M ar ch 5, 19 90 , an d B a k a r i a n ’s fa th er ’s v isa ap p lica tio n for h im w as dated N ove m ber19 89. The IJ ul ti m ate l y found that Bakar i an’ s co nti nuous r esi dence di d no t begin unti l 19 93 beca u se Bakar i an r esi ded i n Russi a in 199 2 a nd 19 93. H o wev er, e ve n c r edi tingBa k ar i anwi thhi s co nt i nuo us re sidence c om m enci ng i n M ar ch 199 0, the IJ co ncl ud ed th atBa k ar i anf ai l ed to meetthe sev en - y ea r c o nt i nuo us re si dence r equi re m ent b ecause the p er i od ended on A ugust 8 , 19 96. The IJ al so concl ud ed that Bakar i an was n ot eli gibl e for a wa i v e r o fr e mo v a l p u r s u a n t t o S e c t i o n 2 1 2 ( c ) o fth e I NA because he ha d entered a gui l ty ple a a fterS ecti on 2 12( c) ha d been rep ealed

. T he IJ also ad d ress e d B akarian ’s appli cati on f or w ai ver of re m ova l pu rs uant to § 212 (h ) of the I N A as a son ofa U ni ted S tat es ci ti zen “ w ho ca n10 N o. 06

- 3228

e s t a b l i s h tha th i s r e mov a l wo ul d r esul ti n e xt r e me ha r dshi p to [ hi s f ather ] and that the r el i efi s warr anted as a m att ero fdisc re ti on. ” The IJ deni ed the w ai verbec ause B ak ar ian d id n oth av e t h e re q u isit e a p p ro ve d vis a p et iti o n, e v e n a ft e r th e IJ h a d g r a n t e d B a k a r i a n a c o nt i nuan ce a nd g av e hi m s pec i fi c inst r uct i o ns o n wha t he needed to do i n or der t o be e l i gible fo r a waiv erunder § 212(h ). Bakar i an ap p ea led to the BIA arguingthathi s 1 996 convi cti ons did n ot co nsti tute cri m es i nvol vi ng m or al t u r p i tu d e, an d th at h e h ad res id ed in t h e U n ite d Sta te s in excess o fse ven y ear s, ther eby quali fyi ng hi m f orcance l l ati on o fhi s 2 003 convi cti ons a s w ell as w ai vero fhi s 1 996 c on vic tio n s. T h e B IA reje c te d B ak ar ian ’s a rg u m en ts . I t f o und tha t hi s 19 96 c o nvi ct i o ns wer e cr i m es i nv o l ving m or al tu rp itude and agr eed with the IJ thatBakar i an had f ai l ed to es tabl i sh conti nual re si dence f orse ven y ear s. Bak ar i ana l so a ss er te d tha t th e IJ v i o l at ed h is r i g htt o due proce ss ofl aw . In re sponse, the BIA concl ud ed that B ak ar ian d id n otsh ow th at h is h ea rin g w as n otfairly c ond uc ted

. A ccord ingly, the B I A dism issed Ba karian’s a p p e a l, a n d B a k a r i a n n o w p e t i t i o n s th i s c o u r tf o r r e v i e w.

II. On app eal, Bakar i an co ntends thatthe IJ er re d i n apply

i ng the co nti nuous physi calpre sence sta nd ar d to h i s ca se an d f ai l i ngt o c o ns i d e rB a k ar i an ’ s en try a s a no n- i m m i g r an t i n 198 7 in cal cul ati ng his p er i od ofco nti nuous r esi dence. “W hen the BIA adopts and supp l em ents the IJ ’ s r eas oni ng, w e r e v iew th e IJ’s d ec isio n as su p p lem en te d by th e B IA .”N o. 06

