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 Third C irc uit 11-19-2008 

# B onitto v . Atty Gen U SA P re c e de nt i al or N on-P re c e de nt i al : N on-P re c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 05-5004

F o llow thi s and a ddit ion al works at : http://digit alc ommon s .l a w . vill anova . e du/thirdc ircuit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s brou ght t o you for f re e and ope n a c c e s s by 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 Third C irc uit at V ill 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 2008 D e c i sion s by an authori z e d a dmini s trat or of V ill anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or more inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vill anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Bonitt o v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 217. http://di git alc ommon s .l a

w . vill anova . e du/thirdc ircuit_2008/217NOT 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. 05- 5004 ANDR E W BONI T T O,

P eti ti o n er, v . ATTO RN EY G ENER AL O F THE UN I TED STATES

O n a Pet i t i on ForR evi ew of an O r der o f th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls A gencyN o. A 29- 090- 368 Im m i grat i on Judg e: G race A . S ease Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

N ovember5, 2008 B efor e: A M B R O , FI SH E R and J O R D A N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: N ovember19, 2008)

OP I NI ON P E R C UR I AM Pet i t i onerA ndr ew B oni tt o, a nat i ve and c i t i zen of J amai ca, w as admi t t ed i nt o the U ni t ed St at es on oraboutA pr i l 6, 1986 as a noni m m i gr antvi s i t orforpl eas ur e. O n orA s a r es ul tof thi s convi ct i on, B oni t t o r ece i ved a s us pended s ent ence and 1 un supervi sed prob at i on for 12 m on ths. F o r th is of

fe n se, B o n itto rec eive d a se n tenc e o f ti m e se rve d an d three y ea rs 2 pr obat i on. 2 aboutJ une 17, 1998, hi s s t atus w as adj us t ed t o thatof a l aw ful perm anentr es i dent p u r s u a n tt o I mm i g r a t i o n a n d Na t i o n a l i tyAc t( “ I NA” ) § 2 4 5 , 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 5 5 ( a ) . On J anuary20, 2005, B oni tt o w as s erved w i th a N ot i ce To A ppear , al l egi ng thathe w as r emovabl e underI N A § 237( a) ( 2) ( B ) ( i ) , 8 U . S. C . § 1227( a) ( 2) ( B ) ( i ) , as an al i en w ho aft er a d m iss io n h a s b e e n c o n v icte d o f a c o n tro lled su b sta n c e v io latio n o th e r th a n a sin g le o f f e n se in v o lv in g p o ss e ss io n o f 3 0 g ra m s o r le ss o f

m a riju a n a . It w a s a lleg e d th a t B o n itt o w as convi ct ed of c ons pi r acyt o pos s es s m ar i j uana i n vi ol at i on of § 90- 98, N orth C ar ol i na Ge n e r a l S t a tu t e s , o n o ra b o u tM a y3 1 , 2 0 0 0 , i n th e Or a n g e Co u n tyS u p e r i o rCo u r t . On 1 Ap r i l 1 1 , 2 0 0 5 , a d d i t i o n a l c h a r g e s we r e f i l e d u n d e rI NA § 2 3 7 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( C) ( a f i r e a rms convi ct i on) , 8 U . S. C . § 1227( a) ( 2) ( C ) , and § 237( a) ( 2) ( E ) ( i i ) ( a vi ol at i on of a pr ot ect i on o rd e r), 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 7 (a )(2 )(E )(ii). It w a s a lleg e d in th e a m e n d e d c h a rg in g d o c u m e n t, For m I - 261, thatB oni tt o had bee n convi ct ed of afi r earm s offe ns e on oraboutM ar ch 2, 2004 i n the Poughkeeps i e ( N ew Y ork) C i tyC ourt , i n vi ol at i on of N Y PL § 265. 01, and thathe had vi ol at ed an or derof pr ot ect i on and had be en hel d i n cont emptforthat vi ol at i on. 2 B o n itto so u g h t r eli ef

in the fo rm o f c an ce ll ati o n o f re m o v al un d er IN A § 2 4 0 A (a), 8 U . S. C . § 1229b( a) , and as y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval and pr ot ect i on undertheI n M ar ch 2006, ourC l erk pr ocedur al l yt erm i nat ed the pet i t i on forfai l ur e t o fi l e a 3 br i ef. B oni tt o ther eaf

