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
2-7-2006 

# Duvall 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 : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 04-4412

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

" Duvall v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1518. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/1518B eca us e w e have convert ed the p resentappea l i nt o a * pet i t i on fordi r ectr evi ew , w e are r equi r ed t o s ubs t i tut e the A tto rn e y G e n e ra l f

o r t h e re s p o n d e n t ( W illia m F . R ile y , J r., Di s t r i c t Di r e c t o r , Bu r e a u o f I mmi g r a t i o n Cu s t o ms E n fo rce m en t)

. 8 U
. S

. C

. § 1 2 5 2 (b)(3 )(A ). 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. 04- 4412

AN DR EA PA TRI CI A D UV ALL, (N ee A nd rea Pat ri ci a P hil l i ps) 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

I ni t i al l ydocket ed as an A ppeal fr om the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D
. C

. N o. 04- cv- 03483) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e M i chae l M
. B ay l s on2 C onvert ed t o a Pet i t i on forR evi ew fr om the B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls Pur s uantt o the R eal I D A ctof 2005 ( B oar d N o. A 71 041 214) I m m i gr at i on J udge W al tD ur l i ng
A r gued D ece m ber7, 2005 B efor e: R E N D E L L , FI SH E R and G R E E N B E R G , C i r cui tJudges

. ( Fi l ed: February7, 2006) A nthonyA

. Y ang ( A r gued) U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof J us t i ce A ppel l at e Sect i on 9 5 0 P e n n s y l v a n i a A v e n u e , N
. W. R oom 7248 W as hi ngt on, D C 20530 R obertM
. L oeb U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof J us t i ce C i vi l D i vi s i on, A ppel l at e St aff 6 0 1 D S tr e e t , N
. W. R oom 9149 W as hi ngt on, D C 20530 A t t or neys f

orR es pondent3 D er ek W

. G r ay( A r gued) St eel , R udni ck & R uben 1608 W al nutSt r eet , Sui t e 1500 Phi l adel phi a, PA 19103 A t t or ney f

orP et i t i oner

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

F IS H E R , C i r cui tJudge

. W e mustdeci de i n thi s cas e w hethera l i t i gat i on err orby the I m m i gr at i on and N atur al i zat i on Ser vi ce, r esult ing i n an adver s e det erm i nat i on on the i s s ue of a l i enage dur i ng deport at i on pr o ce edi ngs , pr ecl udes the governm entfr om ther eaf t ers eeki ng t o r emove t he al i en b ased on subs equent c rim in a l ac ts. W e c o n c lu d e th a t itd o e s n o t. I. A. A ndr ea Pat r i ci a D uval l i s a nat i ve and c i t i zen of J amai ca. S h e e nter ed this cou ntry on a vali d t ou ri st vis a i n 198 7, as a “vi s i t or for pl eas ur e. ” She l at erm arr i ed a U ni t ed St at es ci t i zen and appl i ed foradj us t m entof s t atus t o l aw ful perm anent r es i dent

. H er r eques t w as gr ant ed, and s he bec ame a perm anent r es i denti n 1993.D u v a ll arg u e d th a t th e a n sw e rs to th e se q u e stio n s w o u ld 1 expos e fa l s e s t at ement s i n herappl i cat ion foradj us t m entof s t atus , pr ovi di ng gr ounds forcr i m i nal pr os ecut i on. 4 H er d ay s i n thi s countryw er e notal l t our i s m and r om ance , how ever . B etw een 1987 and 1993, D uval l comm i t t ed a s er i es o f re t ai l t heft s and pettyl ar ceni es i n N ew J er s ey , N ew Y o rk , an d P e n n sy lv a n ia. T h e se tra n sg re ss io n s re su lted in nu m erous arr est s and eleven co nv i ct i on s byst at e authori t i es. Soo n there af

ter, the IN S i ni t i at ed deport at i on pr ocee di ngs a g a in st D u v a ll. S h e w a s c h a rg e d a s a n a lien s u bje c t to deport at i on bas ed on convi ct i ons of cr i m es i nvo lving m or al turpi tud e, 8 U
. S

. C

. § 122 7(a) (2) (A )( i i ). A heari ng w as h e ld befor e an i m m i gr at i on j udge on N ovember16, 1993. T he s ol e w i tnes s cal l ed bythe I N S w as D uval l

. C ouns el forthe governm entas ked hert o confi r m herpl ace of bi r th and ci t i zens hi p. She r efus ed. She as s ert ed a pr i vi l ege a gai ns ts el fi ncr i m i nat i on underthe Fi fth A m end m en t a nd w oul d nei ther confi r m nordenyanyof the al l egat i ons i n the or dert o s how caus e. 1 T h e IN S w as c a u g h t of f g u ard b ythis m an eu v er. C ouns el s oughtt o i ntr oduce i nt o evi dence D uval l ’ s appl i cat i on foradj us t m entof s t atus , i n w hi ch s he admi t t ed t o bei ng a nat i ve and ci t i zen of

J amai ca; how ever , the doc um entw as rul ed i nadmi s s i bl e fornoncompl i ance w i th l ocal rul es r equi r i ng s ubm i s s i on of evi dence atl eas tt en day s befor e the hea r i ng. T he I N S had no otherm eans byw hi ch t o pr ov e D u v al l ’ s al i enage ,5 and r es t ed i t s cas e. P r edi ct abl y , the i m m i gr at i on j udge found thatther e w as not“cl ear , unequi vocal , and convi nci ng evi dence ” t o es t abl i s h al i enage . H e accor di ngl yt erm i nat ed the proceed i ng s. T he I N S soughtrevi ew of the dec i s i on bythe B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s , buts ubs equent l yw i thdr ew th e ap p eal , for r eas ons that ar e notexpl ai ned i n the r ecor d. T he dec i s i on of the i m m i gr at i on j udge, t erm i nat i ng the pr ocee di ngs, remai ns the di s pos i t i ve or deri n t he ca s e. B. T he brus h w i th deport at i on di d notdet erD uval l

. She c o n tin u e d h e r c rim in a l ex p lo its a n d w a s c o n v ict e d tw ice , in 1 9 9 5 a n d 2 0 0 1 , o f

f e l o n yr e t a i l th e f

tu n d e rP e n n s y l v a n i a l a w. W h ile in c a rc e ra ted , D u v a ll w a s in ter v iew e d b y a n IN S o f f icia l. She admi t t ed i n a s w orn s t at ementthats he w as a ci t i zen of J a m a i c a a n d a n a l i e n i n th i s c o u n try. W i thi n day s of thi s admi s s i on, the I N S a g ain i ni t i at ed deport at i on pr ocee di ngs a g a i n s tDuv a l l

