NOT 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. 10- 1272

___________ R O B E R T D . C R E W,

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

____________________________________ O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof the B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( A gencyN o. A 89 510 076) I m m i gr at i on J udge: H onor abl e Sus an R oy

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

O ct ober6, 2010 B efor e: R E N D E L L , FI SH E R and G A R T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed O ct ober7, 2010)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM R obertC r ew pet i t i ons forr evi ew of a Boar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) or derdi s m i s s i ng hi s appea l of an I m m i gr at i on J udge’ s ( “I J ”) deci s i on, w hi ch pr et erm i tt ed h i s ap p l i c a t i o n f

o rc a n c e l l a t i o n o f

r e mo v a l . We wi l l d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.2

C re w is a n a tiv e a n dc iti z e n o f Ja m a ica w h o w a s a d m itt e dto th e U n ited S tate s in 1990. T he D epartm entof H om el and Secur i tyi s s ued a not i ce t o appeari n 2008 char gi ng thatC r ew w as s ubj ectt o r emoval becaus e he ha d r emai ned i n the U ni t ed St at es l onger than perm i tt ed. C r ew conce ded hi s r emovabi l i tyand appl i ed forcanc el l at i on of r emoval for no np erm anen tres i den t s pursuant t o 8 U . S . C . § 1 22 9b (b) . A this heari ng befo re the IJ, C re w a lso c o n c e d e dth a t h e w a s n o t elig ib le f o r c a n c e llatio n o f

re m o v a l b e c a u se h e d id n o t h a v e th e re q u isite q u a lify in g re lativ e , b u t h e sta ted th a t h e h a dap p lied f o r re lief in o rd e r to c h a llen g e th e sta tu te in f e d e ra l co u rt. T h e IJ ru led th at C rew is st atuto ri lyineligible f o r ca n ce ll ati o n o f re m o v al. T h e IJ expl ai ned that , i n addi t i on t o es t abl i s hi ng thathe has been phy s i cal l ypr es enti n the U ni t ed St at es fora cont i nuous per i od of notl es s than t en y ear s , has been aper s on of good m or al char act er , and has notbeen c onvi ct ed of c ert ai n offe ns es , C r ew w as r equi r ed t o s how that hi s r emoval w oul d r es ul ti n exce pt i onal and extr emel yunus ual har ds hi p t o hi s s pous e, par ent , orchi l d, w ho i s a U ni t ed St at es ci t i zen oran al i en l aw ful l yadmi tt ed forperm anent reside n ce . S ee 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 2 9 b (b)(1 ). T h e IJ a ck n o w ledg ed that C rew h as a d au g h ter, b u t st ated that sh e c o u ld n o t serve as a q u ali fy ing relati v e b ec au se sh e is t o o o ld. T h e IJ expl ai ned that , under8 U . S. C . § 1101( b) ( 1) , a “c hi l d” i s defi ned as an unmarr i ed per s on under21 y ear s of age . T he I Jthus pr et erm i tt ed C r ew ’ s appl i cat i on forcanc el l at i on of r emoval as a matt erof l aw and or der ed hi s r emoval t o J amai ca. T he B I A di s m i s s ed C r ew ’ s appea l . N ot i ng thatC r ew di d notal l ege anycl earerr or3

