## 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. 09
- 2607 M ICHAEL F R ED ERI CK, P etitio ner, v. E R I C H. H OLDER, J R . , A tto rneyGenera l ofthe U ni ted S tat es, R es pond ent .

Peti tionfor Revi ewof anOr de rof the B o ard of Immigration App eals
. No . A 012-464- 579
A RGUED F EB RU ARY 23, 2010

— D ECI DE D M AY 3, 2011

Befo re B AUER, P OSNER, an d S YKES, C ircu it Judges . S YKES, Cir cuit Judge . M ich ae l Fre d er ick w as bo rn in Germ any in 195 7 a nd cam e t o the United S tat es at age f our w i th hi s m othe r and si ste r. They were adm i tte d as l aw ful perm anent r esi dents, a n d Freder i ck has re m ain ed i n t h e U n ite d Sta te s s in c e h is a d m iss ion in 1961
. In 199 0 he ple aded gui l ty i n I l l i noi s stat e co urt to two c o unt s o fa g g r av at ed se xua labus e of a m in o r . The2 N o. 09
- 2607
c h ar ge s in vo lve d tw o v ict im s a n d w er e is su ed in sep arate cases, an d Fred erick w as sen ten ced to conc urre nt f our- yea r pri son ter m s in each case . H e s er ved these se ntences and w as disc harged fro m paro l e in 199 3. Fora l ong tim e h e suffer ed no i m m i gr ati on co nsequences a s a r esul t o fhi s co nvi cti ons. F o ur te eny ea r s l at er, the De par tmento fHomel an d Se curi ty i ssued a N oti ce t o A pp earch ar gi ng tha t Fr ederi ck w as re m ovabl e fro m the U ni ted S tat es as an al i en co nvi c te d ofan a ggr avat ed fel ony re l ating to s e x u al a b u se of a m in or . See 8 U. S
. C. § 1 10 1( a) ( 43 )( A ). Fr ederi ck appli ed fo r a s tatutory wai vero fr em ova l und er§ 212( c) o fthe I m m i gr ati on an d N ati onal i ty A ct ( “I N A ”) , 8 U
. S. C. § 1 182( c)
. A n i m m i gr ati on j ud ge f o u n d h i m in e l i g ib l e f o r§ 2 1 2 ( c ) r e l i e fb e c a u s e th e c r i me th at m ad e him r e m o v ab le

— ana g g r av at ed fel o ny i nvol vi ng se xual abuse ofa m i nor
— ha s no sta t u tory counter part orco m parabl e g ro und f ori nadm i ssibi l i ty un d er § 212( a) o fthe I N A
. The Boar d ofI m m i gr ati on A p p ea ls d ism iss ed Fre d er ick ’s a p p ea l, an d h e p et it i o n e d th i s c o u r tf o rr e v i e w. W e deny the pet i ti on. W e h av e p re vi ousl y hel d that a n a g g r a v a t e d fe l o nyi nv o l v i ngs e xu a lab us e o fa mi no rh as no s tatutor y c ounte rp art t o a g ro und o fi nadm i ssibi l i ty u n d er § 21 2(a ) of th e IN A
. Se eZam ora-M al l ar iv. M uk a sey, 5 1 4 F
. 3 d 6 7 9 , 6 9 2
- 9 3 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 8 )
. The B I A p r o perly con clud ed that un d er Z a m o r a -M a lla ri, Fre d er ick is in eli gibl e for§ 212( c) r el i ef
. Th e “ s t a tut o r y c o un t e r pa rt ” r ul e f o r§ 2 12 ( c) e l i g ibi l i tyi s codi fi ed i n 8 C. F
. R. § 1 21 2.3 (f)(5 ) an d w ell-e st ab lish ed in B IA a n d circ u itN o. 09
- 2607 3 p reced en t. T ha t Fred erick w as con vict e d of t wo cri m es of sexualabuse o fa m i nordoes notchange the appli c ati on ofthe rul e.
I . B a c kg r o und I n 1 96 1 f o ur - y ea r - o l d M i ch ae lF r ede r i ck, a na ti ve a nd ci ti zen ofG er m any, im m i gr ate d to the U ni ted Stat es w i th hi s m o th er a nd si st era nd b ec ame a l awfulpe r m an en t re si dent. In 198 9 he w as charg ed i n Chri st ian County, I l l i noi s, with tw o counts ofag gr avat ed cr i m i nalse xual ab us e o fa mi no r . On e o fthe t wo v i c t i ms wa s h i s s t e pdaughter. In 199 0 F re deri ck ple aded gui l ty to both co unts an d was s en te nc ed to t wo four - y ea rt er m s o fi m pr i so nm ent; the sente nces w er e o rder ed to r un concurr entl y. H e s er ve d a bout a y eari n pri son, was paro l ed, and success fully c om ple ted paro l e s up er vi si on in A ugust 1 993. On O cto ber15 , 20 07, DH S fi l ed a Noti ce t o A pp ear c h a r g i n gF r e d e r i c kwi th r e mo v ab i l i ty p u r s u a n tt o I NA § 2 37( a) ( 2)(A ) ( i i i ) , 8 U
. S. C. § 1 227( a) ( 2) ( A ) ( i i i ) , as an a l i en c onvict ed ofan a ggr avat ed fel ony re l ating to the sexual ab u s e o fa m in or . See I NA § 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 3 ) ( A) , 8 U. S
. C. § 11 01 ( a) ( 43 ) ( A) ( defi ni ng“ ag g r av at ed fel o ny ” to i ncl ud e sex ualabuse o fa m i nor )
. Fr ederi ck conte ste d re m ovabi l i ty b y d en yi ng tha t he had been co nvi cted o f sexualabuse o fa m i nor ; he a l so fi l ed a n appli cati on f o rr e l i e fu n d e rf o r me r§ 2 1 2 ( c ) o fth e I NA

