### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 60122
T EO DUL O C ANT U- DE L GA DI L L O , P et i t i on er,
v. E R IC H . H O L D E R , J R ., U .S . A T T O R N E YG E N E R A L , R esp on d en t.
Pet i t i o n f

o rRev i e w o f

a n Ord e ro f

t he B oard of

I m m i grati on A pp eal s
B ef ore G A R W O O D , O W E N , an d S O U T H W IC K , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: T eodu l o C an t u - D el gad i l l o petit i on s t h i s court f or revi ew of an order f rom t he B oar d of

I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( B IA) denyi ng hi s r eques tf oradm i ni st r at ive c lo s u r e a n dd is m is s in gh is a p p e a l. W e d e n yth e p e tit io n .
I C an t u - D el gad i l l o, a na tivea nd c iti z e n o f M e xic o , e nt e r e d th e U n i t ed S t ates as al a wf

ulp e r m a ne ntr e s i d e nto n o ra b o utJ uly5 , 1 9 7 8
. On No v e m b e r27, 199 6, C an t u - D el gad i l l o pl ead e d g u il ty i n T exas st ate c ou rtt o possess i n g m ore t h an f i f t y pou n ds an d l ess t h an 200 0 pou n ds of m arij u an a. H e rec eiveddeferred adj udi c at i on and w as pl ac ed o n pro bat i on f ort en ye ar s. O n January 3 1, 1997, t h e I m m i grati on an d N atural i zati on Servi ce (IN S ) i ssuedan O rd e r to S h ow United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D October 1, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 60122

5 4 9 U .S
. 4 7 (20 0 6 ). 1 2 C au se, cha rgi n g C an t u - D el gad i l l o as bei n g dep ort able becau se he w as an al i en c onvi c t ed o f

a c ont r oll ed s ubst ance vi ol at i on and an aggr avat ed f el ony. C an t u - D el gad i l l o app eared befor e a n i m m i grati on j u dg e (IJ) an d d en i ed all o f t he fac t ual all e ga t i o ns and c har ge s o f de po r t ab i l i t y. The I J f o und allo f

t he fac t ualal l egati o nsa ndc ha r g e s t ob etr ue , d e t er m i ned t hatC ant u- D el gadi l l o w as i n eli gible f

or a n y ty p e of re l i ef, a n do rd ere dh i m d ep orted
. T h e B IAa gr ee dw i th t h e I J that C an t u - D el gad i l l o w asde po r t ab l ebased u pon hi s c on t rol l ed su bstance vi ol ati o n bu thel d that C an t u - D el gad i l l o w as not deportabl e as an a ggrav ated fel on. H ow ev er , i n 1998, t he B IAadm i ni st r at ively c l os ed the pr oc ee di ngs p en d i n g th e p u b l i ca ti on of an ew r e g u l a ti on bythe A ttorn eyG en era lto i m pl em en ta procedu re, kn ow n a s “repap eri n g, ” f or t erm i n ati n g dep ort ati on p r o c e e d in g s fo rce r ta in la w fu l p e r m a n e n t r e s id e n ts . I n 2001, t he B IArei nst at ed t he proc ee di ngs agai nstC ant u- D el gadi l l o a t t h e request of

t h e I N S
. Th e B IAt h en di sm i ssed C an t u - D el gad i l l o’ s app ealf rom t he I J’ s o r de r . I n t he o r de ro f di s m i s s al , t he B IA ag r e e d w i t h t he I J t hatCant uD el gad i l l o w asde po r t ab l eb e c aus eo f hi s c o n t rol l ed su bstance convi ct i on an d als o be c aus e he w as a n a gg r av at e d fe l o n. The BI A f ur t he rde t e r m i ne d thatCant uD e l ga dil l o w as i ne l i gibl e fo rdi s c r e t i o nary r e l i e f und e rf o r m e rI m m i gr at i o n a nd N a tio n a lityA c t (I N A) § 2 1 2 (c ). Cant u- D e l gad i l l o f

i l e d afe de r alhabe as c o r pus pe t i t i o n c hall e ngi ng t he B IA ’ s f i n di n gs, an d h i s pet i t i on w as consol i da t ed w i t h o th e r si m i l ar petit i on s. T h e di st ri ctcourtden i e d th e consol i da t ed p et i t i on s, an d allof t h e petit i on ers ap pe al e d. Thi s c o ur tdi s m i ss e d the c l ai m s c hall e ngi ng t he BI A’ s de c i s i o n a nd af f i r m e d the di s m i s s alo f t he pe t i t i o ne r s ’ha be as pe t i t i o ns . H ow eve r , t he S u prem e C ou rtvacated t h i s c ou rt ’ s opi n i on a n d r e m an ded f or f u rt h er p r o ce e d in g s in li g h t of L opez v. G on zales . On r e m a n d , t h i s c o u r t v a c at e d t he 1N o. 08- 60122