. She w as char ged, bas ed on herencount er s w i th l aw enfor cement i n 1995 and 2001, as an a l i e n s u b j e c tt o r e m o v a l f

o rc o n v i c t i o n s o f

a n a g g r a v a t e d f

e l o n y, 8 U
. S. C

. § 1227( a) ( 2) ( A ) ( i i i ) , and cr i m es i nvol vi ng m or al turp itu d e, 8 U
. S

. C

. § 1 2 2 7 (a)(2)(A )(i i)

. R emoval pr ocee di ngs wer e t erm i nat ed i n J une 2001. T he p re sid in g im m ig ra tio n ju d g e , o n m o tio n o f D u v a ll’s c o u n se l, hel d thatthe I N S w as col l at er al l y es t opped fr om r el i t i gat i ng the iss u e o f a lien a g e b e c a u se it h a d e n jo y e d a f

u ll an d f

a irT he B oard did no t exp l ai n the di fference bet w een these 2 s t andar ds , buts i m pl ys t at ed thatthe new s t an d ar d w as a l es s er bur den. 6 oppor tuni tyt o l i t i gat e the mat t eri n the 1993 pr ocee di ngs . T he I N S, the j udge hel d, w as bound bythe pr i ordet erm i nat i on that ther e w as i ns uffi ci entevi dence t o es t abl i s h D uval l ’ s al i enage . T he B oar d of Imm i gr at i on A ppeal s r ever s ed. I t hel d that col l at er al es t oppel s ho u ld be appl i ed “mor e fl exi bl y ” i n the i m m i grat i on con t ext and t hat s everal fact ors m ili tat ed ag ai nst i m pos i ng a bart o r el i t i gat i on i n thes e ci r cumst ance s . Fi r s t , the IN S had been preven t ed in the p ri or proceedings – a lb e it as a r es ul tof i t s ow n fai l ur e t o compl yw i th l ocal rul es – from i ntr oduci ng evi dence of al i enage . Second, the bur den of pr oof on the I N S had change d betw een the f ir st a nd s econd pr ocee di ngs : fr om “cl ear , unequi vocal and co nvi nci ng” evi dence t o “cl earand convi nci ng” evi dence

. Fi nal l y , the 2 B oar d det erm i ned thatappl i cat i on of the doctr i ne i n thi s cas e, w her e the al i en had c om m i t t ed addi t i onal dep o rt abl e off ens es fol l ow i ng i ni t i al r emoval pr ocee di ngs , w o ul d contr avene c o n g re ss io n a l in ten t.O n M ar ch 1, 2003, aft er the B oar d had r eman d ed the 3 c a se to t he im m i grat i on j ud ge, the IN S ceased to exi stand i ts i nt er i orenfor cement funct i ons w er e t r ans ferr ed t o the B ur eau of I m m i gr at i on and C us t om s E nfor cement( “B I C E ”) , w i thi n the D e p a rt m e n t o f

H o m e la n d S e c u ri ty. See H o m e lan d S e c u rityA c t, Pub. L
. N o. 107- 296, § 441, 116 St at
. 2 1 3 5 , 2192 ( 2002)

. For purpos es of thi s di s cus s i on, the B I C E w i l l be r efe rr ed t o as the I N S. D uval l had pr evi ous l y fi l ed a pet i t i on forw r i tof habe as

4 corpus , aft erthe B oar d had r emanded the ca s e t o the i m m i gr at i on j udge. T hat pet i t i on w as eventual l ydi s m i s s ed for l ack of j ur i s di ct i on beca us e D uval l had noty etex h au st ed a d m in is tr a tiv e re m e d ie s . D uval lv. E lw ood , 336 F. 3d 228, 229- 3 4 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 3 ). 7 O n re m a n d , the im m ig ra tio n ju d g e a llo w e d th e IN S to 3 pr es ent ev ide nce of

D uval l ’ s al i enage and found, bycl earand c o n v in c in g e v id e n c e , tha t D u v a ll w a s a n a lien su b jec t to r emoval bas ed on her 1995 and 2001 convi ct i ons . T he or derof r emoval w as l at eraff

i r m ed bythe B oar d. C. D u v a ll th e n f

iled a p e tit io n f

o r w rit o f

h a b e a s c o r p u s in the D i s tr i ctC our tforthe E as t ern D i s tr i ct of Penns y l vani a. She 4 r enew ed herar gum ent that , undercomm on l aw pr i nci pl es of col l at er al es t oppel , the I N S w as pr ecl uded fr om r el i t i gat i ng the i s s ue of a l i enage .8 T h e D istri ct C o u rt ag ree d

. It h eld th at the g o v ern m en t’ s fai l ur e t o s at i s fy i t s bur den of pr oof on al i enage dur i ng the 1993 pr ocee di ngs col l at er al l yes t opped i tfr om r ai s i ng the i s s ue aga i n. T he D i stri ctC ou rtcon cl ud ed that , “al tho ug h

. . . it[i s] m ani fes t l yunfai rt o the governm entt o be for ecl os ed fr om pr ovi ng [D uval l ’ s ] al i enage , the i s s ue of f ai rnes s i s not d e ter m in a ti v e o n th e d o c [ tr]in e o f c o llate ra l es to p p e l.” A w rit of habe as corpus w as gr ant ed i n Sept ember2004. T hi s t i m el yappea l fol l ow ed. II. T he thr eshol d i s s ue i s the natur e of ourj ur i s di ct i on. W hen the D i s tr i ct C o ur ti s s ued i t s deci s i on, a cha l l enge t o an or derof r emoval coul d be ra i s ed i n a pet i t i on forw r i tof habe as c o rp u s u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 1
. See I N S v. St

. C

yr , 53 3 U. S. 289, 292 ( 2001)

. T hi s i s no l ongerthe ca s e. T he R eal I D A ctof 2 0 0 5 , P u b . L . N o . 1 0 9 -1 3 , 1 1 9 S ta t. 23 1 , en a c ted w h ile th is appea l w as pendi ng, di ves t s di s tr i ctcourt s of j ur i s di ct i on over th e s e m a tte rs . I

d. § 106. T he s ol e means byw hi ch an a l i en may now ch a l l e n g e a n o r d e ro f r e mov a l i s th r o u g h a p e t i t i o n f or re v ie w d ir e c te d to th e c o u rt o f a p p e a ls