t ers ucce s s ful l ym oved t o r ei ns t at e the appe al . D ur i ng the cour s e of th e se p ro c e e d in g s, w e d e n ied a m o tio n f o r a sta yo f

re m o v a l an d B o n itt o su b se q u e n tly w as r emoved t o J amai ca. H e now r es i des i n K i ngs t on. 3 C on ven t i on A gainstT orture ( “C A T ”). A heari ng w as hel d in I m m i grat i on C ou rton these appl i cat i ons on A pr i l 26, 2005 and M ay12, 2005. D ur i ng the cour s e of r emoval pr ocee di ngs , the I m m i gr at i on J udge s us t ai ned the cha r ges of r emoval on the bas i s of cl ear and convi nci ng evi dence . A tthe cl os e of the hea r i ng, the I J deni ed B oni t t o’ s appl i cat i on forcanc el l at i on of r emoval as a mat t erof di s cr et i on, and deni ed hi s appl i cat i ons for a sy lu m , w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l, an d p ro tec tio n u n d e r th e C A T , an d o rd e re d h im rem ov ed. B on i tt o ap pealed t o the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp eal s. O n O ct ober12, 2005, the B oar d di s m i s s ed the appe al , decl i ni ng t o s etas i de the I J ’ s fi ndi ng thatB oni tt o fai l ed t o s us t ai n hi s bur den of pr oof w i th r es pectt o as y l um and w i thhol di ng of r emoval . W i th r es pectt o hi s appl i cat i on forcanc el l at i on of r emoval , the B o a rd f o u n d n o re v e rsib le e rro r in th e IJ’ s d e ter m in a tio n th a t B o n itt o d id n o t m e rit canc el l at i on of r emoval . I n addr es s i ng the s t andar d forthe exe r ci s e of di s cr et i on i n the co n text o f c an ce ll ati o n o f re m o v al, the B o ard cit ed an d ap p li ed In re : So tel o -S o tel o , 2 3 I. & N . D ec . 2 0 1 (B IA 2 0 0 1 ), an d In re : C -V -T -, 2 2 I. & N . D ec . 7 (B IA 1 9 9 8 ). T h e B o ard sp e c if ica llya g re e d w ith th e IJ th a t, af terw e ig h in g B o n itt o ’s p o sitiv e e q u iti e s a g a in st h is cr i m i nal hi s t oryand hi s l ack of acc ount abi l i tyforhi s act i ons , the di s cr et i onarydeni al of c a n c e l l a t i o n o f

r e mo v a l wa s j u s t i f

i e d . Bo n i t t o h a s t i me l yp e t i t i o n e d f o rr e v i e w. 34

We wi l l d i s mi s s th e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w f

o rl a c k o f

j u r i s d i c t i o n . Al th o u g h we g e n e ra lly h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n to re v ie w f in a l o rd e rs o f

re m o v a l u n d e r I N A § 2 4 2 (a )( 1 ), 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 5 2 ( a ) ( 1 ) , Bo n i tt o wa s f o u n d t o b e r e mo v a b l e p u r s u a n tt o I NA § 237( a) ( 2) ( B ) ( i ) and § 237( a) ( 2) ( C ) forhavi ng comm i t t ed cr i m i nal offe ns es , and he ha s chal l enged onl ythe deni al of, i n the exe r ci s e of the I J ’ s di s cr et i on, hi s appl i cat i on for canc el l at i on of r emoval . W e thus l ack j ur i s di ct i on underI N A § 242( a) ( 2) ( B ) and ( C ) of the j ur i s di ct i onal s t atut e, w hi ch di ves tus of j ur i s di ct i on overpet i t i ons forr evi ew chal l engi ng the B oar d’ s and I J ’ s di s cr et i onarydet erm i nat i ons , and pet i t i ons fi l ed by cert ai n cr i m i nal al i ens s uch as B oni t t o. See 8 U . S. C . § 1252( a) ( 2) ( B ) , ( C ) . A l though the R E A L ID A c t am e n d e d IN A § 2 4 2 (a ) to p ro v id e f o r ju risd ictio n in th e c o u rts o f a p p e a ls t o r evi ew cons t i tut i onal cl ai m s and ques t i ons of l aw r ai s ed byal i ens w hos e pet i t i ons for r e v i e w wo u l d o th e rwi s e b e o u t s i d e o u rj u r i s d i c t i o n , s e e I NA § 2 4 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( D) , 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 5 2 (a )(2 )(D ), B o n itt o ra ise s n o c o lo ra b le c o n stitu tio n a l cla im o r q u e stio n o f law in h is p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. B o n itt o c o n ten d s th a t th e B o a rd a b u se d its d isc re tio n in a d ju d ica tin g h is c a n c e llatio n o f

