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 6-29-2006 

# S e rafino 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 . 05-2720

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 " S e r afino v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 818. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/818NOT 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 os . 05- 2720 /3577 ANT ONI O S E RA F I NO, P et i t i oner

v. A T T O R N E Y G E N E R A L O F T H E U N IT E D S T A T E S ; S E C R E T A R Y O F D E P A R T M E N T O F H O M E L A N D S E C U R IT Y ; BU REA U O F I M M I GR ATI ON & CU STOM S ENFORC EM ENT; G R E G K E N D R IC K , N ew ark F iel d O ff ice D ir ec tor, U n ite d S ta te s Im m ig ra tio n & C u s to m s E n f o rc e m e n t, R e sp o n d e n ts O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew fr om O r der s of 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 42 152 486 Subm i t t ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui t . L A R 34. 1( a)

J une 29, 2006 B e f o re : B A R R Y , V A N A N T W E R P E N a n d J O H N R . G IB S O N * , C i r cui tJudges ( Fi l ed J une 29, 2006)

* T h e H o n o ra b le J o h n R . G ib so n , U n ited S tate s C irc u it Ju d g e f o r th e E ig h th C irc u it C our tof A ppeal s , s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on.2 OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

V a n A n tw e rp e n , C i r cui tJudge : P e tit io n e r A n to n in o S e ra f in o b rin g s th e se c o n so lid a ted a p p e a ls f ro m tw o se p a ra te pr ocee di ngs he i ni t i at ed i n t he s pr i ng of 2005. T he fi r s t , a habe as corpus pet i t i on for r el i ef f r om an or derof r emoval , w as fi l ed on M ay9, 2005, and w as s hor t l yther eaf t er tr a n s f e rr e d to th is C o u rt f

o r a d ju d ic a tio n p u rs u a n t to th e R E A L ID A c t. T h e s e c o n d , a m o tio n f o r re lief p u rsu a n t to f

o rm e r se c tio n 2 1 2 (c ) o f th e Im m ig ra tio n a n d N a tio n a lity A c t (“ IN A ” o r “ A c t”) , w a s f iled w ith th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls (“ B IA ” ) o n A p ril 2 2 , 2 0 0 5 . O n Ju ly1 1 , 2 0 0 5 , the B IA d e n ied th a t m o tio n a n d S e ra f in o a p p e a led to th is C o u r t . T h i s C o u r tth e r e a f t e rc o n s o l i d a t e d S e r a f

i n o ’ s a p p e a l w i th h i s h a b e a s p e t i t i o n . We h av e jurisdicti o n p u rsua n t t o 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 (a) an d fo r th e f o ll o w ing rea so n s w il l aff irm the B I A ’ s deci s i on and denythe habe as pet i t i on. I. W e su m m arize th e p roc ed u ral hist o ryo f th is case o n lyb ri ef ly , as th e p arti es a re fami l i arw i th i t . Ser afi no w as convi ct ed on J anuary24, 1997, of t ax eva s i on i n vi ol at i on of 26 U . S. C . § 7201. T he form erI N S char ged hi m w i th r emovabi l i ty . Ser afi no r ece i ved a hea r i ng befor e an I m m i gr at i on J udge, l os t , and appe al ed t o the B I A . O n A pr i l 17, 2003, th e B IA , in a P e r C u ria m o p in io n , fo u n d n o m e rit to S e ra f in o ’s c o n ten tio n th a t h is3

convi ct i on fort ax eva s i on pur s uantt o 26 U . S. C . § 7201 cons t i tut ed nei theran aggr avat ed fel on yoff