P u b . L . N o . 1 0 4 -2 0 8 , 1 1 0 S ta t. 3 0 0 9 -5 4 6 (1 9 9 6 ). 2 S e eNg uy e n v . I

NS , 1 1 7 F .3 d2 0 6 , 2 0 7 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). 3 3 di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s j udg m e nta s t o Cant u- D e l ga dil l o a nd r e m and e d the m at t e rt o t he B IAforfu rth e r c o n sid e ra tion inli g h t of L opez . O n r e m and , t he D e pa r t m e nto f H o m e l andSe c ur i t y (D H S) w i t hdr e w t he
a g g ra v a te dfelo n ch a rg e b u t m a in ta in e dth a t C a n tu -D e lga d illo’ s c o n v iction of a controll ed su bstance of fen se r en dere d h im both dep ort able an d i n el i gibl e f or di sc r et i onar y r eli ef

under f or m erI N A§ 212(c )
. Can t u- D el gadi l l o r eques t ed that hi s c as e b e adm i n i s t r at ive l y c l o s e d p e ndi ng i s s uanc e o f t he r e pa pe r i ng r e g u la tio n s o r , inth e a lte r n a tiv e , th a t h is ca s e b e re m a n d e ds o th a t h e co u ld
a p p ly fo r s u sp e n sio n of d e p o rta tion u n d e r fo rm e r 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 4 (a )(2) (1 9 9 6 ). H e al so argued t h at th e t i m i n g of t h e proceedi n gs an d the com bi n ati on of pr o vi s i o ns a ppli c ab l e t o hi m v i o l at e d hi s r i ght s t o e qua lp rot e c t i o n a nd d ue pro c es s. The D H S oppos ed C a nt u- D el gadi l l o’ s r eques tf oradm i ni st r at ive cl osure. T h e B IAden i ed C an t u - D el gad i l l o’ s r equ estf or ad m i n i st rat ive cl osure on t he gr ound t hatsuch a r eques tcoul d notbe gr ant ed if oppo se d by e i t herpar t y. T h e B IAdeter m i n ed that C an t u - D el gad i l l o w as i n el igibl e f or s u spen si on of depor t at i on and t hat i t l ac ked j uri sdi c t i on t o c ons i der C ant u- D el gadi l l o’ s fac i al
c o n s t it u t io n a l c h a ll e n g e s . A c c o r d in g ly , t h e B IAd is m is s e dC a n t u -D e lg a d il lo ’s
a p p e a l. C a n tu -D e lg a d illo file datim e lyp e tit io n fo rre v ie w inth is co u r t.
II U nde rt he t r ans i t i o nalr ul e s o f t he I l l e ga lI m m i gr at i o n Ref o r m a nd Im m i gran tR espon sibi l i t y A ct(II R IRA) , t h i s c ou rtl acks j u ri sdi ct i on t o revi ew 2 t he f i nalo r de ro f

r e m o va la ga i ns tCa n t u - De l g a d ill o . Ho w e ve r , t hi s c o ur tr e t ai ns 3 j u ri sdi ct i on t o consi der C an t u - D el gad i l l o’ s argum en t s t o t h e ext en the rai sesN o. 08- 60122

S ee8 U .S .C
. § 1 2 5 2 (a)(2)(D ). 4 Mi k h a e lv . I

NS , 1 1 5 F .3 d2 9 9 , 3 0 2 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). 52 1 I. & N . D e c . 4 7 9 , 4 8 0 (B IA1 9 9 6 ). 6S ee 8 C. F. R. § 1 00 3. 1( g) (“ [ D ] e c i s i o ns o f t he Boa r d, a nd d e c i s i o ns o f t he 7 At t o r ne y G e ne r al , s hallb e b i ndi ng o n a l lo f f i c e r s a nd e m pl o ye e s o f t he D epa rt m en tof