. See Jor don v. A t t or ney G ener al , 4 2 4 F
. 3 d 3 2 0 , 3 2 6 -28 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 5 ). A pet i t i on for w r i t of habeas corpus chal l engi ng an or der of r emoval , pendi ng on the dat e of the A ct ’ s enac t m ent , i s t o be convert ed t o a pet i t i on forr evi ew and tr ans ferr ed t o the a p p ro p ria te c o u rt o f a p p e a ls. R e a l ID A c t § 1 0 6 (c ). W e h e ld in B onhom etre v. G onz al es , 4 1 4 F .3 d 4 4 2 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ), th a t, des pi t e the abs ence of expr es s s t atut orygu idan ce, a s i m i l ar9 p rac ti ce sh o u ld g o v ern p en d ing ap p ea ls i n v o lving d istri ct co u rt d e c is io n s g ra n tin g h a b e a s re lie f f ro m a n o rd e r o f r e m o v a l. I d. at446. W e f

o llo w th is a p p ro a c h h e re . T h e n o tice o f a p p e a l w ill b e c o n v e rt e d to a p e tit i o n f o r r e v ie w , s ee i d. , the A t t orney G e n e ra l w ill b e s u b s titu te d a s th e re s p o n d e n t in th is c a s e , s ee 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (b )(3 )(A ), an d th e d e c isio n o f th e D istric t C o u rt, n o w re n d e re d a n u llity, w ill b e v a c a te d , s ee Jor don , 424 F. 3d at 326

- 2 8
. W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n t o c o n s i d e r th e d e c i s i o n of t he B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s under 8 U
. S. C

. § 1252( b) ( 2) , and exer ci se p l enaryr evi ew overques t i ons of l aw , w i th due defe r ence t o the age ncy ’ s i nt erpr et at i on of the I m m i gr at i on and N a tu ra liz a tio n A c t ( IN A ). Jor don , 4 2 4 F .3 d a t 3 2 6 -2 8 ; see al so Kam ar a v. A t t or ney G ener al , 4 2 0 F
. 3 d 2 0 2 , 2 1 1 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 5 ). III
. T u rn in g to th e m e rits, th e so le s u b sta n tiv e q u e stio n in th is a p p e a l i s wh e th e r th e d o c tr i n e o f c o l l a t e r a l e s t o p p e l b a r s th e I NS fro m reli ti g ati n g the i ssu e of ali en ag e ag ains t D u v all

. T h ere are tw o a sp e c ts to th e in q u ir y. T h e f irst is w h e th e r th e a g e n c yis r equi r ed t o appl ythe doctri ne im p rim is
. T he s econd i s , i f s o, how the doctr i ne s houl d be appl i ed i n thi s cas e. A. Iti s not the p rer og at i ve o f t h e f e d e ral cou rt s t o im po se upon admi ni s tr at i ve age nci es pr ocedur al doctr i nes orrul es of d e c is io n , w h a te v e r th e ir h is to ri c a l p e d ig re e . A s t or i a Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass ’ n v. Sol i m i no , 5 0 1 U .S . 1 0 4 , 1 0 8 (1 9 9 1 ); V t
. Y ankeeSubst ant i ve due pr oces s m ayoffe rs om e pr ot ect i on 5 agai ns tr epea t ed r el i t i gat i on of the sam e i s s ue byan a d m in is tr a tiv e a g e n c y . E

. g. , B a b c o c k & W ilco x C o . v. Ma rs h a ll , 610 F. 2d 1128, 1138 & n. 34 ( 3d C i r . 1979)

. T hi s cas e, i n w hi ch the tw o p roc ee d ing s w ere sep ara ted b ysev en y ea rs an d w ere based o n dis t i nct cr i m i nal act s, do es not i m pli cat e t hese c o n c e rn s . See i d. 10 N ucl earP ow erC or

p. v. N a tura l Res

. D ef

. C ounci l , I nc. , 435 U
. S. 519 , 524- 25, 542 ( 1978)

. C ongr es s has di s cr et i on, bas ed on i t s ow n w ei ghi ng of pol i cy goal s , t o pr es cr i be the pr ocedur es byw hich a n agen cy w i l l perform i t s w ork and render deci si on s. A sto ria , 5 0 1 U .S . a t 1 0 8 . T h e o n lyc o n stra in t o n th is a u th o rity i s the C ons t i tut i on, embodi ed pri m ari l yi n the r equi r ementof “due pr oces s . ” See i d. ; see al so L a n d o n v . P la se n c ia , 45 9 U. S. 2 1 , 3 4 -35 (19 8 2 ). C o lla te ra l e s to p p e l is n o t c o n s titu tio n a lly m a n d a te d , s ee A sto ria , 501 U
. S. at 108, and, as s uch, the ques t i on of w hether an age ncym us tappl yth e doct r i ne i s t o be ans w er ed by r efe r ence t o the ena bl i ng s t atut e. O nl y i f C ongr es s r equi r ed the 5 a g e n c yto a p p lyc o llate ra l es to p p e l m a yth e f e d e r a l c o u rts e n f o rc e th a t o b lig a tio n . See i d. A c u rso ryre v ie w o f

th e IN A sh o w s th a t th e d o c trin e is no texp l i ci t l yprescr i bed

. N ow here do es the A ctuse t he p hrase “col l at er al es t oppel , ” “r es j udi cat a, ” “i s s ue pr ec lus i on, ” or “cl ai m pr ecl us i on, ” and now her e does the A ctexpr es s l ybarthe agenc yfr om r el i t i gat i ng i s s ues pr evi ous l ydeci ded.11 B ut the abs ence of di s cus s i on cannotbe vi ew ed as di s pos i t i ve. C ongr es s i s expec t ed t o l egi s l at e aga i ns tthe b a c k d ro p o f

w e ll- e s ta b lis h e d c o m m o n la w p ri n c i p l e s . I d. at 108- 11. A n acc ept ed comm on l aw doctr i ne s houl d be i m pl i ed i n a st atutoryschem e, despit e t he ab sence o f exp res s author i zat i on, i f appl i cat i on of the doctr i ne i s cons i s t entw i th the s tru c tu re a n d p u rp o s e o f th a t s c h e m e . I

d. Co l l a t e r a l e s t o p p e l h a s b e e n r e c o g n i z e d b yth e S u p r e me C ou rtas one o f t hese w el l -es t abli shed co m m on l aw pri ncipl es. I d. at 1 07- 08 ( ci t i ng P arkl an e H osi ery C o. v. Sh ore , 43 9 U. S. 322, 326 ( 1979) )