— a provi si on that perm i tte d th e A tto rneyGenera l, i n hi s di scr eti on, to “w ai ve” i nadm i ssibi l i ty. A n i m m i gr ati on j ud ge f ound Fred eri ck re m ovabl e a s ch ar g e d , d e n i e d h i s a p p l i c a t i o n f o r§ 2 1 2 ( c ) r e l i e f, a nd4 N o. 09
- 2607
or d er ed h im rem ov ed to G e rm an y. T h e jud ge firsth eld that DH S had estab l i shed Fr ederi ck’ s r em ovabi l i ty unde r8 U. S
. C. § 1 22 7( a) ( 2) ( A)( i i i ) byc l ea ra nd c o nv i nc i ng evi dence

— sp ec ifica lly, th e t w o c h ar gin g d oc u m e n ts in th e cr i m i na l ca se s ag ains t hi m , hi s j ur y wai ve r, and the sta te- cour t r ec or d s o fco nvi cti on fortwo co unts o fag g r av at ed cr i m i na l se xua labus e. The n, r ely i ngo n the BI A’s de ci si o n in M at t e rof Bla ke, 2 3 I
. & N. De c . 7 2 2 ( B
. I
. A. 20 05 ) , a nd thi s co urt’s dec i si o n in V a lere v. G o nz a les , 473 F. 3d 757 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07) , the j ud ge f ound Fre deri ck ineli gible for § 212(c) rel iefbecau se sex ua l abu se of a m i norhas no co m parabl e g ro und o fi na d m issibi l i ty u n d e r§ 2 1 2 ( a ) o fth e I NA. Fr ederi ck appeal ed the i m m i gr ati on j ud ge’ s deci si on to the BI A
. The BI A di sm i sse d the appeal, ag re ei ng tha t Fr ederi ck w as inel i gibl e fora § 2 12( c) waive r i n l i ght o f Bl a ke an d Z a m o ra-M a lla ri v. M uk a sey, 51 4 F
. 3d 679, bo th o fwhi chhe l d tha t ana g g r av ate d fel o ny i nv o l ving se x u al a b u se of a m in or h as n o s ta tu to ry c o u n te rp ar t in a g r o u n d o f i n a d mi s s ib i l i ty u n d e r § 2 1 2 ( a ) o f th e I NA. Th e BI A a l so ci te d Z a m o ra-M a lla rif orthe propos i ti on that the r egul ation co difyi ng the “s tatutor y c ounter part” tes t di d n ot es tabl i sh a new r ule and ther ef or e was not i m per m i ss ibl y r et r o ac ti ve . The BI A not ed as wel ltha t th e i m m i gr at i on j ud ge had proper l y “ rej ecte d a num bero f o th era r g um en ts pr es en te d [ byF r ede r i ck ] , i nc l udi ng th o s e rela tin g t o e q u al p ro te c tio n an d d u e p ro c es s.” Fin ally , th e B IA h eld th atth e s ta tu to ry -c ou n te rp a r t ru le ar ti cul at ed i n Blakedi d not v i ol ate I
. N
. S. v. St
. Cyr, 53 3 U
. S. 28 9 ( 2001 )
. Fr ederi ck peti ti oned thi s co urt f or re vie w ch alle n gin g th e B IA ’s d et er m in at ion th ath e is ineli gible for § 212(c) rel ief
.N o. 09
- 2607 5