H om el an d S ecuri t y or i m m i grati on j u dg es i n t h e adm i n i st rat i on o f th e im m ig r a tio n la w s o f th e U n ite dS ta te s .”); G alvez- V ergara v. G on zales , 484 F
. 3 d7 9 8 , 8 0 2 ( 5 t h Ci r . 2 0 0 7 ) ( “ [T ] h e BIA’ s r e g u l a t i o n s r e q u i r e i tt o f o l l o w it s o wn p r e c e d e n t u n le s s o v e r r u le d .”). S e eG a rza -Mo r e n o v . G o n za le s , 48 9 F. 3d2 39 , 2 42 ( 6t h Ci r . 2 00 7) (“ The 8 d e c is io n to a d m in is tr a tiv e lyclo s e a c a s e is , in th is co n te x t, n o t d is tin g u is h a b le fr o m aco n tin u a n c e .”); Masi h v. Mu ka sey , 536 F. 3d 370, 372 n. 2 ( 5t h C i r . 2008) (n ot i n g t h at th ere i s no di f ference i n t reat m en tbetw een a r e q u estf or a 4 c ons t i t ut i onalc l ai m s orques t i ons of l aw . W e r evi ew ques t i ons of l aw de novo 4 bu t“ accord deference t o t h e B IA ’ s i n t erpret ati on of i m m i grati on st atutes u n l ess th e re c o r dre v e a ls co m p e llin ge v id e n c e th a t t h e B IA ’ s in t e r p r e ta tio n is in c o r r e c t.” 5
III A C a n tu -D elga d i llo a rg u es th a t, de sp i te the D H S ’ s op p ositi on to a d m i n i strative closu re, th e B IAsh ou l dh a ve ad m i n i stratively cl ose dh i s ca se to awai tt he r e pa pe r i ng r e gul at i o ns b e c aus e t he de ni alw as u nfairt o hi m a nd b e c a u s e t h e D HS ’ s o p p o s i t i o n w a s u nj u s t i f i e da n dc o n t r a r yt o i n t e r n a lD HS po l i c y. TheBI A hel d in In reG u t i errez- L opezt ha t “[ a ] c as e m ay notbe
a d mi n i s t r a t iv e l yc l o s e dif o p p o s e d b y e i t h e ro f t h e p a r t i e s . ” B e c a u s e t h e D HS 6 op p ose dthe ad m i n i strative clo s u r e, th e B IAh a dn o d i scre ti on to ad m i ni s t r at ive l y c l o s e t he ca s e . Acc o r di ngly, t he B IA pr o pe r l y de ni e d Cant u- 7 D el gadi l l o’ s r eques tf oradm i ni st r at ive c l os ure and hi s al t er nat ive r eques tf oran abey an ce. 8N o. 08- 60122

c o n tin u a n c e a n dare q u e s t fo ra n a b e y a n c e ). Se eMa t t e rof

C- , 20 I
. & N
. D ec . 529, 532 ( B IA1992) (“ [ I ] ti s se t t l ed that 9 t he i m m i grati o n j udg e a nd thi s Boa r d l ac k j ur i s di c t i o n t o r ul e upo n t he c o n s tit u tio n a lityo f th e A c t a n dth e re g u la tio n s .”).

Ma lago n d eFu e n te s v . G o n za le s , 462 F. 3d 498, 50 5 (5th C i r . 2006) 10 ( quot i ng W

ash i ngt on v. G l u cksberg , 5 2 1 U .S . 7 0 2 , 7 2 0 -2 1 (1 9 9 7 )). Id
. 11 A h m ed v. G on zales , 447 F
. 3d 433 , 439 ( 5th C i r. 200 6) ( second a l t erat i on 12 i n or i gi n a l) ( quot i ng Ro d r ig u ez - S i l v av . I NS , 242 F
. 3d243 , 246 , 247 ( 5th C i r. 2 0 0 1 )). 5 B C an t u -D e lga d i l l o al so c on t en ds t h at th e B IA ’ s den i alof hi s r equ estf

or ad m i n i st rat ive clo sure an d the t i m i n g of hi s deportat i on proceedi n gs each
r e sul t ed i n t he v i o l at i o n o f hi s duepr o c e s s r i ght s . To t he e xt e ntt hatCant uD e l ga dil l o a l s o a r gue s t hatt he BI A er r e d b y m i s c o ns t r ui ng h i s “a s a ppli e d”
c o ns t i t ut i o nalc l ai m s a s fac i alc hall e nge s , a ny e r r o r w as ha r m l e s s b e c aus e t he B IAl acked j u ri sdi ct i on t o consi der t h ose c h al l en ges. 9 H o w e ve r , a s no t e d, t hi s c o ur tha s j ur i s di c t i on to c o ns i de rCant uD el gad i l l o’ s c on st i t u t i on ali ssues. “T o est abli sh a su bstantive du e process vi ol ati on , a pl ai n t i f

f m u stf i rstboth caref

u l l y describe t h at r i gh tan d est abli sh i tas ‘ deep l y root ed i n t h i s N ati on ’ s h isto ry a n d tr ad i t i on . ’” “ If t h e ri gh ti s s o 10 deep l y root ed— i f

i tis fun da m en t al

— w e su bj ectitto m ore exa ct i n g st an da rds of
r e v ie w . If

i t i s n ot, w e rev i ew on l y for aration a lba sis. ” A d d i ti on a l l y, “ [t]h is 11 court h as l on g h el d that ‘ [a ] l i en s enj oy som e const i t u t i on alprot ect i on s, regardl ess of