re m o v a l ap p lica tio n a n d v io late d h is rig h t to d u e p ro c e ss w h e n it fa iled to cons i derhi s pos i t i ve equi t i es , pr i m ar i l ythe har ds hi p t o hi s U . S. ci t i zen c hi l dr en, and gave h e ig h te n e d c o n s id e ra tio n to m in o r c ri m in a l o f f e n s e s th a t r e s u lte d in n o in c a rc e ra tio n . Speci fi cal l y , he al l eged thatthe B oar d i gnor ed i t s pr ece dent i al deci s i ons i n M att erof E dw ar ds , 20 I . & N . D ec. 191 ( B I A 1990) , and M att erof B us cemi , 19 I . & N . D ec. 628B oni t t o has fi ve chi l dr en born i n the U ni t ed St at es . H e t es t i fi ed thathi s chi l dr en 4 w ou l d n ot go bac k to Jam ai ca w i th h i m bu tw ou l d rem ai n w i th thei r m other s. B oni t t o’ s s t atut oryel i gi bi l i tyi s notati s s ue her e. 5 5 ( B I A 1988) . See A ppel l ant ’ s B r . 14. H e furthercont ends thatthe I J ’ s concl us i on thathe fai l ed t o s uppor thi s chi l dr en w as nots upport ed bythe evi dence of r ecor d. 4 T h e g o v e rn m e n t co u n ter s th a t, alth o u g h B o n itt o p u rp o rts to ra ise a re v iew a b le leg a l q u e stio n b ya lleg in g “ d u e p ro c e ss ” v io latio n s in c laim in g th a t th e B o a rd f a iled to properl yevaluat e his neg at i ve an d p osi t i ve eq uit i es, the is sues that he r ai ses ar e m eri t l ess, a n d th e re f

o re th e ju risd ictio n -sa v in g p ro v isio n , IN A § 2 4 2 (a )(2 )(D ), d o e s n o t ap p lyin h is cas e. W e agr ee. T o be el i gi bl e forcanc el l at i on of r emoval underI N A § 240A ( a) , an al i en mustdemonstr at e thathe ors he has been l aw ful l yadmi t t ed forperm anentr es i dence fornotl es s than 5 y ear s , has r es i ded i n the U ni t ed St at es cont i nuous l yfor7 y ear s aft er h a v in g b e e n a d m itte d in a n ys ta tu s , a n d h a s n o t b e e n c o n v ic te d o f a n a g g ra v a te d f

e lo n y . 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 2 9 b (a). 5 H ow ever , i n addi t i on t o s at i s fy i ng the thr ee s t atut oryel i gi bi l i tyr equi r ement s , an appl i cantforcanc el l at i on of r emoval m us tal s o es t abl i s h thathe ors he w arr ant s s uch r el i ef a s a mat t erof di s cr et i on. I n r e: C - V - T - , 22 I . & N . D ec. at7. “The gener al s ta n d a rd s d e v e lo p e d f

o r t h e e x e rc is e o f

d is c re tio n u n d e r s e c tio n 2 1 2 (c ) o f th e A c t, 8 U . S . C . § 1 1 8 2 (c) (19 9 4 ), w h ich w as th e p red ec esso r pro v isi o n to se cti o n 2 4 0 A (a), are appl i cabl e t o the exe r ci s e of di s cr et i on unders ect i on 240A ( a) . ” I d. ( ci t i ng M att erof M ar i n, 16 I . & N . D ec. 581, 584- 85 ( B I A 1978) ) . I n Sot el o- Sot el o, 23 I . & N . D ec. 201,6