Bef or e 19 96 the I N A co nta ined a s epa ra t e pro vi s i on f or 1 w a iv er o f d ep o rt a tio n (no w r e m o v a l ) , see I NA § 2 4 4 , 8 U. S
. C. § 12 5 4 (a )(1) & (2) (re p ea le d 19 9 6 ), b u t th e r e q u i re m en ts o f a § 244 waiver w ere m ore s tr ingent than those ofa § 212( c) w aiver. Theref ore, dep o rt able al ie ns found a § 212( c) w aiver of inadm i s s ibi l i t y t o be a m or e hos pi t abl e ro ut e t o r el i efthana § 24 4 w a iv e r o f d ep o rt a tio n . S ee Za m ora-M al l ariv. M u kasey, 5 1 4 F .3d 67 9 , 68 4 (7t h C ir . 20 0 8 ). I I . Discussi on W e hav e pr evi ousl y desc ribed the l engthyand com ple x h ist or y of fo rm e r § 2 12 (c ) of th e IN A , see Za m o ra-M a lla ri, 51 4 F .3d at68 3-8 9; V a lere, 473 F
. 3d at 759- 61, and re peat th ath ist or y on ly a s n ec es sa ry to d ec id e t h i s c as e. U n til 19 96 th e A t to rn ey G en er al h ad d isc re tio n to rea d m it reside ntali en s w ho t raveled abroad and up on reen try we r e f o un d to b e i na dmi s s ib l e u nd e ro ne o fthe g r o un ds o fi na dmi s s ib i l i ty c o nt a i ne d in I N A § 2 1 2 ( a ) , 8 U. S
. C. § 1 1 8 2 ( a )
. T h i s d i s c r e t i o n a r y a u th o r i ty t o w a i v e i n a dm i ss ibi l i tywas c o nfer r ed bythe f o r m er§ 2 12 ( c) o fthe I NA, 8 U. S
. C
. § 1 1 8 2 ( c ) ( 1 9 9 4 ) , w h i c h b y i t s t e r ms a pp l i e d o nly t o e xc l us i o n pr o c e e di ng s
— that i s, to cas es in w hich residen t ali en s traveled abroad and w ere excl ud abl e upon r eentry. H owever, § 212( c) has been in te rp re te d to ap p ly to rem ov al p ro c e e d i n gs as w ell

— provi ded the re m ovabl e a l i en i s s i m i l ar l y s i tuate d to a re tu rn in g, ex c lu d ab le a lien
. Se eM at t e rof Si l va , 1 6 I
. & N. Dec
. 2 6, 3 0 ( 19 76 ) ( ado ptingthe s ta nda r d o f Fra nc is v. I
. N
. S. , 532 F.2d 26 8 (2 d C ir. 19 76 )); Zam ora-M a lla ri, 514 F.3 d at68 4-8 5; V

a lere, 473 F. 3d at 759- 60. Thi s e x p an sio n 1 of § 2 12(c) el igibil ity flow ed from the Sec ond Circu it’ s6 N o. 09
- 2607

B efore IIR IR A rep ealed § 21 2(c) alto g eth er in 1 99 6, Co ng ress 2 had e xc l uded fro m thats ec t i on’ s pur vi ew ag gr ava t ed fel ons w h o h a d ser v ed fiv e o r m o re y ea rs in p ri so n, see I m m i gr at i on A ct o f 1 9 9 0 , Pub
. L. N o. 101- 649, § 511( a) , 104 St at. 4978, 5052, and l aterel im inated § 212( c) w aivers f or al l aggrav ated (co n tin u ed ...) ho l di ngi n Fra nc is that ther e is “no r ati onalbas i s for m ak in g § 21 2(c ) relie f av aila b le on ly to ina d m is s ible al i ens s eek i ng r eentry a nd notto si m i l ar l y s i tuate d deportabl e a l i ens who had not l eft the c ountr y. ” V a lere, 473 F
. 3d at7 60 (sum m ar i zingthe ho l di ngi n Francis ). A fte r th e Se c on d C irc u it’s eq u al-p ro te c t ion ru lin g in Francis , a r em ovabl e a lien is el i gibl e fora § 2 12( c) waive r if the g r o u n d f or rem ovab il ity has a statu tory cou nt erpart orco m parabl e g ro u n d ofi nadm i ssibi l i ty und er § 2 12 (a). Z a m o ra-M a l l a ri, 51 4 F .3d at68 5-8 6; V a lere, 473 F .3 d at76 0; Le al