. I thas lo n g b ee n empl oy ed as a means of e n s u ri n g re p o s e . I

d. Such r epos e i s j us t i fi ed on the sound and obvi ous pr i nci pl e . . . thata los ing l i t i gantdes erves no re m a tch a f

ter a d e f

e a t f a irlysu f

f e re d , in a d v e rsa ria l p ro c e e d in g s, o n a n is su e id e n tica l in su b sta n c e to th e o n e h e s u b se q u e n tlyse e k s to r ai s e. T o hol d otherw i s e w oul d, as a gene r al m att er , i m pos e unj us t i fi abl yupon thos e w ho have al r eadys houl der ed thei rbur dens , and dr ai n the r es our ces of an a dj udi cat orys y s t em w i th di s put es r es i s t i ng r es ol ut i on. I d. C o n g re ss m a yb e p re su m e d , w h e n e n a c tin g a sta tu te g ra n tin g to a n a g e n c ya d ju d ica to rya u th o rity , to m a n d a te a d h e re n c e to th e d o c tr in e o f c o lla te ra l e s to p p e l. I

d. T he I N A gr ant s adj udi cat ory author i tyt o i m m i gr at i on j udges and the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s. T h ese e nt i t i es12 ar e cha r ged w i th r es ol v ing f actual and l egal di s put es bas ed on an evi dent i aryr ecor d devel oped bythe par t i es fol l ow i ng not i ce an d a h ea ri n g . 8 U
. S

. C

. § 1 2 2 9 a (b ), (c). T h ese fu n cti o n s are i nher ent l yj udi ci al i n natu r e, and pr oper l ys ubj ectt o pr i nci pl es o f is s u e p re c lu s io n . See, e. g. , U n ite d S ta te s v . Uta h C o n s tr . & Mi n. C o. , 384 U
. S

. 3 94, 422 ( 1966) ( “W hen an a dm i ni s tr at i ve agenc yi s act i ng i n a j udi ci al capa ci tyand r es ol ved di s put ed i s s ues of fa ctpr oper l ybefor e i tw hi ch the part i es have ha d an a d e q u a te o p p o rtu n ityto lit ig a te, th e c o u rts h a v e n o t h e sita ted to a p p lyre s ju d ica ta to e n f o rc e re p o se .”). T h e re f

o re , the IN A w ill b e re a d to in c o rp o ra te p rin c ip les o f c o llate ra l es to p p e l if appl i cat i on of the doctr i ne does notfrus tr at e congr es s i onal i n t e n t o r i m p e d e th e e f f e c t i v e f u n c t i o n i n g o f th e a g e n c y. A sto ria , 5 0 1 U .S . at 1 0 8 -1 1 ; Utah C on str. , 384 U
. S. at422. Th e s tru c tu r e o f

th e I NA i s c o n s i s t e n twi th c o l l at er al es t oppe l

. Th e A ctes t abl i s hes an adve r s ar i al s y s t em underw hi ch th e p a rties b e a r d if

f e re n t b u rd e n s o f

p ro o f w ith re sp e c t to var i ous i s s ues . 8 U
. S. C

. § 1229a( b) , ( c)

. T he I N S bear s the bur den of pr ovi ng, by “cl ear and convi nci ng” evi dence , thatthe in d iv id u a l is a n a l i e n a n d is s u b je c t to d e p o rt a tio n . I d. § 1229a( c) ( 3) ( A )

. O nl yif the I N S sa t i s fi es thi s bur den, bas ed on evi dence pr es ent ed at a hear i ng, m ay the i m m i gr at i on j udge is s u e a n o rd e r a u th o ri z in g re m o v a l. I d. § 1 2 2 9 a(c )(1)(A ). Im p o sitio n o f th is bu rd e n w o u ld b e re n d e re d lar g e ly m e a n in g le ss if

th e IN A is n o t in terp re ted to in c o rp o ra te pr i nci pl es of col l at er al es t oppel

. Fai l ur e t o s at i s fy the bur den of pr oof atone hear i ng befor e one i m m i gr at i on j udge w oul d have no ef fe cton the governm ent ’ s abi l i tyt o br i ng s ucce s s i ve pr ocee di ngs i n fr ontof s ucce ssive imm i gr at i on j udges

. T he13 s ame evi dence coul d be i ntr oduced a nd the s ame w i tnes s es c o u ld b e in ter ro g a ted , o v e r a n d o v e r , u n til th e d e sire d re su lt i s a c h i e v e d

. De s p i t e th e c o n g r e s s i o n a l c o mm a n d th a tth e I NS bear s the bur den of pr ovi ng r emovabi l i ty bas ed o n evi dence o f f e re d d u ri n g a s in g le im m ig ra tio n h e a ri n g , s ee i d. § 1 2 2 9 a(c ), th e IN S w o u ld h a v e n o re a l in c e n tiv e to m a rsh a l all o f its evi dence orpr es enti t s bes t cas e agai ns tan i ndi vi dual

. I f i tl os es in o n e h e a rin g , it m a y sim p ly re in iti a te th e p ro c e ss – re p e a ted ly i f n e c e s s a r y. C o llate ra l es to p p e l w o u ld p re v e n t th is re su lt. It w o u ld re q u ire , co n sis ten t w ith th e IN A , tha t th e IN S p re se n t all avai l abl e evi d e n c e a g a i n s tth e i ndi vi dual dur i ng a s i ngl e hea r i ng. O n lyif th e I N S c a n d o so , an d sa tisf yits b u rd e n o f

p ro o f , w ill it b e e n title d to a n o rd e r o f re m o v a l. See i d. § 1 2 2 9 a(c )(1)(A ). I ndeed, the I N A i t s el f r ecogni zes thatcol l at er al es t oppel w i l l be appl i ed i n i m m i gr at i on pr ocee di ngs . O ne sec t i on of the A ct , 8 U
. S

. C

. § 1228, al l ow s the U ni t ed St at es t o r eques tan or der o f r emoval fr om a fe der al j udge dur i ng cr i m i nal pr ocee di ngs i nvol vi ng an al i en convi ct ed of an aggr avat ed f e lo n y . I d. T he s t atut e n ot abl ycl ar i fi es that“[d] eni al of a r eques tfora j udi ci al or derof r emoval s hal l not pr ecl ude the [ I NS] f r o m i n i t i a t i ng r e mov a l p r o c e e d i n g s . . . u p o n th e s a me gr ound of deportabil i tyorupon anyothergr ound of deport abi l i ty . ” I

d. § 1228( c) ( 4)