t h ei r s t atus, ’bu ti t h as al so l on g h el d th at ‘ t h i s protec t i on i s li m i t ed b yC o n g r e s s ’s b r o a dp o w e r s to c o n t r o l im m ig r a t io n .’” 12 Cant u- D e l ga dil l o a s s e r t s t hat , a s al awf ulpe r m ane ntr e s i de nt , he has a f u n da m en t all ibert y i n t eresti n bei n g able t o res i de w i t h hi s chi l dren an d w ork i n t he U ni t e d St at e s . W e ha vepr e vi o us l y r ej e c t e d as i m i l ar a rgum e nti n aN o. 08- 60122

4 6 2 F .3d 4 9 8 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). 13 Id . a t 5 0 0
. 14 Id
. 15 Id . a t 5 0 5
. 16 Id . a t 5 0 5

– 0 6
. 17 Id . a t 5 0 4
. 18 Id . a t 5 0 5
. 19 Cf
. A h m ed v. G on zales , 4 4 7 F .3 d4 3 3 , 4 4 0 ( 5 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) (“T h is cir c u it 20 has r epe at edly held thatdi sc r et i onar y r eli ef f r om r em oval , i ncl udi ng an ap pl i c at i on f

oran adj ust m entof

s t at us, i s nota liber t y o rpr ope r t y r i ghtt hat re q u ire s d u e p ro ce ss p ro te ctio n .”)
. 6 r e l at e d c o nt e xt . I n Malagon de Fu ente s v. G on zales , t h e pe t i t i o ne r , al awf ul 13 per m anentr es i dentan d m ot herof fournat ural

- bor n U ni t ed St at es c i t i ze ns, w as c o nvi c t e d o f

t he f to f pr o pe r t y i n aw e l far e f r aud a n d subs e que nt l y l e f tt he
c ount r y f

ora day
. O n re t urn t o the U ni t ed St at es , the I N S c harge d h eras an

14

“ arrivi n g alien ” in ad m i ssibl e un der t h e I N A
. O n app ealf rom an order of 15
rem oval, t h e petit i on er arguedtha th er libert y i n t erest s i n st aying i n t h e U n i t ed St at es and bei ng w i t h herc hi l dre n w er e v i ol at ed. W e a f f i rm ed , h ol di ng t hat 16 t h e petit i on er had “no ‘ ri gh t ’to b e a dm i t t ed to t h e U n i t ed S t ates”an d, t h eref ore,

“ t h e governm en tneed s onl y a rati on albasi s t o en f orce a l aw t h at bars h er ad m i s s i o n. ” Bec aus e “ Cong r e s s ’ [ s ] c ho i c e t o di s fav o rt he a dm i ssi o n o f a l i e ns 17
w ho ha vec o m m i t t e d o f fe ns e s i s no ti r r at i o nal , ” t hi s c o ur thel d t h att he 18 pe t i t i o ne r ’ s “ pr e di c am e ntd[i d] no tc o ns t i t ut e ade pri vat i o n o f s ubs t ant ivedue p r o c e s s .” 19 Si m i l art o t he pe t i t i o ne ri n Malagon de Fu ente s , C an t u- D e l ga dil l o does not h ave a fun da m en t all ibert y i n t eresti n bei n g able t o l ive an d w ork i n t h e U n i t ed S t ates. C o n g re ss’ s c h oi ce t o di sfavor t h e ret en t i on of al i en s w h o ha ve been 20N o. 08- 60122

S ee I n reKeS ungCho , N o. A 3 6 7 7 3 9 6 2 , 2 0 0 7 W L 1 1 2 5 7 7 8 , at *1 ( B IA 21 Feb. 23, 2007)
. (“W hi l e the I m m i gr at i on Judges and t hi s B oard have ad m i n i st rat ivel y cl osed m an y cases suasponte f o rt h e p u r p o s e o f

r e p a p e r i n g , we h a ve n ev er d on e so ov er th e ob j ectionof th e D H S , n or d o w e h a ve the au th ority to d o so inth is ca se .”)
.