- Rodr iguez v. I
. N
. S. , 9 9 0 F
. 2 d 9 3 9, 94 9 ( 7th Ci r . 1 993)
. Co nv er se l y, a l i en s r emov ab l e o n a gr ound fo r w hi ch ther e i s no c om parabl e g ro und o f i nadm i ssibi l i ty ar e no t s i m i l ar l y s i tuate d t o i nadm i ssibl e r eente ring a lien s and ther ef or e a re notel i gibl e for § 2 12 ( c ) r e l i e f
. T h i s h a s c o me t o b e kn o wna s th e “ s t at utory c ounter part” o r the “ com parabl e g ro und ” r ule
. I n 1 99 6 Con g r es s r epe al ed § 21 2( c) a l to g ethe r, r epl ac i ng i t wi ththe narrow er 8 U. S
. C. § 1 22 9b , whi chpe r m i ts the A tt or ney Gener alto cance lr em ova lf orcer tain al i ens, but excludes fr om consi derat i on those w ho, l i ke Fr ederi ck, ha v e c o mm i t t e d a g g r a v a t e d fe l o ni e s . I l l e g a lI mm i g r a ti on Ref or m and I m m i gr ant Res po ns ib i l i ty A ct ( “I I RI RA ”) , Pub. L
. N o. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009 -59 4
. T he Sup rem e C ou rt 2N o. 09
- 2607 7

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 2 fel o n s, seeAnt i t er ro ri s m an d E ff ect i ve Death Pe nal t y Actof 1 9 9 6 , P u b
. L
. N o . 10 4 -1 3 2 , § 4 4 0 (d ), 11 0 St a t. 1 2 1 4 , 12 7 7
. S ee al so Z am ora-M al l ari, 51 4 F .3d at 68 7 (d escrib in g am en d m en ts to f orm er § 212( c) )
. II R IRA als o expand ed the defini ti on of aggrav ated felon y to inclu d e sexu al ab u se of a m ino r an d exp licitly m a d e t h a t a m en d m en t r et ro a ct iv e. S ee I I RI RA § 3 2 1 , 8 U. S
. C. § 11 0 1 (a )(43 ); seealso Z am ora-M al l ari, 5 1 4 F
. 3 d a t6 9 0 ( up ho ld ing the re tro activ ity o f IIR IR A ’ s am en d m en t t o th e d efinitio n o f ag g ra v a te d felo n y ). su bs eque nt l y he l d i n I
. N
. S. v. St
. Cyrthatth e re p eal of f or m er§ 212( c) co uld notbe re tr oac ti vel y a pp l ied to al i ens who ple aded gui l ty pri orto I I RI RA ’ s e ffecti ve date. 53 3 U. S
. a t 32 6 ( ho l di ngtha t “§ 2 12( c) r el i efr emai ns avai l abl e f or al i ens . . . w hose convi cti ons w er e obta ined th r o ugh pl eaa g r eem ent s an d who, no twi th st an di ng thos e co nvi cti ons, would hav e been e l i gibl e for§ 212( c) reli ef at the tim e of th eir p lea un d er the law then i n effect”). I n 2 0 0 4 DHS i mpl e men t e d St. Cyr an d c o di fi ed th e j u d icia lly c re at ed st at u to ry -c ou n te r p ar t ru le b y p ro m u lgat i ng 8 C.F
. R. § 1212
. 3( f ) ( 5)
. S ec tion 1212
. 3( f ) ( 5) pro vid es that § 2 12( c) r el i efi s a vai l abl e t o l aw ful perm anentre si dent alie n s w ho pl eaded gui l ty bef or e § 21 2( c) w as re peal ed