in the IJ’s fa ctua l fi n d ing s, the B IA stat ed that the IJ c o rrectl yp reterm itted C rew ’s ap p li ca ti o n fo r ca n ce ll ati o n o f re m o v al du e to th e lac ko f a q u ali fy ing relati v e. T h e B IA agr eed w i th the I JthatC r ew ’ s daught er , w ho w as 35 y ear s ol d on the dat e of the hear i ng, w as nota “c hi l d” forpurpos es of cancel l at i on of r emoval . C r ew had ar gued on appe al thatthe l aw s houl d be changed t o al l ow a chi l d of anyage t o be cons i der ed a “ chi l d” for purpos es of the har ds hi p r equi r ement , butthe B I A not ed thati tcoul d onl yi nt erpr etthe l aw s as w r i tt en byC ongr es s . T hi s pet i t i on forr evi ew fol l ow ed. W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 8 U . S. C . § 1252( a) . W e r evi ew the B I A ’ s l egal det erm i nat i ons de novo, s ubj ectt o the pr i nci pl es of def er ence art i cul at ed i n C hevr on U . S. A . I nc. v. N atur al R es our ces D efe ns e C ounci l , I nc. , 467 U . S. 837 ( 1984) . K apl un v. A tt o rne yG en era l, 6 0 2 F . 3 d2 6 0 , 2 6 5 (3d C ir . 2 0 1 0 ). C r ew conce des i n hi s br i ef thatthe exi s t i ng cas e l aw s upport s the B I A ’ s deci s i on that a “chi l d” fo r purposes of the h ardshi p requir em ent for cancel l at i on of rem ov al i s a per s on under21 y ear s of age . See M ont er o- M art i nez v. A s hcr oft , 277 F. 3d 1137, 1145 ( 9th C i r . 2002) ( appl y i ng the def i ni t i on of “c hi l d” under8 U . S. C . § 1101( b) ( 1) t o the har ds hi p r equi r ements etforth i n 8 U . S. C . § 1229b( b) ( 1) ( D ) ) ; M att erof H ugo Port i l l oG u ti errez , 2 5 I. & N . D ec . 1 4 8 (B IA 2 0 0 9 ) (ap p lying § 1 1 0 1 (b)(1 ) t o d eterm ine w h ethe r a s t epchi l d w as a qual i fy i ng r el at i ve forpurpos es of § 1229b( b) ( 1) ( D ) ) . C r ew as s ert s that th e law sh o u ldb e c h a n g e dto in c lu d e a ll ch ildre n a n dc o n ten d s th a t h is d a u g h teris c ap ab le o f

su f f e rin g h a rd sh ip a s re su lt o f h e r f a th e r’s re m o v a l. S u c h a n a rg u m e n t,1 T he G overnm enti nt erpr et s C r ew ’ s ar gum entas as s ert i ng a vi ol at i on of hi s r i ghtt o 1 2 s u b s ta n tiv e d u e p ro c e s s . W e d o n o t r e a dC re w ’s b ri e f a s a d v a n c in g s u c h a n a rg u m e n t. 1 C re w d o e s n o t id e n tif yin h is b ri e f

th e h a rd s h ip th a t w o u ld re s u lt f ro m h is re m o v a l. 2 4 h o w e v e r, is p ro p e rlym a d e to leg isla to rs, n o t to th is C o u rt. 1 C re w a lso a rg u e s th a t h is rig h t to p ro c e d u ra l du e p ro c e ss w a s v io late db e c a u se h is appl i cat i on forcanc el l at i on of r emoval w as pr et erm i tt ed w i thoutal l ow i ng hi m t o pr es ent h is case an destab li sh the h ard sh ip tha t w o u ld resu ltfro m h is r em o v al. C rew , h o w ev er, 2 d o e s n o t h a v e a c o g n iza b le p ro c e d u ra l du e p ro c e ss c laim b e c au se th e re is n o lib e rty i nt er es tats t ake i n an appl i cat i on forcanc el l at i on of r emoval , a di s cr et i onaryform of r el i ef. See U ni t ed St at es v. T orr es , 383 F. 3d 92, 104- 05 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( s t at i ng al i ens do nothave adue pr oces s i nt er es ti n bei ng cons i der ed fordi s cr et i onaryr el i ef) ; Pi nho v. I . N . S. , 249 F. 3d 183, 189 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ( hol di ng change i n el i gi bi l i tycr i t er i a for suspensi on of d epo rt at i on , a dis cret i on aryform of rel i ef, did not i m pli cat e du e process ri g h ts) .Ac c o r d i n g l y , we wi l l d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.