- 3228 11 B inR a shed v. G o nz a les, 502 F. 3d 666, 6 70 (7 th Ci r. 20 07) (c ita tio n om itt ed ). W e w i ll affirm th e B IA ’s d ec isio n if it i s “ supp or ted by r eas onabl e, subst anti al, and prob ati ve evi dence on the r eco rd co nsi dered as a w hol e. ” Id. ( ci tat i on om itt ed ). W e m ay n otre v e r s e sim p ly b ec au se w e w ou ld h av e d ec id ed th e c as e d iffer en tly

. M a rgo s v. G o nz a les , 44 3 F

. 3 d 5 9 3 , 5 9 7( 7 th Cir

. 20 0 6 ) ( c i t a t i o ns o mi t t e d)

. I ns t e a d, w e w ill reverse only ifthe evid en ce com p els a contrary concl usi on. Yo uk ha na v. G o nz a les , 46 0 F

. 3d 927, 93 1 ( 7th C i r . 2 0 0 6 ) ( c i t a t i o n o mi t t e d )

. T h i s c o u r t“ ma y r e v i e w a disc re ti onar y deci si on

— such as the denialo fa re quest for an adj ustm ent o fst atus or a denia l o fa w ai vero fi nadm i ssibi l i ty

— onl y where the pet i ti on r ai ses ‘ const ituti onal cl ai m s orquesti ons ofl aw . ’ ” Kha n v . M uk a sey, 51 7 F

. 3d 513, 517 (7th Cir. 2008) (ci tation om itted ). Pursuant t o 8 U

. S. C. § 1 229b ( a) , i t i s withi n the A tto rney General ’ s di scr eti on t o:
c an c el re m ov al in th e ca se of an alie n w h o is a d m iss ible ordeport abl e fro m the U ni ted State s i fthe al i en

— ( 1) ha s be ena n a l i enl awful l y a dm i tt ed f o r pe r m an en t re sid en c e fo r n otles s t h an 5 y ea rs , (2) h as res id ed in th e Uni te d S ta te s co nt i nuo us l y f o r 7 y ea r s afte r ha ving been adm i tte d in a n y status, and ( 3) has not been convi cted o fany agg ra vate d fe l ony. The BI A has i nt er pr et ed “the pl ain mea ni ngof the s ta tu
tor y l anguage [ to m ean that] the re spondent’s per i od of re si dence afterhi s a dm iss ion a s a noni m m i gr ant .
. . m ay be c o ns i d er ed i n c al cul at i ngthe pe r i o d o fc o nt i nuo us re sid en c e for p u rp os es of [th is] s ec tio n ”. In re B la nc a s-La ra , 23 I

. & N

. De c. 45 8, 45 9 ( BI A 20 02 )

. A pe r i o d o fc o nt i nuo us12 N o. 06

- 3228

T he IJf ou nd tha t B ak ar ian ’ s Ca lif or nia an d W iscon sin 1 convi ct ions w ere cri m es ofm oral turpitud e, and B akarian does no tappe al that c onc l us i on. The re f or e, we ne ed n otc onsid er it. re si dence i s deem ed to end ei ther w hen the al i en r ecei ves noti ce t o appear o r com m i ts an o ffense that w ou l d m ake hi m i nadm i ssib l e o r re m ovabl e under cer tai n sec ti ons of the i m m i gr ati on co de. 8 U

. S. C. § 1 229b ( d)( 1)

. Offenses that re n d er an alien rem ov ab le in c lu d e c rim es of m or al t u rp itude. Id. & 8 U

. S. C. § 1182

. The A tto rneyGenera l al so has

1 disc re ti on t o cancelrem ova l fora non- perm anent r esi dent, but o nl y i f, am ong othe r thi ngs, that indiv i du alhas been “ph y si ca l l y pr es en t i n the Uni te d S ta te s f o r a c o ntinu ous p er iod .” 8 U .S.C . § 12 2 9 b ( b )(1) (A ); see also 8 U. S

. C. § 1 229b ( d)( 2) ( “A n al i en shal l be consi dered to have f ai l ed to m ai ntai n cont in u alphysi calpre sence i n the U ni ted St at es . . . i fthe al i en has departed fro m the U ni ted S tat es for an y p er iod in e x c es s o f 90 d ay s o r for an y p er iod s in the a ggr ega te exceedi ng 18 0 days .”)