S ee Malagon de Fu ente s , 462 F. 3d at507 (r ej ec t i ng al i en’ s equal 22 protec t i on cl ai m , i n w h i ch al i en al l egedshe w as t reat ed d iffe re n t l y f rom si m i l arl y si t u ated group , af t er det erm i n i n g t h at thea li e n was m at e ri ally di st i n ct

7 c o nvi c t e d o f c o nt r o l l e d s ubs t anc e vi o l at i o ns i s no ti r r at i o nal
. The r e f o r e , Cant uD e lg a d illo ’ s s u b s ta n tiv e d u e p r o c e s s cla im fa ils
. C C an t u - D el gad i l l o f

u rt h er ass ert s an equ alprot ect i on cl ai m . H e argu es th a t t h e B IA ’ s re f u s a l to clo s e h is ca s e a d m in is tr a tiv e lyim p e r m is s ib ly di f fer ent i at ed hi m f

r o m s i m il a rly - s it uat ed l aw f ulper m anentr es i dent s w ho have
r e c eived th e ben efi t of a d m i n i strative cl osu re, a n d th a t th e resu l ts of h is dep ort ati on proceedi n gs w ou l d h av e b e e n di f ferent had t h e t i m i n g occurred
a c c o r d in gto th r e e a lte r n a tiv e s c e n a r io s . C an t u - D el gad i l l o al l eges t h at hi s c ase i s t h e onl y kn ow n i n st an ce i n w h i ch t h e B IA r e f

us e d t o a dm i ni s t r at ive ly c l o s e ac as e t o a w aitt he r e pa pe r i ng r e gul at i o ns w he n unus uall y ad ve r s e fac t o r s di d no te xi s t . Al t ho ughCant uD e l gad i l l o cit es t o vari ou s c ases i n sup port of t h at ass ert i on , non e of t h e cit ed
c as e s s pe c i f

i c all y i nvo lve s t he BI A gr ant i ng ad m i ni s t r at ivec l o s ur e t o al awf ul p e r m a n e n tr e s i d e n tt o a wa i tt h e r e p a p e r i n gr e g u l a t i o n s i n t h e fa c e o f D HS oppos i t i on. I n fac t , t he B IAr ec ent l y not ed i n an un publ i she d dec i si on t hati thas
n eve ra dm i ni s t r at ive l y c l o s e d ac as e f o rt he pur po s e o f

r e pa pe r i ng “ o ve rt he
o bje c t io n o f t h e D H S .” C a n t u -D e lg a d il lo h a s fa il e dto s h o w th a tth e B IA ’s 21 de c i s i o n re ga r di ng ad m i ni s t r at ivec l o s ur e i n hi s c as e w as dif fe r e ntf r o m t he BI A’ s de c i s i o ns i n o t he rc as e s i nvo lvi ng l awf ulpe r m ane nt r e s i de nt s i n w hi c h t he D H S op p ose d a d m i n i strative cl osu re. C a n tu -D elga d i l l o ha s th ere fore fai l edto est abli sh an equ alprot ect i on cl ai m on thi s basi s. 22N o. 08- 60122

fro m th a t g ro u p ). S ee FC Cv. B each Com m u n i cat i on s, I n c. , 50 8 U
. S. 3 07 , 3 16 ( 19 93 ) (“ The 23 pr o hibit i o n o f

t he EqualPr o t e c t i o n Cl au se go e s no f ur t he rt han t he i nvi di o us di sc r i m i nat i on. ” ( quot i ng Wi l l i am s o n v . Le eO pt i c alof

O kla. , I

nc . , 348 U
. S. 483 (1 9 5 5 )))
. B e a c h Co m m u n ic a tio n s , 50 8 U
. S. a t 3 1 3
. 24 8 I n s upp o r to f

t he s e c o nd gr o und o f hi s e qua lpr o t e c t i o n cl ai m , Cant uD el gad i l l o asser t s t h at, un der t h e f ol l ow i n g a lter n a t ive scenari os, he ei t h er w oul d no tha veb e e n de po r t ab l e o rw o ul d ha vel i ke l y r e c e ive d d i s c r e t i on ary r eli ef: ( 1) t he depo r t at i on pr oc ee di ngs a g a i ns th i m o c c urr e db e f or e Sept em ber30, 1996; ( 2) t he depor t at i on pro c ee di ngs agai nst hi m ar os e pri ort o April24, 1996, bu tw ere not com pl et ed u n t i laf t er A pri l 1 , 1 9 9 7; or ( 3) t h e dep ort ati on p r o c e e d in g s a g a in s t h im w e r e in itia te da fte rA p r il 1 , 1 9 9 7
. Ca n t u - De l g a d i l l o d o e s n o ts u g g e s tt h a tt h e B I A a p p l i e dt h e s e l a ws u n e q u a llyo rin a n in v id io u s lyd is c r im in a to r ym a n n e r . In s te a d , h e a r g u e s o n ly 23 t hatr e as o nab l e l aws t hat ar e be i ng ap pl i e d e qua l l y hav e a n unfairr e s ul t . But “e q u a l p r o te c tio n is n o t a lic e n s e fo rco u r ts to ju d g e th e w is d o m , fa ir n e s s , o rlo g ic of l egi sl ative choi ces. ” C an t u - D el gad i l l o’ s second grou n d f or equa lprot ect i on 24
a ls o fa ils
. D C an t u -D e lga d i l l o argu es t h at th e B IAerr ed byhol di n g t h at he w as not e l i gibl e f