. I n o ther w or ds , the A ct e x p re ss lyp ro v id e s th a t c o llate ra l e sto p p e l d o e s n o t a p p lyin th is c irc u m sta n c e . T h e re w o u ld b e n o re a so n f o r C o n g re ss to i ncl ude this p rovi s i on unl es s i tant i ci pat ed thatthe doctr i ne wo u l d o th e r wi s e a p p l yi n p r o c e e d i n g s u n d e rth e I NA.See H am dan v. G onz al es , 4 2 5 F .3 d 1 0 5 1 , 1 0 5 9 -6 0 (7 th 6 C ir. 2 0 0 5 ); Sa n ta n a -A lb a rr a n v . A sh c ro ft , 393 F. 3d 699, 703- 04 (6 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ); J

o h n so n v . A sh c ro

ft , 378 F. 3d 164, 172 n. 10 ( 2d 14 A nypossi bl e ambi gui tyi n the congr es s i onal l anguage m a yb e re so lv e d b y re f

e re n c e to a g e n c y p ra c tice , w h ich su p p o rts i ncorpor at i on of comm on l aw pr i nciples of pr ecl us i on. T he B oar d of Imm i gr at i on A ppeal s r ecogni zed i n I n r e Fedore nko , 19 I
. & N
. D ec. 57 ( B I A 19 8 4 ) , thatthe “j udi ci al l y - devel oped doctr i ne of col l at er al es t oppel ” appl i es i n i m m i gr at i on p ro c e e d in g s . See i d. at 6 1
. T hi s concl us i on r efl ect s the agenc y ’s u nder s t andi ng thatappl i cat i on of comm on l aw c o l l a t e r a l e s t o p p e l d o e s n o tc o n tr a v e n e th e l a n g u a g e o f th e I NA o r c o n g re ss io n a l in ten t. T h is in terp re tatio n o f th e sta tu te is e n title d to d e f

e re n c e . IN

S v. A gu i rre-A gu i rre , 526 U
. S. 415, 424 (1 9 9 9 ); see al

so C h e v ro n U.S .A ., In c . v. N a tu ra l R e s. D e

f. C ounci l , I nc. , 4 6 7 U
. S

. 8 3 7 , 8 4 3 (19 8 4 ). I tal s o acc or ds w i th other opi ni ons and author i t i es . T he C ou rto f

A p p e a ls f

o r th e N in th C irc u it h e ld , in Ra mo n - S e

p u lv e da v . I

NS , 824 F. 2d 749 ( 9th C i r . 1 9 8 7 ) ( per cur i am ) , thata fa i l ur e of pr oof on the i s s ue of a l i enage c o llate ra llye sto p s th e IN S f ro m re lit ig a tin g th e is s u e in s u b s e q u e n t p ro c e e d in g s . I d. at750- 51. A s i m i l arconcl us i on w as r eac hed i n Me d i n a v . I NS , 9 9 3 F .2 d 4 9 9 (5 th C ir. 1 9 9 3 ), in w hi ch the C our t of A ppeal s forthe Fi fth C i r cui tdet erm i ned that col l at er al es t oppel w as cons i s t entw i th the I N A and thatthe d o c trin e p re c lu d e s re lit ig a tio n o f a n in d iv id u a l’s c it iz e n sh ip if t he i s s u e was c o n c e d e d b yth e I NS du r i n g a p r i o rp r o c e edi ng. I d. at502- 504 & n. 15. T he s ame pos i t i on i s echoe d el s ew her e. 6C ir. 2 0 0 4 ); Ka i r y s v . I NS , 9 8 1 F
. 2 d 9 3 7 , 9 3 9 -41 (7th C ir

. 1 9 9 2 ); N a t’ l I m m ig ra tio n P roje c t o f th e N a t’ l L a w . G u ild , I m m igr at i on L aw and D ef

ens e § 7 : 7 3 ( 3 d e d

. 2 0 0 4 ) ( “ [ A] n i mmi gr at i on ju d g e ’s o rd e r ter m in a tin g d e p o rta tio n p ro c e e d in g s f o r f a ilu re to pr ove al i enage has been he l d t o be r es j udi cat a i n l at er d e p o rta tio n p ro c e e d in g s a g a in st th e sa m e p e rso n .”); see al so R es t at ement( Second) of J udgm ent s § 83 ( 1982) ( “[A ] val i d and fin al adj udi cat i ve det erm i nat i on byan admi ni s tr at i ve tr i bunal h a s th e sa m e e f

f e c ts u n d e r th e ru les o f

re s ju d ica ta, s u b

jec t to the s ame except i ons and qual ifi ca ti ons , as a j udgm entof a c o u rt .” ); 1 8 J a m e s W m . M o o re e t a l., Mo o re’s Feder al P ract i ce–C ivil § 132. 03[e] ( 3d ed. 2001) ( “I s s ues of fa ct l i t i gat ed and de ci ded i n a pr i oradmi ni s tr at i ve pr ocee di ng m ay have i s s ue pr ecl us i ve ef fec ton i s su es of fa ctpr es ent ed i n a s ubs e q u e n ta d mi n i s tr a t i v e o rj u di ci al act i on. ”) ; C har l es H
. K och, J r., A dm i nis tr at i ve Law & Prac t i ce § 5. 72[1] (2d ed. 1997) (“T h e d o ctri n es o f re s jud icata a n d co ll ateral estop p el are a p p lica b le to a d m in istra tiv e p ro c e e d in g s w h e n a n a g e n c yis a c tin g in a ju d ic ial c a p a c ity .”); c f. C ook v. P r i nci

pi , 318 F. 3d 1 3 3 4 , 1 3 3 7 (F e d . C ir. 2 0 0 2 ) (a p p ly in g re s ju d ica ta to a d m in istra tiv e p ro c e e d in g s); J o n e s v . S EC , 115 F. 3d 1173, 1178 (4 th C ir. 1 9 9 7 ) (s a m e ); SE C v. F i rs tJer s ey Se c. , I

nc. , 101 F. 3d 1 4 5 0 , 1 4 6 3 -6 4 (2 d C ir . 1 9 9 6 ) ( s a m e )