. Because Bakar i an had perm anent r esi dence st atus as of19 90 , wh i ch w as m o r e th anfi ve y ea r s, i t was hi s bur dent o e st ab l i shtha t he had conti nuousl y r esi ded in th e Un i ted S tat es f orse ven ye ar s a fte r h is firs t a d m iss ion in o rd er to es ta b lish eligib ility for re lief fro m rem ov al. See 8 C.F. R

. § 1240.8(d). B ak ar ian n ot es , an d th e g ov er n m en t c on c ed es , th at th e IJ i n thi s ca se re peatedl y s tat ed duri ng the hear i ng tha t B ak ar ian h ad to e s t ab lish th at h e h ad be en “c on tin u ou sly physically pre se nt i n the U ni ted St ate s f or seve n yea rs after a l aw ful adm i ss i o n t o the Uni te d S ta te s. ” Tha t i s no t th eN o. 06

- 3228 13

For i ns t anc e, the IJ s t at ed thatBaka ri an “woul d s at i s fy the 2 cont i nuous r es i dencer equi re m en tunde r s ec t i on 24 0A( a) ( 2) ofthe A ct ifhe e stab lishes tha t he h as re si ded in the United Stat es c o n tin u o u sly f or 7 ye ar s aft er havi ng bee n adm i t t ed i n a ny st atus. ” (E m p h asi s add ed.) The IJconti nued by stat ing that B a k a r ian ’ s “ cont i nuous r es i denceen d ed o n A u g u st 8 , 19 9 6 .” ( Em phas i s added. ) The I J not ed that “a gr ea t dea l of te s t i m ony w as tak en t o d eterm ine ex actly w he n re sp on d en t’ s co nt i nuous res i denceb eg a n .” (E m p h a sis ad d ed .) c or re c t le ga l st an d ar d . H ow ev er , in iss u in g h is fin al, wri tt eno r der, the IJ di d no t o nc e m en ti o n c o nt i nuo us physi calpre sence. Rather, thr oughout hi s o rder, theIJ ci ted and app l i ed the properst andard: co nti nuous r esi dence. 2 Ind et er m in in g t h e p er iod of co n tin u ou s re sid en c e, th e IJ al so consi dered Bakar i an’ s a dm i ssi on i nto th e Un i ted S ta te s i n 1 98 7 as a v i si to r, b utf o und tha t Bak ar i anwent backand f or th to the So vi et U ni on s eve ra l t im es f or extended peri ods o fti m e be tw een 1 987 and M ar ch 5, 19 90, w hen he e nter ed the U ni ted S tat es as a perm anent r esi dent. Bak ar i an ’ s o wn va r i ed, an d o fte n co nfus i ng , te st i m o ny supp or ts the fi nd i ng tha t he w ent back and fo rth bet w een the Unite d Sta tes and the So vi et U ni on f orexte nd ed p er iod s a fte r h i s i n itia l ad m itt an c e t o t h e U n ite d Sta te s in 1987, ther eby supp or ti ng a concl usi on that at the ear l i est, Bakar i an di d not be gi n a per i od ofco nt i nuous r esi dence unti l 19 90. Bakar i an pre sent ed no evi dence showingthat, i n l i g hto fhi s numer o us t r i ps bac k and f o r tht o the S o vi et Uni o n, he ha d e st ab l i sh ed a r es i den ce he r e i n the U n ite d Sta te s u p on h is a rriv al a s a vis ito r. T h e IJ ult im at ely concl ud ed that B aka ri an di d not co m m ence hi s per i od of14 N o. 06

