2010 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 ircuit 4-12-2010 

# Guzm an-C ano v

. Atty Gen U SA P re c e de nt i al or Non-P re c e de nt i al : N on-P re c e de nt i al D ocke t No . 08-3496

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_2010

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 ircuit at V ill anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Digit al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 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 Digit 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
" G uzm an-C ano v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1539. http://digit alc ommon s .l a

w . vill anova . e du/thirdc ircuit_2010/1539NOT 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. 08- 3496

_____________ J O R G E G U Z M A N -C A N O , a /k /a C a rl o s R o d ri g u e z ,

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 e sp o n d e n t
Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof the U ni t ed St at es D epartm 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 036- 695- 580) Im m i grat i on Judg e: H on orabl e D on al d F erl i se Subm i tt ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ar ch 24, 2010 B efore: R E N D E L L , A M B R O and , F U E N T E S , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed: A pr i l 12, 2010)
OPINI ON O F THE COURT
R E N D E L L , C i r cui tJ udge. Jo rg e G u z m a n -C a n o p e tit io n s f o r re v iew o f

th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( “B I A ”) deci s i on deny i ng hi s m ot i on t o r econs i derthe deni al of hi s m ot i on t o r eopen2

d e p o rta tio n p ro c e e d in g s. W e w ill d ism iss th e p e tit io n f o r re v iew f

o r la c k o f

a p p e llate j ur i s di ct i on. I . G uzman- C ano i s a 54 y ear - ol d nat i ve and c i t i zen of C ol om bi a w ho w as admi tt ed to th e U n ited S tate s a s a law f u l p e rm a n e n t re sid e n t in Ju n e 1 9 8 0 . T w o y e a rs la ter , in N ovember1982, G uzman- C ano pl ed gui l tyt o, and w as convi ct ed of, pos s es s i on and del i veryof a c ontr ol l ed s ubs t ance ( coca i ne) i n vi ol at i on of Penns y l vani a l aw . Four
m onths l at er , i n M ar ch 1983, G uzman- C ano aga i n pl ed gui l tyt o, and w as convi ct ed of, p o s s e s s io n o f

a c o n tr o lle d s u b s ta n c e (c o c a in e ), t h is tim e in v io la tio n o f N e w J e rs e yla w . G uzman- C ano w as convi ct ed a f i nal t i m e i n 1988, al though det ai l ed i nform at i on pert ai ni ng t o thi s convi ct i on i s abs entfr om the r ecor d of pr ocee di ngs . Forthi s fi nal
c o n v ic tio n G u z m a n -C a n o w a s im p ri s o n e d f ro m 1 9 8 8 to 1 9 9 4
. D eport at i on pr ocee di ngs w er e i ni t i at ed aga i ns tG uzman- C ano i n 1990 that , aft eran adver s e i m m i gr at i on j udge ( “I J ”) rul i ng and r emand bythe B I A t o the I J i n 2000,
u lt im atelycu lm inated in the B IA ’s 20 0 3 d ism issal of h is ap p ea l from a se co n d ad v erse IJ
rul i ng. T hes e rul i ngs cons i der ed w hetherhi s convi ct i ons r ender ed hi m i nel i gi bl e for
re lie f f ro m re m o v a l u n d e r f

o rm e r I m m ig ra tio n a n d N a tio n a lity A c t § 2 1 2 (c ), 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 8 2 (c). In d ism issi n g h is ap p ea l i n 2 0 0 3 , the B IA co n clud ed b o th tha t G u zm an -C an o ’s drug tr aff

i cki ng convi ct i ons cons t i tut ed aggr avat ed fe l oni es , and thathe w as thus i nel i gi bl e forr el i ef unde rs ect i on 212( c) becaus e s i nce 1990 “ a l aw ful perm anentr es i dentT he B I A al s o not ed thatG uzman- C ano w as i nel i gi bl e fora s ect i on 212( c) w ai verof 1 i nadmi s s i bi l i typr i ort o 1996, and thus unaff ect ed bythi s C ourt ’ s deci s i on i n A tki ns on v. A t t y. G en. , 479 F. 3d 222 ( 3d C i r . 2007) , w hi ch hel d thatthe 1996 amendm ent s abol i s hi ng s e c tio n 2 1 2 (c ) r e lie f

d id n o t a p p ly to p ri o r c o n v ic tio n s . A p p . 1 0 6
. 3 w ho has s erved atl eas t5 y ear s i n pr i s on foran aggr avat ed fe l onyorfel oni es has been i nel i gi bl e fora w ai verunders ect i on 212( c)
. ” A pp. 320- 21. G uzman di d notpet i t i on for
re v ie w o f

th is d e c is io n . N o r d id h e le a v e th e c o u n trya s o rd e re d
. O n A pr i l 25, 2005, G uzman- C ano fi l ed w i th the B I A a s peci al m ot i on t o r eopen pur s uantt o 8 C
. F. R . § 1003. 44. T he B I A deni ed the mot i on t o r eopen on A ugus t31, 2005, becaus e the r egul at i on he r el i ed upon al l ow ed r eopeni ng onl yi n cas es i n w hi ch the al i en ei therhad agr eed t o pl ead gui l typur s uantt o a pl ea a gr eementorw as offe r ed and
r ej ect ed a pl ea a gr eementbefor e A pr i l 1, 1997, and G uzman- C ano di d notoffe revi dence th a t h e m e t eith e r o f

th e se c o n d iti o n s. A p p . 1 8 9 -9 0 . G u z m a n -C a n o d id n o t p e tit io n th is C o u rtf o r r e v ie w o f