. B u t cf. T i t l e v . I NS , 322 F. 2d 21, 23- 24 ( 9th C i r . 1963) ( r ej ect i ng appl i cat i on of doctr i ne to p re c lu d e a lien f

ro m re lit ig a tin g is su e o f m e m b e rsh ip in comm uni s tparty , pr evi ous l y r es ol ved i n denatur al i zat i on p ro c e e d in g s ), r ej ected by Kai r ys , 9 8 1 F .2 d a t 9 3 9

- 4 1 , and dis t i nguis hed by Fedor enko , 19 I
. & N
. D ec. at62- 64 ( “[W ] e do not vi ol at e C ongr es s ’ i nt ent i f w e appl ycol l at er al es t oppel t o the 15resp o n d en t’ s d en atura li za ti o n jud g m en t. ”). 16 N o c a s e is to th e c o n tra ry . T h e S u p re m e C o u rt in V er m ont Y

ankee N ucl ear P ow er C or

p. v. N at ur alR es our ces D ef ens e C ounci l

, I nc. , 435 U
. S. 519 ( 1978) , hel d that the fe der al court s cannoti m pos e pr ocedur al r equi rem ent s on an age ncy bey ond t hos e r equi r ed under the gover ni ng s t atut e (i n thatcas e, th e A d m in is tr a ti v e P ro c e d u re s A c t, 5 U .S .C . § 5 5 3 ), s ee V t. Y ankee , 4 3 5 U
. S

. at 52 5 , b u t itd id n o t discu ss w h ethe r a part i cul arcomm on l aw doctr i ne s houl d be “r ead i nt o” a l egi s l at i ve s cheme and ther ebym ade s t atut or i l y b indi ng upon th e a g e n c y . I n Pe a rs o n v . Wi l l i a ms , 202 U
. S. 281 ( 1906) ( H o lm es , J
. ) , the C our tconcl uded thatpr i nci pl es of col l at er al es t oppel di dn o tp r eventthe i m m i gr at i on s ervi ce f r om i ns t i tut i ng deport at i on pr ocee di ngs aft eri ni t i al l ygr ant i ng an al i en p erm issi o n to en ter th e c o u n tr y , s ee i d. a t 2 8 3 -8 5 , b u t th is decisi o n w as bas ed pr i m ar i l yon the l i m i t ed s cope a nd nona d ju d ic a tiv e n a tu re o f th e e n tr ye x a m in a tio n , s ee i d. , attr i but es th a t a re n o t s h a re d b ym o d e rn re m o v a l h e a ri n g s . C f. A sto ria , 501 U
. S. at110 ( l i m i t i ng Pe ars on to its f a c ts); Utah C on str. , 384 U
. S. at421- 22 & n. 19 ( sam e). T hos e opi ni ons thathave hel d t hatcol l ater al es t oppel does notappl yi n a part i cul ar admi ni s tr at i ve cont exthave be en pr emi s ed on l anguage i n the governi ng s t atut e expr es s i ng a contr ary i nt ent , l anguage w hi ch d o e s n o t ap p e a r in th e IN A

. See A sto ria , 501 U
. S. at110 ( ci t i ng U n iv. o f T e n n . v. E lli o tt , 4 7 8 U .S . 7 8 8 (1 9 8 6 )); see al so W al lace Cor p . v . NLRB , 3 2 3 U
. S

. 2 4 8 , 2 5 3 (19 4 4 ). T he I N S n everthel es s ar gues that , even i f pr ecl us i on pr i nci pl es s houl d be r ead i nt o the I N A , col l at er al es t oppelSee a l so R e sta tem e n t (S e c o n d ) of Ju d g m e n ts § 8 3 c m t. 7 a ( “[Col l at er al es t oppel ] appl i es w hen a f inal adj udi cat i ve det erm i nat i on byan admi ni s tr at i ve tr i bu n al i s i nvoked as the bas i s of cl ai m ori s s ue pr ecl us i on i n a s ubs equentact i on, w hetherthatsu bs equentact i on i s anotherpr ocee di ng i n the s ame a d mi n i s tr a t i v e tr i b u n a l o ri s a p r o c e e d i n g i n s o me o t her ad m inistrati v e o r j u d ici al tri b u n al. ”). 17 s houl d barr el i t i gati o n of an i s s ue onl yi n s ubs equent pr ocee di ngs i n the fede r al court s – not i n pr ocee di ngs w i thi n the a g e n c yi t s e l f

. I ts tr e s s e s th a tth e d e c i s i o n s i n wh i c h th e S u p r e me C o u r th a s d i s c u s s e d th e d o c tr i n e , p a r t i c u l a r l y A s t or i a Feder al Savi ngs & Loan A s s oci at i on v. Sol i m i no , 5 0 1 U
. S

. 1 0 4 (19 9 1 ), i nv olved cases broug ht in fed eral cou rtfoll ow i ng an ad verse a g e n c yd e te rm in a tio n . See i d. at 106- 07. O n thi s pr emi s e, the I N S posi t s thatdeci s i ons of t he agency s houl d be gi ven es t oppel effect onl yi n sub sequen tj ud i ci al proceed i ng s. T her e i s no bas i s forthi s di s ti n ct i on. T he doctr i ne of c o llate ra l es to p p e l h a s lo n g b e e n u n d e rsto o d to a p p lyin a ll pr ocee d ing s thatm aybe dee m ed “a dj udi cat i ve, ” no mat t er w hetherthe go v erni ng ent i tyi s a “c our t ” oran “a gency . ” See Utah C on str. , 3 8 4 U .S . a t 4 2 1 -2 2 & n .2 0 (c iti n g 2 K e n n e th C u lp D a v is , A dm i nis tr at i ve Law Tre at is e § § 1 8
. 0 1 -1 8
. 1 2 (19 5 8 ); I. G ro n e r & H . S te rn s te in , R es Judi cata i n Feder alA dm i nis tr at i ve Law , 3 9 Io w a L . R e v . 3 0 0 (1 9 5 4 )); U ni t ed Stat es v. I

nt ’ lB ldg. C o. , 3 4 5 U .S . 5 0 2 , 5 0 4 -0 5 (1 9 5 3 ); C om m ’ r v. Sunnen , 33 3 U. S. 5 9 1 , 5 9 7 -9 9 (1 9 4 8 ); see al so P ears on , 202 U
. S. at 284- 85. T he 7 a d v e r s a r i a l s y s t e m o f

d i s p u t e r e s o l u t i o n e s t a b l i s h e d i n th e I NA is p lain lya d

ju d ica to ryin c h a r a c ter a n d su sc e p tib le to f u ll18 a p p lic a tio n o f