o rs us pe ns i o n o f

de po r t at i o n und e rf o r m e r8 U
. S. C. § 1 25 4( a) ( 2)
. The II R IRAadd ed a stop- t i m e rul e f or det erm i n i n g an al i en ’ s eli gibi l i t y f or su sp en sionof d ep orta ti on or ca n cell a ti on of rem ov a l , pr ov i d i n g th a t: an y peri od of

conti n u ou s r esi den ce orconti n u ou s ph ysi calpresence i n t h e U n i t ed Stat es sha l l be deem ed t o end w h en t h e al i en i s s erved a not i c e t o a ppear und ers ec t i on 239( a) orw hen t he ali en has com m i t t ed an of

fen se r eferred t o i n sec t i on 212 ( a) (2 ) th at r en ders t he al i en i nadm i ss ibl e t o t he U ni t ed St at es under se c t i on 212( a) ( 2)N o. 08- 60122

IIR IR A , s ec. 3 0 4 , 11 0 S tat. 30 0 9 -59 5 ( 1 9 9 6 ) (cod i fi edas a m en d edat 8 25 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 9 b (d )(1 )).

Go n za lez - T

o r r e s v . I

NS , 2 1 3 F .3 d8 9 9 , 9 0 2 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). 26 Id . a t 9 0 2 -0 3 (in te r n a l q u o ta tio n m a r k s a n dcit a tio n o m itt e d). 27 Id . a t 9 0 2
. 28 Heaven v. G on zales , 4 7 3 F .3d 1 6 7 , 1 7 6 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). 292 2 I. & N
. D e c. 1 2 3 6 , 1 2 3 9 (B IA2 0 0 0 ). 30 9 or r em ovab l e f

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates u n der sect i on 237 ( a) ( 2) or 2 3 7 (a)( 4 ), w h i ch ev er is earli est. 25 U nde rt he s t o p- t i m e r ul e , a l i e ns c o ul d nol o nge ra c c r ue y e a r s o f c o nt i nuo us physi c alpr es enc e w hi l e i n depor t at i on pr oc ee di ng s. A l t hough I I R I R Aw as 26 ge ne r a l l yn o tr e t r o a c t iv e l ya p p l i c a b l e , I I RI RA § 3 0 9 (c ) ( 5 ) e x p l i c i t l ymad e t he
s t o p- t i m e r ul e a ppli c ab l e “t o no t i c e s t o a ppe ari s s ue d b efo re , o n , o r after th e d a te of t hee nac t m e ntof

t hi s Act .” I n 199 7, t h e st op-t i m e rul e w as am en ded f or 27 p u r p o s e s o f c la r ityto re p la c e “n o tic e s to a p p e a r” w ith “o r d e r s to s h o w ca u s e .” 28 A l t h ou gh I IR IRA§ 309(c) ( 5) m a d e n o m en t i on as t o i t s r et roact ive ap pl i cat i on t o c r i m i nalof

fens es , t hi s c ou rt has hel d “t hatt he s t op- t i m e r ul e s houl d be
r e tr o a c tiv e lya p p lie dto co n v ic tio n s th a t a r o s e b e fo r e th e II R IR A w a s e n a c te d .” 29 T h e B IAh a s i n t erpret ed the st op-t i m e rul e i n cases i n volvi n g f orm er 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1254 ( a) ( 1) to p rohibi tt h e res t art i n g of t h e cl ock on ce an ali en ha s been
s e rve d wi t h a n Ord e r t o Sho w Caus e . I n I n reMe ndo za- Sandi no , th e B IAh e ld t h at “t h e conti n u ou s ph ysi calpresencec l o c k d o es not st artan ew af t er th e servi ce of a n O rd er to S h ow C a u se so a s to all ow an ali en to accru e th e ti m e req u i red to es t abl i sh e l i gibi l i t y f ors uspens i on o f

depo r t at i on subs equent t o t he s ervi c e o f an O r de rt o Sho w Caus e . ” Relyi ng o n b o t h t he pl ai n l ang uag e o f t he s t at ut e a nd 30N o. 08- 60122

Id
. at1241–4 2. 31 238 F. 3d 371, 376 ( 5t h C i r . 2001) (“ For purpos es of r evi ew by a f

ede r al 32 a p p ell a te cou rt, the B IA ’ s i n terp reta ti o n o f th e stop -t i m e ru l e clearly m ee ts Ch evron ’ s re q u ir e m e n t th a t th e a g e n c y ’ s c o n s tr u c tio n b e ‘b a s e do n ap e r m is s ib le c o n s tr u c tio n o f th e s ta tu te .’”). Id
. 33 Mi k h a e lv . I

