2008 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
6-6-2008 

# Alc a r a z -V i l l a mi l v . Att y Ge n U S A P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 06-3589

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it a t ion

" Alca r a z -V i l l a mi l v . Att y Ge n U SA" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1052. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1052*The Honor able Joseph E. Irena s, Senior District J udg e of the District of Ne w J erse y , sitti ngby

designation. Alvare z viol ated Ne w York Pena l L aw § 221.10 a nd was sente nced to a

conditional discharg e of 1 one year and had his drive r’s lice nse suspende d for six m onths. NOT PRECEDENTIAL

U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS F O R T H E T H IRD C IR C U IT No: 06-3589 AN YE L O A L C ARAZ Petitioner,
v. ATTORNEY G ENERAL OF T HE UNI TED STATES Respondent Appea l from Immigration and Natura liz ation Service s,

(Ag ency File No. A 46-000-170) Submit ted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

Fe bruar y 4, 2008 B e fo re : Mc KE E, AM B RO , Ci rc uit Judg e s an d I R ENA S , S en i o r D i s tri ctJ u d ge

* (F iled: J une 6, 2008) OPI NI ON McKEE, Circ uit J udg e. Any e lo A lc araz pe tit ion s f or re vie w o f a

de c isi on of the B oa rd of Immi g ratio n App e a ls aff irming the Immigration J udg e’s r uling that he is ineligible for canc ellation of re moval under 8 U.S.C. 1229b(a). For

the re asons that follow we will deny the Petition. 1 I.2

Al c araz cl a ims that th e I J er re d in c on c lud ingtha

t hi s Ma y 8, 20 03 a dju dic atio n w a s a

“ c onvic tio n” fo r i mmi g ratio n p ur po se s a nd that hi s O c tob e r 7 , 2 00 3 c onvic tio n ma de him statutorily ineligible to a

pply for c ance llation of removal unde r 8 U.S.C. § 1229b. We disagr ee. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(48) (A), de fines “c onviction” as “ a for mal judgme nt of guilt...entered by a cour t.” Id. The May

8, 2003 conviction in New Y ork Criminal Court, County of Que ens, for fi ft h d e g re e c ri min a l po sse ssi on of mari jua na , in vio latio n o f N e w Y or

k Pe na l L aw § 22 1. 10 fa lls within that definition of “conviction.” Alcar az’s argument to the contra ry rests upon a f

undamental misrea ding of § 11 01 (a)( 48 )( A) . H e argue s th at th at st atut e re qu ir e s b oth a fo rm a l ju dgme nt o f guil t and the imposit ion of some form of punishment, penalty

or re straint on the alien’ s liberty . Howeve r, the statut e is c le arl y

wr itt e n in

the dis jun c tiv e , n ot i n th e c on

jun c tiv e . Se c tio n 1 10 1( a )( 48 )( A) re a ds , in pertinent par

t: “The ter

m ‘conviction’ mea

ns, with respec t to an alien, a f ormal judg ment of guil t of the a lie n e nte re d b y

a c ourt or , if

the a dju dic atio n o f guil t ha s b e e n w ithhe ld, wh e re .. .( ii) the judg e has or dere d some form of punishment, pe nalty , or re straint on the alien’ s liberty to be imposed.” Id. (empha sis added). Se eals o A c os ta v . A sh c ro ft , 341 F.3d 218, 222 ( 3d Cir. 2003)(“ [§ 1101(a)(48) (A)] provides that, in ca ses wher e no formal judgment of guilt has been enter ed by

a cour t, an alien will be c onsidered to have bee n convicted f or the purpose s of the I

NA if the disposition of the alien’s criminal procee ding satisfied the two par t test in [ the statute.]”). The statute wa s no doubt intended to addre ss situations i nvolving diver sionary programs that may not result in any

immediate sanc tion. II. Since Alca

raz’s May 2003 offe nse is a convic tion for purposes of § 1229b(a) (2),3

he has ne ver e stablished the 7-year period of c ontinuous residence or continuous phy sical prese nce in the United States require d for c ance llation of removal. Thus, whe n he wa s convicted of the sec ond offe nse on Oc tober 7, 2003, he beca me inelig ible for c ance llation of removal. Alcar az’s argument that the I J err ed in conc luding that the O ctober 7, 2003 conviction rende red him statutorily

ineligible f

or re lief re sts on the errone ous premise that it did not qualify as his second c onviction. Alcar az argues that the Oc tober 18, 2005 c onviction, and not the October 7, 2003 conviction, qualifies a s his second convic tion becausehe fa ils to realize the eff ect of the May 2003 conviction under

immigration law. III , Alcar az also claims that his he was de nied due pr ocess be cause he wa s not able to seek the ca ncellation of r emoval “f

or which he was c lear ly

elig ible.” Petitioner’s B r. at 18. How ever , a s w e have e xpla ine d, he is n ot e lig ibl e fo r c anc e llatio n o f r e mov a l be c a us e of his c onvic tio ns in New Y ork in May , 2003, and Oc tober 2003. IV
.

For all of the a

bove re asons, we w ill deny the Petition for Review.