ense as defined b ythe A ctno r a cr i m e i nv olvi ng m oral turpi tud e. T he B IA al so rej ect ed S erafi no ’s cl ai m for r el i ef pu rs uan tt o § 21 2(c) , as am end ed b ythe A nti t err ori sm and Effec t i ve D eath Penal tyA ctof 1996 ( “A E D PA ”) , beca us e the cr i m e t o w hi ch he ha d p le a d e d g u ilty w a s a n a g g ra v a te d f e lo n y . T h is C o u rtsu b seq u en tl yd ism issed S era fin o ’s firstp eti ti o n fo r rev iew o n F eb rua ry 23, 2004, on the gr ound thatthi s C our tl acke d j ur i s di ct i on overa pet i t i on forr evi ew fi l ed b y a n a l i e n w h o h a d c o m m i t t e d a n a g g r a v a t e d f e l o n y. O n A p ril 2 2 , 2 0 0 5 , S e ra f in o m o v e d to re o p e n h is c a se f o r th e p u rp o se s o f

a g a in s eeki ng § 212( c) r el i ef. T he B I A deni ed the mot i on on the gr ounds that§ 212( c) “does notappl yt o an al i en w ho i s deport abl e byr eas on of havi ng comm i t t ed anycr i m i nal offe ns e cove r ed i n s ect i on 241( a) ( 2) ( A ) ( i i i ) , ( B ) , ( C ) , or( D ) of the A ct . ” The B I A ci t ed § 440( d) of A E D PA as amended by§ 306( d) of the I l l egal I m m i gr at i on R eform and I m m i gr antR es pons i bi l i tyA ctof 1996 ( “I I R I R A ”) . A s s t at ed, Ser afi no s ubs equent l yfi l ed a pet i t i on forhabea s corpus r el i ef on M ay9, 2005. T hatpet i t i on and Ser afi no’ s appea l of h is d e n ie d m o tio n to re o p e n a re n o w b e f o re th is C o u rt . II. W e e x e rc is e p le n a ry re v ie w o f th e B IA ’s le g a l d e c is io n s . See Part yka v . A t t or ney G ener al , 4 1 7 F .3 d 4 0 8 , 4 1 1 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). A s to w h e th e r a d e ter m in a tio n o f th e B IA “ is ent i t l ed t o C hevr on d e f

e re n c e , C hevr on, U. S. A . v. N at ur alR es . D ef

. C ounci l , I nc. , 4674

U . S. 837 . . . ( 1984) . . . . [W ] e ow e no def er ence t o [the B I A ’ s ] i nt erpr et at i on of” s t atut es it d o e s n o t n o rm a lly a d m in is te r, s u c h a s th e f e d e ra l s ta tu to ry sc h e m e f o r t a x a tio n . I

d; s ee als o Kn a p ik v . A sh c ro

ft , 3 8 4 F . 3 d 8 4 , 8 8 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) (ex p lai n ing that w e a ff o rd C hevr on defe r ence t o t he B I A ’ s det erm i nat i on thata part i cul arcr i m e i nvol ves m or al turpi tude butw e ac cor d no defe r ence t o the B I A ’ s det erm i nat i on of “the el ement s . . . of a p arti cu lar cri m inal statu te de em ed to im p li ca te m o ral tu rpitu d e” ). III . Ser afi no fi r s tar gues thathi s t ax convi ct i on does notcons t i tut e an a ggr avat ed fe lon yw ith in the m ea n ing o f 8 U . S . C . § 1 1 0 1 (a)(43 )(M )(i i) . A s stated, th is C o u rt pr evi ous l ydi s m i s s ed Ser afi no’ s fi r s tpet i t i on forr evi ew on February24, 2004, on the gr ound thatw e l ack j ur i s di ct i on overpet i t i ons forr evi ew fi l ed byal i ens w ho have c o m m itte d a g g ra v a te d f e lo n ie s . Ser af

i no v. A t t or ney G ener al , 0 3 -24 6 1 (3d C ir . F eb rua ry 2 4 , 2 0 0 4 ) (h o ld in g C o u rt lac k e d ju risd ictio n to c o n sid e r S e ra f in o ’s p e tit io n b e c a u se h is convi ct i on under26 U . S. C . § 7201 w as a convi ct i on foran aggr avat ed fe l onyand r evi ew w a s th e re f