- 3228

c o n t i n u o u s r e s i d e n c e u n t i l 1 9 9 3 , b u t n o t e d th a t e v e n i fhe wer e to cr edi t Bak ar i an wi th st ar ting th e per i o d o fc o nt i nuous r esi dence o n M ar ch 5, 19 90, wh en he fi rs t be cam e a perm anent r esi dent, Bakar i an “sti l l fai l ed to m eetthe seve n yea r continuous r esi dence r equi re m ent. ” Ther efore, consi deri ng the r eco rd as a w hol e, the IJ appli ed the proper l ega l st andard and consi dered Bakar i an’ s 1 987 entr ance a s a vi si to r whenc al cul at i ngBa k ar i an ’ s per i o d ofc o nt i nuo us re si dence. Bak ar i ana l so a r g ue s th atthe IJ e r r ed i n a ppl y in gthe st o p- ti m e r ul e, i. e. , s to ppi ngthe t i m e f o r c o nt i nuo us re si dence atth e ti m e that he com m i tte d his theft o ffenses in 1996 , to his case . W he n the I ll egal I m m igra t io n Reform and I m m i gr ant Res p onsibi l i ty A ct o f19 96 ( “I I RI RA ”) be ca m e effec ti ve o n Apr il1 , 1 99 7, a l awfulpe r m an en t r e s i d e n t ’ s p e r i o d o fc o n t i n u o u s r e s i d e n c e e n d e d a t th e t i me the a l i e n c o mm i t t e d c e r t a i n c r i mes f o r whi c h he was convi cted o r re cei ved a N oti ce to A pp ealf orr em ova l p ro c ee d in gs , w h ich ev er w as first

. See 8 U

. S. C

. § 1 2 2 9 b (a). Ba k a r i a n a s s e r t s tha tthe IJ i mpe r mi s s ib l y a pp l i e d the s t o pti m e r ul e, b ec au se he c o nt en ds th atthe a ppl i ca ti o n o fthe st at u to ry ch an ge to h im w ou ld h a v e a n im p er m iss ible re tr oac ti ve effect. I n re sponse, the go ver nm ent a sse rt s that th i s co ur t do es no t ha ve j ur i sd ictio n o ve r thi s ar g um en t because Bakar i an f ai l ed to exhaust hi s a dm i n istr ati ve r e me d i e s b y n o tr a i s i n gth i s b e f o r e th e B I A. I n or der forthi s co urt to have j uri sdic ti on ove r an i ssue, the pet i ti onerm ust fi rs t e xhaust hi s a dm i ni str ati ve re m edie s by ra i si ng i t bef or e the B IA

. See 8 U

. S. C

. § 1252(d )( 1). H owever, ther e i s a n excepti on t o the e xhausti on r equi re -N o. 06

- 3228 15

m ent in i nstance s where “appeal i ng thr ough the adm i ni str ati ve proce ss w oul d b e futi l e because the age ncy i s bi ase d orhas predete rm in ed the i ssue. ” Di d i e rv . INS , 30 1 F

. 3d 492, 498 (7th C ir. 2002). Bak ar i a n a c k n o wl e d g e s th a th e d i d n o tr a i s e th i s i s s ue b efo re th e B IA , bu t c on te n d s t h at to h av e d on e s o w ou ld have been futi l e be cause the BIA h ad al re ady deter m i ned that the sto p-ti m e rul e app l i ed re tr oac ti vel y, ci ti ng M a tter o f P erez , 2 2 I

. & N. De c . 6 8 9 , 69 1 (BI A 19 9 9 ) a nd M at t e rof R o bles-U rrea , 2 4 I

. & N. Dec

. 2 2 ( BI A 20 06 )

. I n P erez , th e B IA concl ud ed that the s top- ti m e r ule appli ed r etr oac ti vel y. H o wev er, a fte r the BI A issued i ts o pi ni o n in P erez , the S up r e me Co ur tde c i de d IN S v. St