NS , 1 1 5 F .3 d2 9 9 , 3 0 2 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). 34 10 t h e l egi sl ative h i st ory, t h e B IAdeter m i n ed that t h e servi ce of an O rder t o Sh ow C au se t erm i n ates an al i en ’ s c on t i n u ou s ph ysi calpresence. 31 Thi s c o ur ti n McBr i d ev . I NSc o nc l ude d thatt he BIA’ s in t e r pr e t at i o n o f t he
s t o p- t i m e r ul e i n Me ndo za- Sandi no w a s rea son a b l e a n dthe refore en titl edto de fe r e nc e . W e st at e d, “ [ a] l t ho ught he BI A’ s r e ad i ng o f t he s t at ut e i s no tt he 32 onl y o ne pos sibl e o rnec es sa r i l y even t he bestposs ibl e re adi ng, i ti s c er t ai nl y a c r e dibl e o ne . Tha tr e ad i ng ac c o unt s f o rthe l ang uag e e m pl o ye d b y Cong r e s s a nd i s w e l ls upp o r t e d b y t he l e gi s l at ivehi s t o r y o f t he st o p- t i m e rul e as w e l la s b y t he
o th e rle g is la tio n inth is re a lm o f th e im m ig r a tio n la w ’ s s tr u c tu r e .” 33 Al t ho ught he BI A i n Me ndoza

- Sandi no a nd thi s c o ur ti n McBri ded e a lt
w i t h 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1254 ( a) ( 1) , t h e sec t i on s of t h e I IR IRA rel i ed upon i n both of t h ose cases, § 304 an d § 309 (c) ( 5) , are al so app l i cabl e t o 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1254 (a )(2). T h eref ore, becau se t h ere i s n o com pel l i n g evi den ce th at th e B IA ’ s i n t erpret ati on of § 1254 ( a) ( 2) an d the st op-t i m e rul e w ere i n corr ect , th at i n t erpret ati on w arran t s deference. 34 T h e parti es agree t h at th e B IAerred by cal cul ati n g t h e requ i si t e p eri od of
c ont i nuous ph ys i c alpres enc e un der§ 1254( a) ( 2) as c om m enc i ng on t he dat e that Cant u- D e l ga dil l o c o m m i t t e d hi s c o nt r o l l e d s ubs t anc e o f fe ns e , r at he rt han o n t he da t e of hi s c on t rol l ed su bsta n ce c on vi ct i on . H ow ever, t h i s er ror i s harm l ess be c aus e e ve n und e rt he c o r r e c tc al c ul at i o n, Cant u- D e l ga dil l o fail e d t o m e e tt he requ i si t e peri od of

conti n u ou s ph ysi calpresence. A ccor di n gl y, t h e B IAdi d n otN o. 08- 60122

8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .1 (e )(5 ). 358 C .F .R . § 3 .1 (a )(7 )(iv) (2 0 0 1 ). 36 11 err i n hol di n g t h at C an t u -D el gad i l l o w as not eli gibl e f or s u spen si on of d e p o rta tion u n d e r fo rm e r 8 U .S .C
. § 1 2 5 4 (a)(2). E C a n tu -D e lga d illo co n te n d s th a t th e B IAer re db yp e rm ittin gasin gl e board
m em ber t o deci de h i s c ase rat h e r th a n a t h ree- m em ber pan el
. U n der 8 C .F .R .§ 1 0 0 3 .3 (f), “[a ]ll c a s e s a n d m o tio n s p e n d in g o n S e p te m b e r 2 5 , 2 0 0 2 , sh a ll be adj u di cat ed accordi n g t o t h e rul es i n ef fecton or a f

t er that d ate . . . . ” U n der th e cu r r e n t r e g u la tio n s , if as in g le b o a r dm e m b e rd e te r m in e s th a t a n a p p e a l is
n otapp ropri ate f

or af f i rm an ce w i t h ou t opi n i on , t h at m em ber “ sha l li ssue a bri ef
o r de ra f f i r m i ng, m o dif

yi ng, o rr e m and i ng t he de c i s i o n und e rr e vi e w , unl e s s t he B o a r dm e m b e rd e s ig n a te s th e ca s e fo rd e c is io n b yath r e e -m e m b e rp a n e l.” 35 H ow e v e r, p ri or t o 200 2, t h e regul ati on s r equ i red t h at an ap pea lf or w h i ch af f i rm an ce w i t h ou topi n i on w as not app ropri ate be ass i gn ed to a three- m em ber pa n elf or r evi ew an d d eci si on . C an t u - D el gad i l l o asser t s t h at hi s c ase w as not 36