o re sta tu to rilyp re c lu d e d p u rsu a n t to 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (a )(2 )(C )). A s a re su lt, Ser afi no i s col l at er al l yes t opped fr om agai n chal l engi ng w hetherhi s convi ct i on i s an a g g ra v a te d f

e lo n y . See, e. g. , Mos l ey v . W i l s on , 1 0 2 F .3 d 8 5 , 9 1 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 6 ); P at el v. A sh c ro ft , 2 9 4 F .3 d 4 6 5 , 4 6 8 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). I n turn, beca us e of Ser afi no’ s comm i s s i on of an a ggr avat ed fe l ony , he does not q u a lifyf o r § 2 1 2 (c ) re lief

a s a m e n d e d b yth e A E D P A . 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 1 (A )(4 3 )(M )(ii)5

sp e c if ica llyin c lu d e s a m o n g th e list o f a g g ra v a ted f

e lo n ies th a t re n d e r a n a lien d e p o rta b le “an o ffen se that . . . i s descr i bed i n sect i on 72 01 of T i t l e 26 . . . i n w hich the reven ue loss t o the G overnm entexce eds $10, 000[. ] ” The r ecor d es t abl i s hes Ser afi no’ s convi ct i on u n d er this T it le an d a los s to the G o v ern m en t exc ee d ing this am o u n t, an d there fo re S e ra f in o p la in ly co m m itte d a n a g g ra v a te d f e lo n ya s th a t te rm is d e f in e d u n d e r t h e A c t. M or eover , even though Ser afi no m aybe a l aw ful perm anentr es i dent , he i gnor es the fa ct that1996 amendm ent s t o 8 U . S. C . § 1182( h) r enderi nel i gi bl e forr el i ef thos e l aw ful p e rm a n e n t r e s id e n t a lie n s w h o h a v e c o m m itte d a g g ra v a te d f e lo n ie s . See, e. g. , Lukow s ki v . I NS , 2 7 9 F .3 d 6 4 4 , 6 4 7 -4 8 (8 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). W hatr emai ns i s w hether26 U . S. C . § 7201 cont ai ns an el ementof w i l l ful fr aud suffici ent t o rende r i ta cri m e of m oral turpi tud e. H ere, the B IA con cl ud ed thatbecau se “[t ] he r ecor d r efl ect s that[Ser afi no’ s ] convi ct i on i s bas ed on hi s fi l i ng of fr audul entt ax r eturns , . . . w e fi nd thati ti s a cr i m e i nvol vi ng m or al turpi tude. ” W e h a v e h e ld th a t “[ w ]h e th e r a n a lien ’s c rim e in v o lv e s m o ra l tu rp itu d e is det erm i ned bythe cr i m i nal s t atut e and the r ecor d of convi ct i on, notthe al i en’ s conduct . ” P ar t yka , 4 1 7 F .3 d a t 4 1 1 ; Kn a p ik , 3 8 4 F .3 d a t 8 8 , 9 0 -9 1 ; D e L e o n -R e y n o so v . A sh c ro

ft , 2 9 3 F .3 d 6 3 3 , 6 3 5 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 2 ). W e h a v e re f e rre d to th is a s th e “ c a teg o ric a l” a p p ro a c h : “U nd er this cat ego ri cal app roach, w e read the ap pli cable s t atute t o ascert ai n the l east cul pabl e conduc tnece s s aryt o s us t ai n a convi ct i on underthe s t atut e. ” P ar t yka , 417 F. 3d at411 ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . A s s uch, “[w ] her e a s t atut e cove r s both turpi tudi nous and non-6

tu rp itu d in o u s a c ts . . . it i s ‘d iv isib le[ ]’ a n d w e th e n lo o k to th e re c o rd o f c o n v ictio n to d e t e r mi n e wh e th e rth e a l i e n wa s c o n v i c t e d u n d e rth a tp a r to f th e s t a tu t e d e f