. Cyr, 5 33 U

. S. 289 (2001), w hi ch hel d that the re peal of cer tai n disc re ti onar y r el i ef f ro m d ep or tat i on f oral i ens c onvi cted o fag gr avat ed fel oni es did notapp l y r etr oac ti vel y, ther eby prese nti ng a basi s o n w hi ch to chal l enge P erez . I n M at t e rof Rob l e s - U r r e a, the BI A address ed such a chal l enge to the s top- ti m e r ule , but co ncl ud ed that i t cou ld b e appli ed to cr i m es that p r e d a t e d th e I I R I R A. Whi l e th e B I A d i d d e t e r mi ne t he iss ue o fr et r o ac ti vi tyo fthe s to p- ti m e r ul e i n Robl e s - U rrea , Bakar i an’ s ci tat i ons do not supp or t hi s posi ti on offuti l i ty. Perez w as deci ded befor e St

. Cyr, a nd R o bles-U rrea was not i s s u e d b y t h e BI A u n t i l S e p t e mb e r 2 7, 2 0 0 6 , wh i c h wa s t wo m onths afterthe BI A i ssued i ts opi ni on i n Bakar i an’ s ca se on J uly21 , 20 06. The BI A had not deci de d t hi s i ssue pri or to Bakar i an’ s a pp ealto the BIA; thus i t w ou ld n ot have been futi l e forB ak ar ian to r ai se i t be f or e the BI A

. There

f or e, Bakar i an i s no t e xcused f ro m the exhausti on r equi re me n t, a n d b e c a u s e h e f a i l e d t o e x h a u s tth i s i s s u e , we d o n o th a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e v i e w th i s c l a i m.16 N o. 06

- 3228 Bakar i an al so ass er ts that eve n i f19 96 i s e stabl i shed as the end peri od forh i s co nti nuous r esi dence, he c an es tabl i sh a seco n d p er iod ofco nti nuous r esi dence afterthat d at e . W e n ee d n otd ec id e w h et h er th e s to p -tim e ru le al l ows f orthe accr ual of a new peri od ofr esi dence bec ause eve n i fthe cl ockw as re setin 1 996, Bakar i an cannotes tablish a se c on d p er iod of se ve n ye a r s o f co n tin u ou s re sidenc e . Ba k a r i a n t e s t i fi e d tha th e r e - e nt e r e d the Uni ted St at es in 2 000 afterco m m i tting the 19 96 cri m es. Because Bakar i an was a per m anent l aw ful re si dent w ho co m m i tte d a n o ffe ns e l i s t e d in 8 U. S

. C. § 1 1 8 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) a nd h a d n o tb een gr anted a w ai vero fi nadm i ssibi l i ty orca ncel l ati on o f re m ova l, h i s adm i ssi on in 2000 w oul d be the st ar t date f or a n ew p e r i o d of co n tin u ou s re sid en c e. See 8 U. S

. C. §§ 1 10 1( a) ( 13 ) ( A), ( C) , & ( C) ( v) an d 1 22 9b ( a) ( 2) ( pr o vi di ng th atpe r i o ds o fc o nt i nuo us r es i den ce b eg i n a fte r “ ha ving b ee n ad m itt ed in a n y s ta tu s.” )

. T h i s n ew p er iod of re sidence w oul d end ei thero n S eptem ber5, 20 03, wh en Bakar i an co m m i tte d f or ger y and h i s fo urth cri m e o fm or al tu r pi tud e o r on J une 9 , 2 00 4, whenhe was s er ve d wi tha No t i c e t o Ap p e a r b e f o r e th e IJ

. T h e r e f o r e , e v e n i fwe wer e to de ci de whethe r Ba k ar i ani s en ti tl ed to a se co nd peri od ofco nti nuous r esi dence, Bakar i an co uld notes tabl i sh the r equi si te seve n yea rs o fco nti nuous r esidence to b e e ligib le for ca n c ella tio n of re m ov al. Bakar i an ar gues that he i s e nti tl ed to waive r ofi nadm i ssibi l i tyunde r the f o r m er§ 212(c) o fthe I m m i g r at i o n a nd N ati onalit y A ct b ecause he pl eaded gui l ty to the 1 996 cri m es pri orto the effecti ve date o fthe I N A ’ s a m endm ent. Speci fi cal l y, Bakar i an co ntends thata § 212( c) waive r w oul d null i fy hi s 1 996 convi cti ons, l eaving him withN o. 06

