2007 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 2-16-2007 

# Qui sp e 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 . 05-4658

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_2007

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 2007 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
" Qui spe v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1605. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/1605NOT 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 . 05- 4658 J UA N Q UI SP E, P eti ti o n er

v. A TTO RN EY G EN ER A L O F TH E U N I TED STA TES,

R es pondent Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof the U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof J us t i ce B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls B I A N o. A 77 708 626 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)

on J anuary9, 2007 B efore: S L O V ITE R and R E N D E L L , C i rcui tJudg es,

and R U FE , * D i s t r i ctJ udge. ( Fi l ed February16, 2007)

__________________ * H o n o rab le C yn thia M . R u fe , Ju d g e o f th e U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rtfo r th e E astern D is tr ic t o f

P e n n s y lv a n ia , s ittin g b yd e s ig n a tio n .2 OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

R E N D E L L , C i r cui tJ udge. J uan Q ui s pe pet i t i ons forr evi ew of the Sept ember19, 2005, fi nal or derof r emoval byt he B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) . T he or deradopt ed and a ffi r m ed the d e n ia l b yth e im m ig ra tio n ju d g e (“ IJ ” ) o f Q u is p e ’s re q u e s t f

o r c a n c e lla tio n o f

re m o v a l. T he I J concl uded thatQ ui s pe fa i l ed t o s how thathi s chi l dr en ( w ho ar e ci t i zens of the U ni t ed St at es ) w oul d s uffe rexce pt i onal and unus ual har ds hi p i f Q ui s pe w er e r emoved fr om t he U ni t ed St at es . I n hi s pet i t i on forr evi ew , Q ui s pe ar gues thathe s houl d be deemed t o have methi s bur den of s how i ng unus ual and exc ept i onal har ds hi p i n l i ghtof U ni t ed St at es t r eatyobl i gat i ons and pr i nci pl es of cus t om aryi nt ernat i onal l aw . Forthe r e a s o n s s e tf

o r t h b e l o w, we wi l l d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. F ACT UAL AND P ROCE DURAL HI S TORY T h e f a c ts o f th is c a se a re n o t in d isp u te. Q u isp e e n ter e d th e U n ited S tate s illeg a lly i n 1989. H e i s t he fa t herof tw o chi l dr en w i t h L us m i l l a Q ui s pe w ho w er e born i n t he U ni t ed St at es i n 1994 and 1997. Q ui s pe and Lusmi l l a eve ntual l ys epar at ed and i n 1997 Q u i s p e m a r r i e d a n o t h e rw o m a n w h o m h e d i v o r c e d i n 2 0 0 2 . T h e c h i l d r e n h a v e a l w a ys l i ved w i t h L us m i l l a. I n 2003, t he D epart m entof H om el and Secur i t yi ni t i at ed r emoval p ro c e e d in g s a g a in s t Q u is p e .3

Q ui s pe appl i ed forr el i ef i n t he form of ca ncel l at i on of r emoval , w hi ch the A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l m a y g r a n tt o c e r t a i n p e r s o n s m e e t i n g th e c r i t e r i a l i s t e d b y 8 U . S. C . § 1229b( b) . Speci fi cal l y , the ca ncel l at i on i s avai l abl e i f the per s on “has been p h y sicall yp rese n t i n the U n it ed S tat es f o r a c o n ti n u o u s p eriod o f n o t l ess th an 1 0 y ea rs i m m edi at el ypr ece di ng t he dat e of s uch appl i cat i on, ” § 1229b( b) ( A ) ; “has been a per s on of good m or al char act erdur i ng s uch per i od, ” § 1229b( b) ( B ) ; has notbeen c onvi ct ed of cert ai n cr i m es ( none of w hi ch i s appl i cabl e her e) , § 1229b( b) ( C ) ; and “e s t abl i s hes that r emoval w oul d r es ul ti n exce pt i onal and extr emel yunus ual har ds hi p t o t he al i en' s s pous e, par ent , orchi l d, w ho i s a ci t i zen of t he U ni t ed St at es oran al i en l aw ful l yadmi t t ed for p erm an en t r esid en ce , ” § 1 2 2 9 b (b)(D ). T he I J found thateven a s s um i ng the cr i t er i a of phy s i cal pr es ence , good m or al c h a ra c ter , an d th e a b se n c e o f re lev a n t co n v ictio n s, Q u isp e h a d n o t es tab lish e d th a t h is r emoval w oul d r es ul ti n exce pt i onal and extr emel yunus ual har ds hi p t o hi s ci t i zen c h ild re n . Q u isp e tes tifie d th a t h e se e s h is c h ild re n e v e ryw e e k e n d ; th a t h e p ro v id e s f o r th e ir s chool s uppl i es and cl ot hes ; t hathe pr ovi des $500- $600 a mont h i n fi nanci al s uppor t ; and th a t h e p ro v id e s f

o r t h e irh e a lth in s u ra n c e th ro u g h p ri v a te in s u ra n c e h e h a s p u rc h a s e d . Q u is p e is n o t o n s p e a k in g te rm s w ith L u s m illa a n d s h e d id n o t a p p e a r a t th e h e a ri n g . Q ui s pe under s t ood L us m i l l a t o earn the mi ni m um w age. H e s t at ed thathe bel i eved that hi s chi l dr en w oul d be hur tps y chol ogi cal l yand ec onom i cal l yi f he w er e r emoved.4