i n i n g a c r i me i nvol vi ng m or al turpi tude. ” I d. H er e, Ser afi no pl eade d gui l tyt o a one c ounti nform at i on al l egi ng a vi ol at i on of 26 U . S. C . § 7201 ( t ax eva s i on) , w hi ch pr ovi des : “A nyper s on w ho w i l l ful l yatt empt s i n any m a n n e r to e v a d e o r d e f

e a t an ytax im p o se d b yth is titl e o r p a ym e n t th e re o f sh a ll, in a d d itio n to o th e r p e n a ltie s p ro v id e d b yla w , b e g u ilty o f a f e lo n y. . . .” 2 6 U .S .C . § 7 2 0 1 . R evi ew of the r ecor d i ndi cat es that , i n pl eadi ng gui l tyt o the one c ounti nform at i on, Ser afi no acknow l edged he “w i l l ful l yand know i ngl y ” att empt ed t o evade t axes byfi l i ng “fa l s e and f

r audul ent ” r eturns . U ndera pl ai n r eadi ng of the s t atut oryl anguage of 26 U . S. C . § 7201, Ser afi no’ s pl ea notonl ys at i s fi es the s t atut oryr equi r ement s forconvi ct i on underthatfede r al t ax s t atut e, buti tal s o cons t i tut es the comm i s s i on of a c r i m e of mora l turpi tud e, for the fo l l ow i ng reas on s. W hi l e “[ t ] he I N A does notdefi ne ‘ m or al turpi tude, ’ and, as thi s C our thas obs erved, the phr as e ‘ defi es a pr eci s e def i ni t i on, ’ ” P ar t

yka , 417 F. 3d at413 ( i nt ernal quot at i on om i t t ed) , the B I A defi nes “mora l turpi tude as conductthati s i nher ent l ybas e, vi l e, ordepr aved, contr aryt o t he ac cept ed rul es of m or al i tyand the dut i es ow ed other per s ons , ei theri ndi vi dual l yort o s oci etyi n gener al . ” I d. ( quot i ng Kn a

p ik , 384 F. 3d at89) ( addi t i onal ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . “A l ongs t andi ng t es templ oy ed bythe B I A t o det erm i ne the exi s t ence of m or al turpi tude, w hi ch w e fi nd per s uas i ve i n a r emoval pr ocee di ng, as ks w hetherthe ac ti s acc om pani ed bya vi ci ous m ot i ve ora corruptm i nd. ” P ar t yka , 417 F. 3d at413 ( i nt ernal quot at i ons om i t t ed) . H er e, gi ven the s t atut oryr equi r ement s of §7

7201, w e conc l ude that“w i l l ful ” eva s i on i nher es i n the l eas tcul pabl e conduc tof § 7201 and evi dence s a “c orruptm i nd. ” I d. A c c o rd in g ly , § 7 2 0 1 is n o t d iv isib le, a n d , ap p lied to th e p a rticu lar re c o rd o f

c o n v ictio n in th is c a se — w h ich in d ica tes S e ra f in o p lea d e d g u ilty to “ w ill f u llya n d k n o w in g ly ” a ttem p tin g to e v a d e tax e s b yf ili n g “ f a lse a n d f

ra u d u len t” r eturns — w e conc l ude the B I A di d noterri n concl udi ng thatSer afi no’ s convi ct i on cons t i tut ed a c r i m e of mora l turpi tude r ender i ng hi m i nel i gi bl e fordeport at i on r el i ef. W e have cons i der ed the r emai ni ng ar gum ent s advanc ed bythe part i es and have d e t e r m i n e d th a tn o f

u r th e rd i s c u s s i o n i s n e c e s s a ry. I V. W e w il l acc o rdin g lyd en yS era fin o ’s pe ti ti o n fo r ha b ea s co rpu s reli ef an d af firm the dec i s i on of the B I A deny i ng Ser afi no’ s m ot i on t o r eopen hi s cas e.