th e d e c is io n . N o r d id h e le a v e th e c o u n trya s o rd e re d
. T hr ee y ear s l at er , on J une 18, 2008, G uzman- C ano fi l ed a s econd mot i on t o r eopen
w i th the B I A
. T hi s m ot i on t o r eopen w as t i m e- and number
- barr ed, s o G uzman- C ano asked the B IA t o ex erci se i t s s ua s pont e p o we r s t o r e o p e n h i s c a s e p u r s u a n tt o 8 C. F . R. § 1 0 0 3 .2 (a ). A p p . 1 0 7 . O n Ju ly1 1 , 2 0 0 8 , the B IA d e n ied G u z m a n -C a n o ’s m o tio n to reopen as t i m e- and n um ber- barr ed an d d ecl i ned t o ex erci se i t s s ua s pont e a u th o rityto
re o p e n . G u z m a n -C a n o d id n o t f ile a p e titio n f

o r r e v ie w o f

th a t d e c is io n . 1 Inst ead, on Jul y16 , 20 08 , G uzm an-C ano fi l ed a m oti on t o recon si der. O n A ug ustN in e C o u rts o f A p p e a ls h a v e a g re e d , h o ld in g th a t th e B IA ’s d e c isio n w h e th e r to 2 re o p e n p ro c e e d in g s o n its o w n m o tio n is c o m m itte d to a g e n c yd is c re tio n b yla w . Se e L u is v . I NS , 1 9 6 F .3 d 3 6 , 4 0 (1 st C ir. 1 9 9 9 ); A l iv. G onz al es , 4 4 8 F . 3 d 5 1 5 , 5 1 8 (2d C ir
. 2 0 0 6 ); E n riq u ez-A lva ra do v . A sh c ro ft , 3 7 1 F .3 d 2 4 6 , 2 4 8 -5 0 (5 th C ir. 2 0 0 4 ); Ha r c h e n ko v . I NS , 3 7 9 F .3 d 4 0 5 , 4 1 0 -1 1 (6 th C ir. 2 0 0 4 ); P ilch v . A sh c ro ft , 3 5 3 F . 3 d 5 8 5 , 5 8 6 (7th C ir
. 2 0 0 3 ); Tam enut

v. Mukas ey , 5 2 1 F . 3 d 1 0 0 0 , 1 0 0 4 (8th C ir
. 2 0 0 8 ) (en b an c); E ki m i an v. I NS , 3 0 3 F .3 d 1 1 5 3 , 1 1 5 9 (9 th C ir. 2 0 0 2 ); Be la y - Ge b r u v . I

NS , 327 F. 3d 998, 1000- 01 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 3 ); A ni n v. R eno , 1 8 8 F .3 d 1 2 7 3 , 1 2 7 9 (1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). 4 5, 2008, the B I A deni ed the mot i on t o r econs i der , fi ndi ng thatG uzman- C ano “ha s not d e m o n stra ted a n ye rro r in o u r p re v io u s d e c isio n .” A p p . 2 . G u z m a n -C a n o p e tit io n s th is C o u rtf o r r e v ie w f

ro m th is la s t B IA o rd e r. I I . Gu z ma n - Ca n o a c k n o wl e d g e s th a ti n th i s a p p e a l h e s e e k s r e v i e w onl y of the A ug ust 5, 2008 or derof the B I A deny i ng hi s m ot i on t o r eopen. ( A ppel l ant ’ s B r . 1. ) W e l ack j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew the B I A ’ s unw i l l i ngnes s t o r econs i deri t s deni al of su a sp o n te
r eopeni ng es s ent i al l ybecaus e w e l ack j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew the B I A ’ s J ul y11, 2008 deci s i on nott o su a sp o n te re o p e n . W e h a v e m a d e it cle a r th a t w e lac k ju risd ictio n to revi ew a decis i on bythe B IA decli ning t o ex erci se i t s s ua s pont e a u th o ri ty. See Cal l eV u jile s v . A sh c ro

ft , 320 F. 3d 472, 475 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( “B ecaus e the B I A r et ai ns unfett er ed di s cr et i on t o decl i ne t o su a sp o n te r eopen orr econs i dera deport at i on proceed i ng , this cou rti s w i tho ut j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew a decis i on decli ning t o ex erci se
su ch d iscreti o n to reo p en o r reco n side r th e c ase . ”). 2 G u z m a n -C a n o h a s n o t f iled a re p lyb rie f

o r o th e rw ise u rg e d th a t an ye x c e p tio n toI n C r uz , w e su g g ested that there m ayb e a n ex ce p ti o n to this rule, nam ely , if “the B IA 3 has r es tr i ct ed the exe r ci s e of i t s di s cr et i on byes t abl i s hi ng a ‘ gener al pol i cy ’ of r eopeni ng su a sp o n te ” in c e rt a in p a rt ic u la r c ir c u m s ta n c e s . C r uzv. A t t ’ y G en. 452 F. 3d 240, 249 ( 3d C i r . 2006)
. W e not ed that“[w ] her e ther e i s a cons i s t entpatt ern of admi ni s tr at i ve d e c isio n s o n a g iv e n iss u e , w e w o u ld e x p e c t th e B IA to c o n f o rm to th a t p a ttern o r e x p lain i t s departur e fr om i t . ” Id
. at250. 5 th i s ru l e s h o u l d a p p l y. 3 I I I . A c c o rd in g ly , the p e tit io n f o r re v iew w ill b e d ism iss e d f o r la c k o f

a p p e llate j ur i s di ct i on.