T he I J not ed thatt he keyi s s ue w as w hetherther e w as anyt hi ng exce pt i onal or extr emel yunus ual aboutt he har ds hi p Q ui s pe’ s chi l dr en w oul d fac e. T he I J found that
w hi l e the har ds hi ps w er e s i gni fi cant , “thes e types of har ds hi ps ar e the exa cts ame ki nd of h a rd s h ip s th a t o c c u r i n e v e ry c a s e in w h ic h a p a re n t is f o rc e d to le a v e th e U n ite d S ta te s . T her e’ s not hi ng exce pt i onal orextr emel yunus ual aboutthem. ” A pp. 42. T he B I A aff

i r m ed the I J i n a thr ee- par agr aph or der . “W e adoptand af fi r m the decis i on of the Im m i grat i on Judg e i n regards t o the r espon den t ’s fai l ure t o est abli sh exce pt i onal and extr emel yunus ual har ds hi p t o hi s tw o U ni t ed St at es ci t i zen c hi l dr en. ” A pp. 36. DI S CU S S I ON Pur s uantt o 8 U . S. C . § 1252( a) ( 2) ( D ) , w e have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew cons t i tut i onal c laim s a n d q u e stio n s o f law in c h a llen g e s to o rd e rs o f re m o v a l. “N o th in g in s ubpar agr aph ( B ) or( C ) , ori n anyot herpr ovi s i on of thi s A ct( otherthan thi s s ect i on)
w hi ch l i m i t s orel i m i nat es j udi ci al r evi ew , s hal l be cons t rued as pr ecl udi ng r evi ew of cons t i tut i onal cl ai m s orques t i ons of l aw r ai s ed upon a pe t i t i on forr evi ew fi l ed w i t h an appr opr i at e courtof appe al s i n acc or dance w i t h t hi s s ect i on. ” I d. In h is p e tit io n f

o r re v iew , Q u isp e c h a llen g e s n o t th e d isc re tio n a ryd e ter m in a tio n to denycanc el l at i on of r emoval , butt he cons t ruct i on of § 1229b( b) ( D ) . Q ui s pe ar gues t hat i nt ernat i onal t r eatyobl i gat i ons and cus t om aryi nt ernat i onal l aw r equi r e thatthe w or ds “exc ept i onal and extr emel yunus ual har ds hi p” be gi ven “br oad s t atut orydefi ni t i on. ” Pet r . ’ s B r . 32. H i s br i ef s t at es t hi s ar gum enti n t he form of a que s t i on: “C oul dn’ ti tbe5

cons i der ed [a n] ‘ exce pt i onal and extr emel yunus ual ’ s i tuat i on w her e a f ather , w ho l oves a n d c a re s f

o r h is y o u n g c h ild re n a n d w h o is c a p a b le o f su p p o rtin g th e m , b o th e m o tio n a lly and ec onom i cal l y , [i s r equi r ed] t o be arbi t r ar i l ys epar at ed fr om them, pr obabl yfor ever ?” I d. T he ans w eri s t hatw hi l e C ongr es s coul d have c ons i der ed r emoval t o be a per se exce pt i onal and extr emel yunus ual har ds hi p forthe al i en’ s chi l dr en, i tdi d not . B ythe pl ai n t erm s of the s t atut e, C ongr es s r es erved the har ds hi p pr ovi s i on for“exc ept i onal and extr emel yunus ual ” ci r cumst ance s , notthe gene r al s cena r i o w her e r emoval w i l l aff ectt he al i en’ s s pous e, par ent , orchi l dr en. A ddi t i onal l y , Q ui s pe has notpoi nt ed t o anytr eatyor c u sto m a ryin ter n a tio n a l law th a t p ro v id e s th a t an a lien su c h a s Q u isp e m u st b e a llo w e d to r emai n i n t he countr yi n l i ghtof the pr es ence of hi s chi l dr en. N othi ng Q ui s pe has br ought befor e the C our ts ugges t s t hata s epar at e bodyof l aw appl i es t o t hi s s cena r i o and trum ps C o n g re s s ’s e n a c te d re m o v a l p ro c e d u re . I n l i g h to f

t h e f o r e g o i n g , we wi l l DE NY th e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.