—but only if th eys at i sfy the s ta tu to r y - co unte rp ar t t es t. See8 C.F
. R. § 1212
. 3( f ) ( 5) ( appli cati on for § 2 12 (c ) relie f “s h al l be d en ied ” if th e a lien “is d ep or ta b le und erf or m er s ecti on 2 41 ofthe A ct o r re m ovabl e under sect i on 23 7 of th e A cton a g rou nd w hic h d o es no t ha ve a st atutory c oun terpart inse c tio n 21 2 o f th e A c t” (em p h as is8 N o. 09
- 2607 adde d) )
. In o th erwor ds, the r egul at i o n r etur ne d the l aw r ega rdi ng § 212( c) el i gibi l i ty to the st atus quo ante . I n 2 00 5 th e B I A i ss ue d i ts de ci si o n in Blake, 2 3 I
. & N. Dec. 72 2, wh i ch appli ed the sta tutory- counter part tes t to an al i en wh o, l i ke Fr ederi ck, was or dered r em ov ed f or ha vingb ee n c o nv i ct ed o fa n a g g r av at ed fel o ny i nv o l ving sexualabuse o fa m i nor . The BI A h eld that“the ‘ sexual ab us e o fa min or’ c at eg o r y i n the a g g r av at ed fel o ny defi ni ti o n do es no t ha ve a ‘ st atut o r y c o unt er p ar t’ i n the gr ou n d s of in ad m iss ibilit y” u n d er § 2 1 2(a ). Id. at 724. Part i cul ar l y r el evant h er e, the BIA speci fi cal l y r ej ecte d th e ar g um en t th ata n a g g r av at ed f el o ny i nv o l ving sexualabuse o fa m i nori s s uffi ci ently c om parabl e t o a c r i me o fmo r a ltur pi tud e , a s ta tut o r y g r o un d fo ri na dm iss ibilit y in § 21 2(a ). Id. at72 8. The B IA expl ai ned that “the m or altur pitud e g ro und o fexcl usi on ad dress es a dist i nctl y differ ent and m uch bro ader cate gory o fo ffenses than the ag gr avat ed fel ony sexu alabuse o fa m i nor charg e. ” Id. The pr o peri nqui r y tur ne d o n whe th erCo ngr ess had used “si m i l arl anguage to descr ibe s u bsta nti al l y e quiva l ent c ate go ri es ofo ffenses . ” Id. A l though th e c rim e o f se x u al a b u s e o f a m in or en ta ils m or al t u rp itu d e, th e t w o c at eg or ies of cr im es w e re n otsu b st an tia lly equi val ent a nd thus were notst atuto ryco unte rpar ts for p u rp os es of ex te n d in g § 21 2(c ) relie f. Id. Cases fro m thi s ci rcui t hav e a gr eed w i th and adopted th e BI A’s ho l di ngi n B la k e th ata lien s w h o a re rem ov ab le f or se xu a l l y ab us i nga mi no ra r e n o te l i g ib l e f o r§ 2 1 2 ( c) r el i efb ec au se tha t o ffen se ha s no c o m par ab l e g r o und of in ad m iss ibilit y in § 21 2(a ). See Z a m o r a -M a lla ri, 51 4N o. 09
- 2607 9

I n Z am ora-M al l ari, 51 4 F
. 3d a t 69 2, we de c l i ne d t o fol l ow 3 the Se c ond Ci rc ui t ’ s dec i s i on i n Bl a k ev. Car bo ne, 489 F. 3d 88 ( 2d Ci r. 20 07 )
. The Se c ond Ci rc ui t ’ s dec i s i on i n B l ake a d o p te d an offen s e-bas ed a ppro ac h t o th e s t atut or y- c ount er par ti nqu i ry . Ins tead ofcom paring the act ual gr ound o fr em ovalt o a gr ound o f in a d m iss ib ili ty , B l ake requir es that the B IA consi der w hether a “parti cular aggravated fe lony offense c o u ld f or m the b asis o f e xc lu sio n u n d er § 2 1 2 (a ) a s a c ri m e o f m o ra l tu rp itu d e.” Id. at 104 ( em phas is ad ded )
. The B IA, how ever, general ly c onti nues (co n tin u ed ...) F.3 d at69 2-9 3; Vale re, 4 7 3 F .3d at76 1-6 2. W e a re j oin ed in th i s appr o ac h t o the s ta tu to r y - co unt er par t r ul e bythe m ajorit y of c irc u its to h av e con sid er ed t h e is su e. SeeD e la Rosa v. U
. S. At t ’y Ge n. , 579 F.3d 132 7, 1337( 11th Cir. 20 09 ), cert. denied , 130 S. C t. 32 72 (20 10 ); Ko ussa n v . Ho lder, 55 6 F .3d 40 3 , 412 -14 (6t h C ir. 20 09 ); Vue v. G o nz a les , 49 6 F.3 d 85 8, 86 1 (8 th C ir. 20 0 7); A bebe v. G o nz a les , 49 3 F
. 3d 10 92 , 110 4 (9 th C ir. 20 07 ); D a lo m bo Fo n t e s v . Go nz a les , 48 3 F.3d 115 ( 1st C ir. 2007); V o v. G o nz a les , 482 F. 3d 363, 36 8- 69 ( 5th Ci r. 20 07); Ca rol eo v . Go nz a les , 47 6 F. 3d 158, 16 7- 68 ( 3d C ir. 2007). M ore o ve r, in ap p lying the sta tu tory-cou nt erp art tes t, we l oo k t o the ac t ual char ge ofrem ova l, notwh at D H S couldh av e c h ar ge d as a b a sis for re m ov al. Zam oraM a lla ri, 514 F.3d at69 2; se e id
. ( “[ I ] f c ou rts were to l oo k beyon d the ch arged groun d s of d ep ortation to t h e un d erl yi ng cr i m i nalo ffense to deter m i n e w h etherthe cri m i nal offe n se couldhave bee n tr eat ed as a cr i m e o fm or alturp itude, thatwould g re atlyexpand the r ol e Congr ess as si g ne d th e j udi ci ary i n i m m i g r at i o n ca se s. ”)
. Onl y the S e c o n d C i r c u i tt a k e s a d i ffe r e ntap p r o a c h
. T h e S u p r e me 310 N o. 09
- 2607