c o m m o n la w p ri n c ip le s o f p re c lu s io n . See, e. g. , R e sta tem e n t (S e c o n d ) of Ju d g m e n ts § 8 3
. N o th in g in th e sta tu te o r th e leg isl ati v e h ist o ry– n o r an yau tho ri tyo f w h ich th is C o u rt i s aw ar e – s ugges t s thatcol l at er al es t oppel s houl d bar re lit ig a tio n in p ro c e e d in g s b e f o re th e f e d e ra l co u rts, b u t n o t in p ro c e e d i n g s b e f

o re th e a g e n c yits e lf

. A ccord H am dan v. G onz al es , 4 2 5 F .3 d 1 0 5 1 , 1 0 5 9 -6 0 (7 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ); SantanaA lb a rr a n v . A sh c ro

ft , 3 9 3 F
. 3 d 6 9 9 , 7 0 3 -04 (6th C ir

. 2 0 0 5 ); Med i na , 9 9 3 F .2 d a t 5 0 3 -0 4 ; R am on- Sepulveda , 8 2 4 F. 2 d at 7 5 0 ; R e s ta te m e n t ( S e c o n d ) o f J u d g m e n ts § 8 3 , c itedw ith a p p ro v a l in E lli o tt , 4 7 8 U .S . a t 7 9 8 n .6 ; C h a rl e s H . K o c h , J r., A dm i nis tr at i ve Law & Prac t i ce § 5. 72 ( 2d ed. 1997) ; 18 J ames W m . M o o re e t a l., Mo o re ’s F e d e ra l P ra c tice

– C ivil § 132. 03[e] (3d ed

. 2 0 0 1 ). R e q u irin g th e IN S to m e e t its b u rd e n o f p ro o f a t a s in g le hear i ng i s cons i s t entw i th the s t atut ory s cheme, as i nt erpr et ed by th e a d m in is te ri n g a g e n c y , s ee Fedor enko , 19 I
. & N
. D ec. at61, and w i l l notfrus tr at e the go als o f C ongr es s . T he “l eni ent p re s u m p tio n in f

a v o r o f a d m in is tr a tiv e e s to p p e l” h o ld s , s ee A sto ria , 5 0 1 U .S . at 1 0 8 , a n d th e IN A w ill b e h e ld to in c o rp o ra te c o m m o n law p rin c ip les o f c o llate ra l es to p p e l. B. T he ques t i on then bec om es how the doct r i ne s houl d be a p p lied in th is c a se . C o u rts a n d c o m m e n tato rs h a v e c o n sis ten tly re c o g n iz e d th a t co llate ra l es to p p e l w a s b o rn e o f e q u itya n d is th e re f o re “ f lex ib le,” b e n d in g to sa tisf y its u n d e rly in g p u rp o se in lig h t o f th e n a tu re o f

th e p ro c e e d in g s . See N at ’ l R

. R

. P as s enger C or p. v. P a. P ub. Ut il

. C o m m ’n , 2 8 8 F
. 3 d 5 1 9 , 5 2 8 (3d C ir

.19 2 0 0 2 ). In o th e r w o rd s, “ [ a ]lth o u g h [ c o llat e r a l] e sto p p e l is fa v o red as a m att er o f g en era l po li cy , it s su it a b il itym ayv ary acc or di ng t o the spec i fi c cont ext of t he ri ght s ats t ake, the pow er o f th e a g e n c y , a n d th e re la tiv e a d e q u a c y o f a g e n c yp ro c e d u re s .” A sto ria , 501 U
. S. at110 ( ci t i ng P ears on , 2 0 2 U
. S

. at 28 5 ). T he fl exi bi l i tyof t he doctr i ne i s r ecogni zed i n the s ever al “e x c e p t i o n s ” e n u me r a t e d b y th e Re s t a t e me n t ( Se c o n d ) of J u d g m e n ts
. See Nat ’ lR. R. , 288 F. 3d at 525 & n. 3 ( ci t i ng R es t at ement ( Second) of Judgm ent s § 28)

. C ol l at er al es t oppel gener al l yappl i es w hen the s ame i s s ue w as pr evi ous l yl i t i gat ed bythe same par t i es and w as actual l ydeci ded bya tr i bunal of c o m p e te n t ju ri s d ic tio n . E

. g. , B ur l i ngt on N

. R

. R

. C o. v. H

yundai Mer ch. Mar i ne C o. , 6 3 F .3 d 1 2 2 7 , 1 2 3 1 -32 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 5 ). H o w ev er, i t w il l no t prec lud e rel it igation o f th e i ssu e w h en there i s a s ubs t ant i al di ffe r ence i n the pr ocedur es empl oy ed bythe p rio r a n d c u rre n t tribu n a ls, a m a ter ia l in ter v e n in g c h a n g e in governi ng l aw orthe bur den of pe r s uas ion, ora “c l earand c o n v in c in g n e e d f

o r a n e w d e te rm in a tio n o f th e is s u e . . . beca us e of the pot ent i al adver s e i m pactof the det erm i nat i on on the publ i c i nt er es t
. ” N at ’ lR

. R. , 288 F. 3d at525 n. 3 ( quot i ng R es t at ement ( Second) of Judgm ent s § 28)

. C ol l at er al es t oppel i n the a d mi n i s tr a t i v e c ont extm us tbe i nform ed bycons i der at i ons o f a g e n c ys tru c tu re a n d le g is la tiv e p o lic y . See, e. g. , Kai r ys , 981 F .2 d a t 9 3 9 -4 1 ; K o c h , supra , § 5 .7 2 [ 1 ]; 1 8 M o o re e t a l., supra , § 1 2 .3 0 [ e ]; see al

so R es t at ement( Second) of J udgm ent s § 83. T hes e cons i der at i on s co uns el agai ns tappl i cat i on of the d o c trin e in th is c a se . A p rim a ryg o a l o f se v e ra l re c e n t o v e rh a u ls of the I N A has been t o ens ur e and expedi t e t he re m oval of al i ens c o n v ic te d o f

s e ri o u s c ri m e s . See, e. g. , R eal I D A ct§ 106;20 Ant i t e r r o r i s m a n d Ef

f e c t i v e Dea th Pe n a l ty Acto f 1 9 9 6 , Pu b

. L. N o. 104- 132, §§ 423, 440, 442, 110 St at
. 1214, 1272, 1276- 80; I l l egal I m m i gr at i on R eform and I m m i gr antR es p ons i bi l i tyA ct o f 1 9 9 6 , P u b