- 3228 17 onl y o ne cr i m e o fm or altur pitud e for pu rpos es of r e mo v a b i l i t y i n 2 0 0 3

. F o r me r S e c t i o n 2 1 2 ( c ) o ft h e I NA aff or ded the A tt orney Generalwith di scr eti on t o w ai ve ce r ta i n g r o unds o fi na dm i ss ibi li tyf o r l awfulpe r m an en t re sid en ts , w h o t em p or ar ily p ro c ee d ab ro ad vo lu n ta rily and not under a depor tation o rder, and w ho a re r etu rni ng to a l aw ful, unrel i nquished dom i ci l e o fse ven conse cuti ve yea rs . Bakar i an is co rr ect i n ass er ti ng tha t a al i enwho pl ea ded g ui l typr i o r to the a m en dm en t o fthe I N A i s en ti tl ed to se ek wai ve r o fi na dm i ss ibi l i typur su an t to th e fo rm er § 21 2(c ) of th e I N A , an d , th er efo re , he co u ld h av e sou gh t a § 21 2(c ) w aiv er for h is 1 99 6 c on vic tio n s. INS v. St

. Cyr, 5 33 U. S

. 2 89 , 3 26 ( 20 01 )

. Howev er, Ba k ar i an ’s 2003 gui l ty ple a fel l o utsi de ofthe ti m e fra m e in w hi ch h e c ou ld se ek a w aiv er of in ad m i s sib ility affo rd ed in § 2 12 (c ) of th e IN A , an d th is c on vic tio n co u ld be u se d in conj uncti on with one ofhi s 1 996 convi cti ons as a basi s f or re m ov ab ility u n d er 8 U .S.C . § 12 27

. Se eM at t e rof Bal de r as , 20 I

. & N

. Dec. 38 9, 39 1- 93 ( BIA 1 99 1) ( hol ding that a co nv i ct i o n whi chha s pr ev i o us l y b ee n r el i ed u p o n in a charg e of deportabi l i ty, but ter m i nated by a g ra nt o fr el i ef und er§ 212( c) , i s no t e xpu nged orpardon ed and m ay be l ate r alle ge d as o ne o fthe tw o cri m es i nvol ving m or al tu rp itu d e in a se c on d p ro c ee d i n g). Fu rt h er m or e, th e IJ pr o perl y c o nc l ude d, Ba k ar i an“ co ul d no t ha ve ha d a ny re l i ance o n 212 ( c) el i gibi l i ty i n 200 3 [ w hen he pl eaded gui l ty to f or ger y] as thatse cti on had al re ady be en r epeal ed. ” Ther ef or e, the IJ di d not e rri n denyi ng Bakar i an r e l i e fu n d e r th e f o r me r § 2 1 2 ( c ) o fth e I NA. Fi nal l y, Bakar i an al so c on te n ds that hi s due pro cess r i g ht s wer e vi o l at ed. S pec i fi ca l l y, Bak ar i an as se r ts tha t he18 N o. 06

- 3228

w as not al l owed an a deq u ate opportunity t o apply f or adj ustm en t of s tatus and w ai verand precl ud ed fro m havi ng a re aso nabl e o pp or tuni ty f or hi s f ather to tes ti fy a t hi s hear i ng. A n al i en m ust have a l iberty or proper ty i nt er es t i n the pr o ce edingt o r ai se a due pr o ce ss c l ai m , a nd “a pet iti oner ha s no l ibe r tyo rpr o per tyi nt er es t i n o bt aini ng purel y di scr eti ona ryr el i ef