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 3 to adhere t o it s prior underst and ing ofthe s tatutory- counterpar tr ul e notwiths t andi ng the Sec ond Ci rc ui t ’ s dec i s i on i n Bla ke
. S ee M att er of

M oren o-Esco bosa , 2 5 I
. & N. De c . 1 1 4 , 1 1 7( B. I
. A. 20 09 ) ( “I ti s i m por t antt o n ot e that noth i ng i n thi s dec i s i on i s i n t e n de d t o c a s td o u bt on ou r p r i o r h o l di n g s wh e r e we art ic ulate d the ‘ st atutory c ount erp art ’ rule thatan al ie n se ekin g to w aive a deportat ion ground m ust es tabli sh that ther e i s a com parab le ground of inadm is sibili ty in s ect ion 212( a) ofthe A ct .”). W e decl ine Frederic k’ s invit ati on to re place our app roach t o the st atutory- counterpartte stw ith the cat egoricalapp roach use d in the cancel lati on-of

- rem oval conte xt und er 8 U
. S. C. § 1229b. P ursuant t o § 1229b, the Attorney G en er a l m ay not canc el the rem oval ofan al ie n w ho has be e n c on vi c t e d o fa c r i m e o fm or a l tur pi t ude
. 8 U. S
. C. § 12 29 b (b)(1) (C). W he the r a p articu lar o ffen se qu ali fies as a c ri m e ofm or al tur pi t ude for pur pos es ofi ne l i gibi l ity for c anc el l at i on ofr em ovalis det er m i ne d by the e l em en t s ofthe sta tu te u n d e r w h ic h th e a lie n w a s co n v ic te d
. SeePadi l l a v. G on zale s , 397 F. 3d 1 0 16, 1019 ( 7th Cir
. 2005)
. This cat egoric al ap p r o a c h is sim ilar to th e Seco nd C ircu it’ s reaso nin g in Bla kebecau se t h e star ti ng p ointi s the und erl ying offense , re g a rd le ss o f th e a ct u a l ch a rg ed g ro u n d o f re m o v a l. Court has j ust g ra nted cer ti or ar ito r eso l ve t he l opsi ded c irc u it s p lit. Jud ula ngv. Ho lder, 249 F. A p p ’x 499 (9th C ir. 20 07 ), cert. gra nted, 79 U
. S. L.W . 3 344 ( U
. S. A pr. 18 , 20 11) (N o. 10-694). W ith th is backgrou nd i n p lace, w e now turn to Frede ri c k’s cla im s, n ot in g firs t th atw h ile w e o rd in ar ily w ou ld l ack j uri sdic ti on t o re vi ew an order o fr em ova lag ai nst an al i en w ho i s r em ovabl e byr eas on o fhaving co m m i tte dN o. 09
- 2607 11
an ag gr av at ed felon y, 8 U .S.C . § 12 52 (a)( 2) ( C ), w e re ta in j ur i sdi ctio n t o r ev i ew c o ns ti tu ti o na lc l ai m s an d que st i o ns of law , i d. § 1252 ( a) ( 2) ( D). T o th e extent Fr ederi ck ra i ses l e g a la n d c o n s t i tu t i o n a lc l a i ms i n h i s p et i t i o n f o rr e v i e w, w e r evi ew them de nov o. K lem enta no v s ky v . Go nz a les , 501 F.3d 788, 791 (7th Cir. 2007). Fr ederi ck fi rs t a rg u es that he i s e l i gibl e fora § 2 12( c) w aiver bec au s e D H S co ul d have charg ed hi m with r emo v a lu n d e r8 U. S
. C