. L . N o . 1 0 4 -2 0 8 , § 3 2 1 , 1 1 0 S tat. 3 0 0 9 -6 2 7 ; s ee als o L e o c a l v. A sh c ro ft , 125 S. C t
. 377, 379 n
. 1 (2004) ( exami ni ng hi s t oryof en ac tm ent s )

. T hi s i nt entpervades the s t atut orypr ovi s i ons , w hi ch not o nl yes t abl i s h s peci al p roc ee d ing s to h an d le s u ch ca ses b u t al so large lyinsu lat e o rde rs o f re m o v a l a g a in s t c ri m in a l a lie n s f ro m ju d ic ia l r e v ie w . See 8 U .S .C . § § 1 2 2 8 , 1 2 5 2 ; see al so i d. § 1 2 2 6 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( p r o v i d i n g for m an d atoryd eten ti o n o f c ri m inal ali en s). T o appl yth e d o ctr i ne i n a ca s e s uch as thi s , w her e a cl ear l ydeport abl e al i en cont i nues t o comm i tcr i m i nal act s aft er init ial p roc ee d ing s are term inated , w o u ld frustrate this st atuto ry purpos e. I tw oul d eff ect i vel ypr ecl ude the I N S fr om ever re lit ig a tin g th e iss u e o f a lien a g e o r ev e r se c u rin g r e m o v a l, d e s p ite th e a lie n ’ s o n g o in g c ri m in a l c o n d u c t. See 8 U. S

. C. §§ 1101( a) ( 3) , 1229a( c) ( defi ni ng al i enage as an essen ti al el ementof anychar ge of r emovabi l i ty ). T he al i en coul d fl out a n yru le o r c o m m it a n yo f f e n s e w ith o u t f

e a r o f d e p o rt a tio n . See N a t’ l I m m ig ra tio n P roje c t o f th e N a t’ l L a w . G u ild , I m m igr at i on Law and D ef

ens e § 7: 73 ( 3d ed. 2004) ( char act er i zi ng the al i en as b eing i n a “nonde por t abl e s t at e”)

. T hi s pr os pect i ve im m u n iza tio n a g a in st re m o v a l is p lain lyc o n tra ryto c o n g re ss io n a l in ten t. L egi s l at i ve pol i cydi ct at es thatthe bara gai ns tr el i t i gat i on m us tdr op w hen t he al i en cont i nues t o comm i tcr i m i nal act s aft er i ni t i al i m m i gr at i on pr ocee di ngs . N othi ng i n the I N A i m pl i es thatcol l at er al es t oppel s houl d be appl i ed i n thi s ci r cumst ance ,W e do n o t s ugges t , byhol di ng thatcol l at er al es t oppel 8 does notbarr el i t i gat ion i n thes e ca s es , thati tnece s s ar i l ydoes barr el i t i gat i on i n o the r s . D i ffe r entl egi s l at i ve pol i ci es , w hi ch ar e not i m pl i cat ed her e, m ay couns el agai ns t appl i cat i on of the do ct ri ne in ot her si tuati on s. 21 and, as di s cus s ed pre vi ous l y , ther e i s every r eas on t o i nferthat C o n g r e s s i n t e n d e d th e c o n tr a ry. See, e. g. , 8 U
. S. C

. §§ 1228, 8 12 5 2 ( p r o v i d i n g f

o re x p e d i t e d r e mov a l o f a l i e n s c o n v i c t e d of seriou s crim es). T he i m m i gr at i on jud g e i n the 1993 pr ocee di ngs di d not fi nd th a t Duv a l l was a c i t i z e n o f th e Uni t e d St a t e s o r th ats he w as ent i t l ed t o r emai n i n thi s country . H e di d not doubtthat D u v a ll w a s, in f

a c t, an a lien o r th a t s h e w a s su b jec t to re m o v a l. R a th e r , h e m e r e l yt e r m i n a t e d p r o c e e d i n g s w h e n th e I NS u n e x p e c ted lyf

o u n d itse lf u n a b le to se c u re a n sw e rs f ro m D u v a ll r egar di ng herbi r thpl ace ort o i ntr oduce evi dence – avai l abl e but i nadmi s s i bl e underl ocal proc ed u ral rul es – thatcoul d have s a tis f ie d its b u rd e n o f

p ro o f o n t h e is s u e o f a lie n a g e . C

f. Medi na , 993 F. 2d at502- 04 & n. 15 ( hol di ng that the IN S w as c o llate r a llye sto p p e d f

ro m re lit ig a tin g th e iss u e o f c iti z e n sh ip w hen an i m m i gr ati o n j udge had e xpr es s l yfound i n pr i or p roc ee d ing s tha t th e ind ividu al w as a cit izen ). T he t erm i nat i on of thos e pr ocee di ngs had l i m i t ed col l at er al eff

ect
. D uv all had notbeen gr ant ed ci t i zens hi p and w as undoubt edl ydeport abl e. She r emai ned i n the U ni t ed St at es n o t b ya n ya f

f irm a tiv e e n tit lem e n t, bu t b yv irtu e o f a sim p le l i t i gat i on err or . H ers ubs equentconvi ct i ons demonstr at ed,22 b ey o n d d o u b t, that h er c o n ti n u ed p rese n ce in this co u n try contr avene d congr es s i onal i nt entand thatcont i nued appl i cat i on o f th e d o ctri n e o f c o ll ateral e s to p p el w as u n w arran ted. T h ere w a s th e r e a f

te r n o b a r to re lit ig a tio n o f D u v a ll’s a lien a g e o r to e n tryo f th e o rd e r o f

re m o v a l. I V. T he governm ent ’ s fai l ur e t o pr ove al i enage dur i ng the 1993 pr ocee di ngs gr ant ed D uval l a condi t i onal r epr i eve fr om depo rt ati on. B uti tdi d notgr antheran abs ol ut e par don. H er pr ot ect i on l as t ed onl yfors o l ong as s he adhe r ed t o the l aw s of thi s country . She fai l ed t o do s o, and w as thus no l ongerent i t l ed t o the bene fi t s of col l at er al es t oppel

. D eport at i on pr ocee di ngs w ere pr oper l ycomm ence d, and the or derof r emoval w as p roperl y enter ed, based on D uv al l ’s cri m i nal con vict i on s in 1995 and 2001. A ccor di ngl y , the or der o f the D i s tr i ctC our tw i l l be vaca t ed and the pet i t i on forr evi ew w i l l be deni ed.