the B oar d hel d thatan appl i cantforcanc el l at i on of r emoval unders ect i on 240A ( a) need notm ee t a th resh o ld test r eq u ir ing a sh o w ing o f " u n u su al or o u tst an d ing eq u it ies" b ef o re a bal anci ng of the fa vor abl e and unf avor abl e fa ct or s w i l l be made t o det erm i ne w hether r el i ef s houl d be gr ant ed i n the exe r ci s e of di s cr et i on. I ns t ead, the B oar d “w i l l w ei gh the favor abl e and a dver s e fa ct or s t o det erm i ne w hether , on bal ance , the ‘ t ot al i tyof the evi dence befor e us ’ i ndi cat es thatthe ‘ [al i en] has adequa t el ydemonstr at ed thathe w arr ant s a fa vor abl e exe r ci s e of di s cr et i on and a gr antof ca ncel l at i on of r emoval under sec ti o n 2 4 0 A (a) o f th e A ct. ’” Id . at 20 4 (qu o ti n g In re : C -V -T -, 2 2 I. & N . D ec . at 10 ). T h e re f o re , in a d ju d ica tin g a n a p p lica tio n f o r c a n c e llatio n o f

re m o v a l, th e IJ is r equi r ed t o bal ance the pos i t i ve and ne gat i ve fa ct or s t o det erm i ne w hetherdi s cr et i on sh o u ld b e f

a v o ra b lye x e rc ise d . T h e "e q u iti e s th a t an a p p lica n t . . . m u st b rin g f o rw a rd to es t abl i s h thatfavor abl e di s cr et i onaryact i on i s w arr ant ed w i l l depend i n eac h cas e on the natur e and c i r cumst ance s of the gr ound of [r emovabi l i ty ] s oughtw ai ved and on the pr es ence of anyaddi t i onal adver s e mat t er s . " M ar i n, 16 I . & N . D ec. at585. I n T i pu v. I m m i gr at i on & N atur al i zat i on Serv. , 20 F. 3d 580 ( 3d C i r . 1994) , w e gene r al l yendor s ed th e M a ri n a p p ro a c h . Id . a t 5 8 3 . S e e a ls o K a ts is v . Im m ig ra tio n & N a tu ra liz a tio n S e rv ., 9 9 7 F .2 d 1 0 6 7 , 1 0 7 3 -7 4 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). T h e B o a r d a n d th e I J p r o p e r l y a p p l i e d p r e c e d e n th e r e a n d d i d n o te m p l o y a hei ght ened s t andar d. See Sukw anputr a v. G onzal es , 434 F. 3d 627, 634 ( 3d C i r . 2006) (f a c tu a l an d d isc re tio n a ryd e ter m in a tio n s c o n tin u e to f a ll o u tsid e o u r ju risd ictio n b u t 87

U . S. C . § 1252( a) ( 2) ( D ) w oul d ext end t o ques t i on w hetherB oar d appl i ed w r ong l egal s t andar d i n m aki ng di s cr et i onarydet erm i nat i on) . T he B oar d and the I J pr oper l yr el i ed upon Sot el o- Sot el o, 23 I . & N . D ec. 201, and I n r e: C - V - T - , 22 I . & N . D ec. 7, i n hol di ng th a t an a p p lica n t f

o r c a n c e llatio n o f

re m o v a l u n d e r se c tio n 2 4 0 A (a ) n e e d n o t m e e t a thr es hol d t es tr equi r i ng a s how i ng of " unus ual orout s t andi ng equi t i es " be for e a ba l anci ng of the fa vor abl e and unf avor abl e fa ct or s w i l l be made. Sot el o- Sot el o, 23 I . & N . D ec. at 2 0 4 ; In re : C -V -T -, 2 2 I. & N . D e c . at 1 0 . A c c o rd in g ly , d isc re tio n w a s e x e rc ise d w ith car e and i n acc or dance w i th the pr evai l i ng s t andar ds and thus thi s cas e fa l l s out s i de our j ur i s di ct i on. See Sukw anputr a, 434 F. 3d at634. Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l di s m i s s the pet i t i on forr evi ew forl ack of s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on.