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 6-28-2006 

# M ory -L am a s 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 . 05-3773

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 authori 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
" M ory-L am as v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 825. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/825T h e H o n o ra b le E u g e n e E . S iler, S e n io r C irc u it Ju d g e , U n ited S tate s C o u rt o f A p p e a ls * f o r t h e S ix th C ir c u it, s ittin g b yd e s ig n a tio n . NOT 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- 3773
M O I SES R . M O RY - LA M A S, Pet i t i oner

v. A TTO RN EY G EN ER A L O F TH E U N I TED STA TES, R es pondent
PETI TI O N FO R R EV I EW O F A D EC I SI O N O F THE B OA RD OF I M M I GR ATI ON APPEALS

A gencyN o. A 24- 552- 774 Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J une 27, 2006
B efore: B A R R Y , V A N A N T W E R P E N and S ILE R , C i rcui tJudg es * ( Fi l ed: J une 28, 2006 ) OP I NI ONP e tit io n e r m a rrie d a U n ited S tate s c iti z e n in 1 9 8 4 , so u g h t leg a liza tio n b e n e f its in 1 1986, and fi l ed w i th hi s w i fe a form I - 130 pet i t i on foradj us t m entof s t atus on A ugus t7, 1 9 8 7 . H e w as s ent ence d t o 364 day s i n pr i s on and thr ee y ear s pr obat i on. 2 2 B A R R Y , C i r cui tJ udge M oi s es M ory - L amas pe t i t i ons thi s C ourtforr evi ew of a Boar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) or derfi ndi ng hi m i nel i gi bl e forw i thhol di ng of r emoval beca us e of a p r i o rc o n v i c t i o n f

o ra n a r c o t i c s o f

f e n s e . We wi l l d i s mi s s th e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. I. Pet i t i oner , a nat i ve and c i t i zen of Peru, over s t ay ed a vi s i t orauthor i zat i on i n 1981 and w as , ther eaf

t er , gr ant ed vol unt arydepartur e unt i l N ovember7, 1983. H e r emai ned i n the U ni t ed St at es , how ever , and i n 1987 pl ed gui l tyi n s t at e courtt o pos s es s i on of 1
coca i ne. N everthel es s , on D ece m ber22, 1989, pet i t i onerr ece i ved a gr antof adva nce

2 par ol e t o r eturn t o Peru fora s hor tvi s i tt o hi s ai l i ng father . O n the t enth anni ver s aryof thatgr antof adva nce pa r ol e, pet i t i onerw as s erved w i th a not i ce t o appea ri n r emoval pr ocee di ngs . T he D ece m ber22, 1999 not i ce a l l eged thatpet i t i onerw as r emovabl e on a c c o u n t o f

, in tera lia , the comm i s s i on of a c ontr ol l ed s ubs t ance offe ns e. A n I m m i gr at i on J udge ( “I J ”) concl uded, i n a February9, 2000 or der , that p e tit io n e r w a s re m o v a b le b e c a u se h e h a d re e n ter e d th e “ c o u n tryw ith o u t p e rm iss io n to ent eraft erbei ng deport ed fr om the U ni t ed St at es , ” and, fur therm or e, w as an al i en convi ct ed of a contr ol l ed s ubs t ance vi ol at i on. ( SA 21- 22) T he r eentryw i thoutadmi s s i on3

f in d in g w a s b a se d o n th e IJ’ s c o n c lu sio n th a t p e tit io n e r se lf -d e p o rte d w h e n h e tra v e led to P e ru o n a d v a n c e p a ro le. T h e B IA u p h e ld th e d e ter m in a tio n th a t p e tit io n e r w a s re m o v a b le
on acc ountof the contr ol l ed s ubs t ance vi ol at i on, butdi s agr eed w i th the I J thatpet i t i oner had s el f- deport ed i n 1989. I tconcl uded thathe had “ acc rued a s uffi ci entper i od of cont i nuous phy s i cal pr es ence i n t he U ni t ed St at es forpurpos es of s ect i on 240A ( b) ( 1) of the A ct. ” (A 2 8 ) D esp it e a ff irm ing the c o n tr o ll ed su b stan ce b asis fo r rem o v al, the B IA
r emanded the ca s e t o perm i t“a mer i t s hear i ng on hi s el i gi bi l i tyforcanc el l at i on of
r emoval . ” ( A 28) O n r emand, the I J addr es s ed pet i t i oner ’ s el i gi bi l i tyforcanc el l at i on of r emoval pur s uantt o I N A § 240A ( b) ( 1) , w hi ch perm i t s the A t t orneyG ener al t o adj us tthe s t atus of an otherw i s e i nadmi s s i bl e ordeport abl e al i en i f thatal i en has , among ot herthi ngs , “not b e e n c o n v i c t e d o f