. § 1 2 2 7 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( A) ( i i ) f o rh a v i ng been convi cted o f“tw o orm or e cr i m es i nvol vi ng m or al turpi tude, notar i si n g ou t o fa si ngl e s chem e o fcr i m i nal m i sco nd uct, ” i nstea d o f charg i ng hi m w i th rem ovabi l i ty ba se d o n a c o nvicti o n fo ra n a g g r av at ed fel o ny i nv o l ving sexualabuse o fa m i nor . H e m ai n tains thatthi s a l ternati ve gr ound m ak es hi m el i gibl e fora § 2 12( c) waive r b e c a u s e i ts a t i s fi e s th e s t a tu t o r y - c o u n t e r p a r tr u l e . He al so cl ai m s he had a n expectat i on of a § 212( c) w ai ver at the t i m e he en te re d his gui l ty ple as and thus f al l s under th e pu rview of St
. Cyr
. We d i s a g r e e . As we h a v e e x p l a i n e d , u n d e ro u rc a s e l a w, w ha t D H S could h a ve ch ar ge d as gro u n d s fo r re m ov al is i rr el evant . H er e, Fr ederi ck’ s Noti ce o fRem oval char ged hi m wi thha vingc o m m i tt ed an a g g r av at ed fel o ny i nvol vi ng the se xual abuse of am i nor . U nd eres tabl i shed ci rcui t pr ecedent, se xual abuse ofa m i norh as no co m parabl e g ro und ofi nadm i ssibi l i ty i n § 2 12( a) , m aking F re deri ck in elig ible for § 21 2(c ) relie f. Z a m o ra-M a lla ri, 514 F
. 3d at 6 9 1
. T ha tF r e de r i c kc o mm i t t e d t wo acts o fse xual abuse of a m inor i ns tead of onedoes notchange thi s r esul t.12 N o. 09
- 2607 W e a lso d isa gr ee w ith Fre d er i c k ’ s cla im th ath e is en titl ed to § 212(c) reli ef un d er St
. Cyr
. T h e S u p r e me Cou r t he l d i n St. Cyr th at“§ 21 2(c ) relie f rem ain s a va ilab le f oral i ens . . . wh ose co nvi cti ons w ere obtained thro ugh pl eaa g r ee m en ts a nd who , no twi th st an d in gtho se c o nvi cti ons, would have been el i gibl e for§ 212( c) r el i efat the t i m e o fthei r ple a u n d er t he l aw then i n effect. ” 5 33 U
. S. at 326. Bu t Fr ederi ck w as not el i gibl e f or § 212(c ) re l i efatthe ti m e o fhi s guil ty ple as b ec au se the cr i m e o f sexualabuse o fa m in or has no co m parabl e g ro und o f in ad m iss ibilit y in § 21 2(a )
. W h e re th er e is n o c om p ar ab le gr ou n d of in ad m iss ibilit y, S t . Cy r i s s i m plyi napp l i cabl e. Z a m o ra-M a lla ri, 51 4 F.3 d at 691
. W e nee d not a dd re ss any o fF r ede r i ck ’ s r el i an ce -ba se d a rg um en ts b ec au se he w as neverel i gibl e fora § 2 12( c) waive r i n the fi rs t pl ace. Fr ederi ck al so m ake s se ver alco nsti tuti onalar gum ents, mo s to fwh i c h a r e f o r e c l o se d by c i r c u i tp r e c e d e n t . He c on te n d s t h att h e s ta tu to ry -c ou n te rp ar t ru le v iola te s h is rig h t t o e q u al p ro te c tio n, bu t w e h av e t w ice rejec te d th is ar gu m en t. Se ei d. at69 1-9 2 ; V a lere, 4 7 3 F
. 3 d a t7 6 2
. We no te d i n V