“ pe ndi ng”o n Se pt e m be r2 5, 2 00 2, b e c aus e , o n t hat da t e , he w as c hall e ngi ng t he B IA ’ s pri orde ci si on i n hi s c as e i n fede r aldi st r i c tc our t . H e a r gues t hat § 1003. 3(f

) i s t her ef

or e notappl i c abl e t o hi s c as e a nd t hathi s appeals houl d have b e e n s e n tt o at h r e e - me mb e rp a n e lf o rr e v i e w. T h i s c ou rtrem an ded th e c a se to t h e B IAf or det erm i n ati on on F ebru ary 13, 2007. There f

ore, r egar dl es s of

w het herC ant u- D el gadi l l o’ s appealw as ac t uall y “ pe ndi ng”b e f o r e t he BI A o n Se pt e m be r2 5, 2 00 2, t he c as e w as pe ndi ng b e fo r e th e B IA“o n o ra fte r” t h a t d a te a n d§ 1 0 0 3 .3 (f) is a p p lic a b le
. C ant u- D el gadi l l o a l soar gues t hat hi s appeal sho ul d have be en hear d by
at h r e e -j u d g e p a n e lb e c aus e t h e c a s e me tt h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f 8 C. F. R.N o. 08- 60122

S ee8 C .F. R
. § 1003
. 1( e) ( 6) (i i) ( st ati n g t h at a c ase m ay be a ssi gn ed f or 37 r e vi e w by a t hr e e - m e m be r pa ne l i f t he r e i s a “ ne e d t o e s t ab l i s h a precedent co n str u in gth e m e a n in gof la w s, re g u la tion s, orp ro ce d u re s”).

S ee8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .1 (e )(5 ) (“I f th e B o a r d m e m b e r to w h o m a n a p p e a l is 38 assi gn ed d et erm i n es, up on consi derati on of t h e m erit s, t h at th e deci si on i s not ap propri ate f

o ra f f ir m ance w i t h ou topi n i on , t h e B oard m em ber shalli ssue a bri ef o r de r af f i r m i ng, m o dif

yi ng, o rr e m and i ng t he de c i s i o n und e rr e vi e w , unl e s s t he B oard m em ber desi gn ates t h e case f or d eci si on by a three- m em ber pan elun der pa r agr ap h ( e ) ( 6) o f

this se c t i o n und e rt he s t and ar ds o f t he c as e m ana ge m e nt p la n .”). S ee8 C
. F
. R
. § 1003
. 1( e) ( 6) (“ C ases m ayonly be as si gned f orr evi ew by 39 ath r e e -m e m b e rp a n e l if th e ca s e p r e s e n ts o n e o f th e s e cir c u m s t a n c e s . . . .” (e m p h a s is a d d e d)). S ee 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1252 ( a) ( 2) ( C ) (“ [ N ] o courtshallha ve j u ri sdi ct i on t o revi ew 40 anyf i nalo r de ro f

r e m o va la ga i ns ta n a l i e n who i s r e m o vabl e b y r e as o n o f ha vi ng co m m itted acr im in a l offen se co v e re dinse ctio n 1 1 8 2 (a)(2) o r 1 2 2 7 (a)(2)(A)(iii), ( B ) , ( C ) , or (D ) of thi s tit l e, or an y of fen se covered bysec t i on 122 7( a) ( 2) (A) (i i) of t h is tit l e f

or w h i ch both p redi cat e of fen ses are, w i t h ou tregard t o t h ei r date of co m m iss ion , o th e rw ise co v e re db yse ctio n 1 2 2 7 (a)(2)(A)(i) of th is titl e .”)
. 12 § 100 3. 1( e) ( 6) (i i)
. B u t8 C
. F
. R
. § 1003
. 1( e) ( 5) prov id e s th at a s i n gl e- board 37
m em ber ha s t h e di scr et i on t o deci de w h et h er t h e case m erit s r evi ew by a threem em ber pan el
. A ss ignm en tt o a t h ree- m em ber board i s not m an da t ory even 38 i f i t m ee ts t h e crit e r ia u n d er 8 C
. F
. R
. § 10 0 3
. 1 (e) (6). B eca u se th e d ecisi on to 39 d e s ig n a te th e ca s e to b e h e a r db yath r e e -m e m b e rp a n e l is d is c r e tio n a r y , th is
c o u r t la c k s ju r is d ic tio n to re v ie w th e B IA ’ s d e c is io n . A c c o r d in g ly , th e B IAd id 40
n ot err in fol l ow i n g it s ow n re gu l a ti on s b y p erm i tti n g a si n gle b oa rdm em b er to d e c id e th e ca s e . * * * Ca n t u - De l g a d i l l o ’ s p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w i s DE NI ED
.