a n o f f e n s e u n d e r§ 2 1 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) . . . . ” 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 2 9 b ( b ) ( 1 ) ( C) . On Ju ly1 3 , 2 0 0 1 , the IJ is su e d a n o rd e r g ra n tin g p e tit io n e r c a n c e llatio n o f re m o v a l, de sp ite the c o n tr o ll ed su b stan ce o ff en se. O n ap p ea l, h o w ev er, th e B IA fo u n d that p eti ti o n er’s d ru g c o n v ictio n , w h ich “ c lea rlyf a lls u n d e r se c tio n 2 1 2 (a )(2 ) o f th e A c t,” re n d e re d h im i nel i gi bl e forcanc el l at i on of r emoval r egar dl es s of w hetherhe metthe other pr econdi t i ons , s uch as the t en- y earcont i nued pr es ence r equi r ement . T hatM ay28, 2003
o rd e r w a s tim e ly ch a lle n g e d in a p e titio n f o r r e v ie w f

ile d in th is C o u rt o n J u n e 2 4 , 2 0 0 3 . O n D ece m ber18, 2003, w e di s m i s s ed the pet i t i on forl ack of j ur i s di ct i on i n l i ghtof p e titio n e r’ s c o n v ic tio n f o r a c o n tr o lle d s u b s ta n c e o f f e n s e .I n the habe as pet i t i on, pet i t i oneral s o chal l enged hi s cont i nued cus t odyby 3 i mmi g r a t i o n o f

f i c i a l s . Th e Di s tr i c tCo u r td e t e r mi n e d i th a d j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e rth a tc l a i m, b u t d ism iss e d th e p e tit io n in lig h t o f p e tit io n e r’s c o n c e ss io n s th a t h e “ ‘h a s re f u se d to cooper at e w i th t he governm entw i th r es pectt o hi s tr avel document ’ and that‘ he i s w i l l i ng t o r emai n i ncar cer at ed r atherthan l eave the U ni t ed St at es . ’ ” ( A 6) Pet i t i onerar gues the m er i t s of thatdet erm i nat i on on appea l . H e neve rappea l ed thatdi s m i s s al , how ever , and w e th e re f

o re lac k ju risd ictio n to c o n sid e r it. 4 O n A u g u st 1 1 , 2 0 0 4 , m o re th a n a y e a r a f ter th e M a y2 0 0 3 f

in a l o rd e r o f

re m o v a l, pet i t i onerfi l ed a mot i on t o r eopen. H e s oughtadj us t m entof hi s s t atus and w ai verof in a d m is s ib ility o n th e b a s is o f a v is a p e titio n th a t w a s to b e f ile d o n h is b e h a lf

b yh is w if

e . O n Sept ember20, 2004, the B I A deni ed the mot i on as unt i m el yand obs erved that , i n any event , pet i t i onerhad fa i l ed t o m ake a pr i m a f aci e s how i ng thathe w as el i gi bl e for adj us t m entof s t atus . Shor t l yther eaf t er , on O ct ober7, 2004, pet i t i onerfi l ed i n the D i s tr i ctC our ta pet i t i on fora w r i tof habe as corpus pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2241. T he h a b e a s p e t i t i o n wa s p e n d i n g o n M a y1 1 , 2 0 0 5 , th e d a t e th e REAL I D Ac tb e c a me e f f e c tiv e , an d , co n se q u e n tly , w a s c o n v e rte d in to a p e tit io n f o r re v iew a n d tra n sf

e rre d to th is C o u rt. Her nandezv. G onz al es , 4 3 7 F . 3 d 3 4 1 , 3 4 4 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) (cit ing R E A L ID