a lere that the s tatut or y- counter part rul e ca n ha r dl y vi o l at e equa lpr o te ct i o n b ec au se i t i s i ts el fthe te stfor a n eq u al-p ro te c tio n vio lat ion : [ T] he r equi r emento fa c o m par ab l e g r o und o fe xc l usi on in § 2 12( a)
. . . i s what m ake s a r em ovabl e, n on d ep ar tin g a lien sim ilar ly sit u at ed to an ad m iss ible a l i e n i n th e fi r s tp l a c e . I fth e r e mo v ab l e a l i e n ’ s c r i me ofco nvi cti on i s no t s ubstanti al l y e quiva l ent t o a g r o und o fi na dm i ss ibi li ty unde r§ 2 12 ( a) , the n the re mov ab l e a l i e n i s n o ts i mi l a r l y s i tua t e d fo rp ur posesN o. 09
- 2607 13 ofcl ai m i ng an equalpro tect i on r i ght t o apply f or § 212(c) rel ief
. V a lere, 473 F. 3d at 762. F r ede r i ckfi ne - tu ne s th e ar g um en t a bit by c o nt en di ng th atD H S v iola te d h is e q u al-p ro te c tio n righ ts w h en it ex e r c i s e d i t s di s c r e t i o n t o c ha r g e h i m wi th r e mov ab i l i ty for an aggravat e d f e lony involving sex ua l abu se of a m i norr atherthan an ava i l abl e a l ternative c h ar ge of re m ovabi l i ty for having co m m i tte d tw o cri m es of mor a ltur pi tud e
— a c h ar gin g d ec isio n th atren d er ed h im i nel i gibl e f or § 212( c) re l i ef
. To the extent Fr ederick is ask i ng u s to re vi ew DH S’ s di scr eti onar y dete rm i nati on of w ha t t o c ha r g e as the b as i s f o rr emov al, we ha ve no j urisd iction over tha t qu estion. 8 U
. S. C
. § 1252(g) ( “[N ]o c ou rtsh all h av e jur isd ict ion to h ea r a n y c a u se or c laim by oro n behal fo fany al i en a ris in g fro m the deci si on o r acti on bythe A tto rneyGenera lto co m m ence proceed ings, adj ud icate case s, or exec ut e rem oval orders a g ai ns ta nya l i e n un de rthi s c ha pt e r . ” )
. As c ha r g e d, Fr ederi ck i s n ot si m i l ar l y s i tuate d to a r etur ni ng al i en w h o i s ina d m iss ible u n d er a st at u to ry co u n te rp ar t in § 21 2( a) , a nd the r efo r e he ha s no e qua l

- pr o te ct i o nb as ed en tit lem en t t o s ee k § 21 2(c ) re l i ef. See V a lere, 47 3 F. 3d at 762. Fi nal l y, we rej ect Fr ederi ck’ s due -proce ss chal l enge to th e B IA ’s rem oval order. To th e ext en t this claim i s d if

fer ent fro m hi s eq ual

- prot ecti on a rgum ent, i t a pp ear s t o re st on a co ntenti on that the BI A vi ol ate d d ue pro cess byi nc o r r ec tly a ppl y i ngi ts de ci si o n in Blakea nd fi ndi ng hi m i ne ligibl e fora § 2 12( c) waive r. Fr ederi ck ove rl oo ks14 N o. 09
- 2607

Frederic k als o cl aim s thathis du e- process ri ghts w ere 4 vi ol at ed whe n the i m m i gr at i on j udge and the BI A did n ot c ons i der i n ful l al l ofhi s c ons t i t u tional obj ec t i ons t o the s t atut or y- c ount er par tt es t . Due pr oc es s i n i m m i gr at i on pro cee dings only re quires thatthe im m igrat ion judg e g ive Frederick a “m ean ing ful op p or tu nity to b e he ard ,” and n o t h i n g in the reco rd ind icates th at h e w a s d ep riv ed of that rig ht. B arradas v. H ol der, 582 F. 3d 754, 767 ( 7th Cir
. 2009)
. The B IA s pe c i fi c a l l y no t e d tha tthe i m m i gr a t i onj udg e “rej e c t e d a num berofothe r ar gum en t s pr es en t ed [ by Fr ede ri ck] , i ncl u d in g th o se re la tin g to eq u a l p ro te ct io n an d d u e p ro ce ss.”

5- 3- 11 the f act that he has no due- p ro c ess r i ght t o a § 21 2( c) w ai ver ; § 212( c) r el i effro m r em ov al i s in the disc re ti on o f th e A tt or n ey G en er al. Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Sa nt i ago- O ch oa , 44 7 F
. 3d 10 15 , 1 02 0 ( 7th Ci r . 2 006) (ho l di ngtha t al i en s i n re m ov al pr oce edi ngs hav e no due-pr oce ss ri ght t o be c on sid er ed fo r d isc re tio n ar y re lief); s e eal s o Nguye n v . D i s t . D i r . , Bure au of

Im m igrat io n & Custom s Enf or ce m e nt, 4 0 0 F
. 3 d 2 5 5 , 2 5 9 ( 5 th Ci r . 2 0 0 5 ) ( ho l di ng tha t“nei ther re l i effro m r em ova l under di scr eti onar y wai vernor el igib il ityf o rs uchdi sc r et i o na r y r el i efi s en tit l ed to due p rocess prote ction” ). 4 P ET I T I ON D ENI ED .