. ” Ha m da n v . Go nz a les , 42 5 F. 3d 1051 , 10 61 ( 7th C i r. 2005) ( quoti ng D ave v. Ashcroft, 36 3 F. 3d 649, 65 3 ( 7th Ci r. 20 04) )

. The r eli efBakar i an so ught, cancel l ati on o fr em ova l o r a waiv ero finadm i ssabi l i ty, was di sc r et i o na r y . The r efo r e, Ba k ar i andi d no t have a due proce ss i nter esti n hi s pro ceedi ngs a nd cannotr ai se a d u e p r o c e s s c l a i m. Even i f Bakar i an had a due proc ess i nter est, due proc ess re quir es that an ali en h ave a m eani ngful opportunity t o p resen t evide nc e at his hea ring before t he IJ. H ow ever, “[ w]e ha ve c au ti o ne d a g ains t l ea di ngwi tha n o p en en ded due pr o ce ss a r g um en t a nd a dvi se d tha t al i en s shoul d sti ck w i th cla i m s based on the s tatutes and regula

ti ons u n les s they b el i eve thato ne o fthes e r ule s v i ol ate d the Const i tuti on o r that l acunae in the rul es have been fi l l ed w i th defecti ve proce du re s. ” Pron s i vaku l ch aiv. Gonzal es , 46 1 F

. 3d 90 3, 9 07( 7th Ci r . 2 00 6) ( i nt erna l c i ta ti o n a nd quotati ons om i tte d). “Ali ens hav e a st atuto ryan d regula

to ry righ t t o a rea so n ab le op p or tu n ity to p re se n t e vidence.” Id. ( citation om itted ). I n thi s ca se, the IJ gr anted Bakar i an a continuance speci fi cal l y t o provi de Bakar i an with the o p p or tu ni ty to apply f ora w ai verand adj ustm ent of s tatus. Bakar i an onl y prese nted a one- page am endm ent to hi s app l i cati onN o. 06

- 3228 19 f orcance l l ati on o fr em ova l, but did n ot fi l e the appropr i ate ap p lica tio n . B y g ra n tin g B ak ar ian a c on tin u an c e, t h e IJ p rovide d Ba karian m ore tha n th e requ ir ed statu tory prot ecti ons and did not vi ol ate the du e pr oce ss cl ause. Bakar i an al so conte nd s that he w as depri ved ofhi s abi l i ty to prese nt hi s o nl y witness, hi s f atherwh o w as paral yze d i n Cal i f or ni a an d u nabl e t o tr avel, bythe IJ ’ s r efusalto tr an sferthe he ar i ngt o Lo s Ange l es . Ba k ar i an, tho ug h, does not ass er t what evi dence, if any, thathi s f ather w ou ld h av e p ro vid ed be yo n d w h at w as p re s e n te d in h is f ather ’ s a ffi davi t, w h i ch the IJ acc epted as evi dence. W i th o utpr ej ud i ce , the r e i s no due pr o ce ss v i o l at i o n. Firm a nsja h v . Go nz a les , 424 F.3d 598 , 604 (7th C ir. 2005). A ccor dingl y, the IJ d i d not v i ol ate Bakar i an’ s due pro cess ri ghts.

III

. The IJ appli ed the properstan d ar d and consi dered Bak ar ian’s a dm i tt an ce i n 1 98 7 as a v i si to r i n de ny i ng Bak ar i an ’ s appl i ca ti o n f o r c an ce l l at i o n o fr emov al, a nd w e d o not have j uri sdic ti on o verBakar i an’ s cl ai m that ap p li cation of th e stop -ti m e rule to his case h as an i m p erm i ssibl e r etr oac ti ve effect. Bakar ian a lso i s no t e nti tl ed to re l i efunder § 212( c) o fthe IN A

. Final l y, the IJ di d not vi ol ate Bakar i an’ s due pro c es s ri ghts. W e D EN Ythe p e t i t i o n f o r r e v i e w.

9- 4- 08