3 A c t, P u b . L . N o . 1 0 9 -1 3 , d iv . B , tit. I , § 1 0 6 (c )) . II. I n the pet i t i on forr evi ew now befor e us , pet i t i onerchal l enges the or derof r emoval iss u e d b yth e B IA o n M a y2 8 , 2 0 0 3 . W e h a v e p a ss e d th is w a yb e f o re . P e tit io n e r tim e ly f ile d a p e titio n o f

re v ie w w ith in th ir ty d a y s o f th e M a y2 0 0 3 o rd e r, s ee 8 U. S . C. 1252( b) ( 1) , and w e hel d i n D ece m ber2003 that , beca us e of hi s contr ol l ed s ubs t anceA l though the R E A L I D A ctperm i t s us t o exer ci s e j ur i s di ct i on over“cons t i tut i onal 4 claim s o r qu esti o n s o f law raised u p o n a p eti ti o n fo r rev iew , ” 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 (a)(2)(D ), w e w ill n o t ad d re ss p e tit io n e r’s a d d iti o n a l, ap p a re n tlyn e w , arg u m e n ts th a t h is re m o v a l is barr ed bythe doctr i ne of l ache s and the ex pos tfac t o cl aus e of the U ni t ed St at es C o n stitu tio n , n e ith e r a rg u m e n t h a v in g a n yc o n sp icu o u s m e rit. 5 convi ct i on, w e coul d notexer ci s e j ur i s di ct i on overthe pet i t i on. T hatr es ol ved the q u e s tio n a n d , w e a d d , d id s o c o rr e c tly. See 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (a )( 2 )( C ); 8 U .S .C . § 11 82 (a) (2) (A )( i )( II ). N othi ng m at eri al has cha ng ed, and w e t herefore w i l l again di sm i ss th e p e tit io n in so f

a r a s it c h a llen g e s th e M a y2 8 , 2 0 0 3 o rd e r o f re m o v a l. 4 N orw i l l w e r evi ew the B I A ’ s deni al of the mot i on t o r eopen. A l though pet i t i oner p re ss e s a rg u m e n ts re latin g to th e d e n ial in h is re p lylette r to th e g o v e rn m e n t’s b rie f , h is openi ng br i ef i s dedi cat ed t o chal l engi ng the M ay28, 2003 or der . “A n i s s ue i s w ai ved
u n les s a p a rtyra ise s it in its o p e n in g b rie f , an d f o r th o se p u rp o se s ‘a p a ss in g re f e re n c e to an i s s ue . . . w i l l nots uffi ce t o br i ng thati s s ue bef or e thi s court . ’ ” Labore rs ’I nt ’ lU ni on v. Fos t erW

heelerC or

p. , 26 F. 3d 375, 398 ( 3d C i r . 1994) ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) . T hi s i s not
a n “ e x c e p tio n a l c a s e ” c a llin g o n u s to e x c u s e th e w a iv e r. B a g o t v. A sh c ro ft , 398 F. 3d 2 5 2 , 2 5 6 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). T h e d e n ial o f th e m o tio n to re o p e n , d e ter m in e d to b e u n tim e ly b yth e B IA , is re v ie w e d f o r a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . L u v . A sh c ro ft , 259 F. 3d 127, 131 ( 3d C ir. 2 0 0 1 ). W e c a n id e n tifyn o a p p a re n t ab u se . P e tit io n e r o f f e rs n o p e rsu a siv e b a sis to q u e stio n e ith e r th e B IA ’s tim e lin e ss d e ter m in a tio n o r its c o n c lu sio n th a t, at th e tim e o f h is
m ot i on t o r eopen, pet i t i onerhad notm ade a p rim a fa c ie s how i ng thathe w as el i gi bl e for adjustm ent of st atus.6 III . Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l di s m i s s the pet i t i on.