### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T Se pt e m be r 26, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L E RK [ P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N os . 04- 12507, 04- 14496

________________________ A ge nc yN o. A 11- 850- 952 P E T E R B A L O G U N , P e titio n e r , v ersu s U .S . A T T O RN E Y G E N E R A L , R e s p o n d e n t.

________________________ P e t i t i ons f

orR e vi e w of

D e c i s i ons of

the B o a r do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls

_________________________ ( S e p t e m b e r 26, 2005) B efo re B IR C H , C A RN E S an dF A Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. C A RN E S , C i rc ui tJudg e: P et er B al o g u n p et i t i o n s fo r rev i ew o f th e B o ardo f Im m i g rat i o n A p p eal s’ o r d e ra f f irm in g th e im m ig r a tio n ju d g e ’s d e c is io n to d e n yh im r e lie f f r o m r e m o v a l,2

a n df o rr e v ie w o f

th e B I A ’s o r d e rr e f

u s in g to r e o p e n h is r e m o v a l p r o c e e d in g s . W e d en y th e p et i t i o n s. I. B a l ogun, ac i t i z e n of

N i ge r i a , e nt e r e d the U ni t e d S t a t e s i n 1960 a s as tude nt a nd hi s s t a tus w a s l a t e ra dj us t e d t o l aw f ul pe rm ane ntr e s i de nt . I n 1988 B a l ogun w a s c onvi c t e d i n f

e de r a l di s tr i c tc ourti n A l aba m aon one c ountof e m be z z l i ng and on e c ou ntof conspi ri ng t o em bezz l e m ore than $ 10 , 00 0 from the U ni t ed S t at es g o v e rn m e n t. H e w a s s e n te n c e dto f if te e n m o n th s in f

e d e r a l p r is o n o n e a c h c o u n t, to b e s e rv e dc o n c u rr e n tly . I n 1997 the s t a t e of

A l aba m agr ant e d B a l ogun’ s r e que s tf orapar don. T he p a r d o n r e s to r e ds o m e o f B a lo g u n ’s c iv il an dp o litic a l r ig h ts a n dw ith h e ldo th e r s . S p e c if ic a llye x c lu d e df

r o m th e p ar d o n w a s th e r ig h t to o w n o rp o s s e s s af ir e arm . T he pardon al so st at ed thatB al og un w ou l d b e s ubj ec tt o the st at e’ s habi tual o ffen d er acti f h e co m m i tt edsub seq u en tcri m es. Ats o m e p o i n tb e twe e n 1 9 9 7 a n d2 0 0 2 , B a l o g u n l e f tth e c o u n try . He retu rn edo n O ct o b er 2 8 , 2 0 0 2 , seek i n g t o b e ad m i tt edt o th e U n i t edS t at es as a r e turni ng r e s i de nt . T he I m m i gr a t i on and N a tur a l i z a t i on S e rvi c e c har ge d B a l ogun w i th rem ov abi l i ty bec ause , as an al i en w ho had com m i tt ed a c ri m e of m oral turpi tud e, he w as “ i nadm i ss i bl e” or “ i nel i gi bl e t o b e a dm i tt ed t o the U ni t ed S t at es . ”3

S ee 8 U . S . C . § 1 18 2(a) (2)( A )( i )( I) . B al og un conceded thathe w as re m ov abl e butar gu ed thathi s “ i nadm i ss i bl e” st atus shou l d b e w ai ved for three re as on s: (1) the cr i m e he c om m i tt ed occurre d m o re th an fi ft een years b efo re h i s ap p l i cat i o n fo r ad m i ssi o n t o th e U n i t edS t at es; ( 2 ) h is f o u rc h ild r e n a r e U n ite dS ta te s c itiz e n s w h o w o u lds u f f e re x tr e m e h ar d s h ip w er e he notadm i tt ed; and (3) he had b ee n p ar do ned for hi s c ri m e. T he IJre j ec t ed e a c h o f th o s e s ta te dg r o u n d s . T h e I Jc o n c lu d e dth a t th e f if te e n - y e ar - w a iv e rp r o v is io n , id . § 11 82 (h)( 1)(A )( i ), and the chi l dren-ci t i ze n-w ai ver provi si on , i d. § 1 18 2(h)(1)(B), w e r e i nappl i c abl e t o B a l ogun. T hos e pr ovi s i ons do notpe rm i taw a i ve rof i nadm i ss i bi l i ty i f “ an al i en w ho has pre vi ou sl y bee n adm i tt ed t o the U ni t ed S t at es as an al i en l aw ful l y a dm i tt ed for permanent r es i dence” has “ si nce the dat e of s uch adm i ss i on . . . been conv i ct ed of an aggravat ed fe l on y. ” I d. § 1 18 2(h). T he IJ f ound tha tB a l ogun’ s e m be z z l e m e ntc onvi c t i ons w e r e a ggr a va t e d f e l oni e s f orthe p u rp o s e s o f

§ 1 1 8 2 ( h ) . I n a d d itio n , th e I Jh e ldth a t B a lo g u n ’s p ar d o n w a s n o t “f u ll a n du n c o n d itio n a l” a s r e q u ir e db yth e p ar d o n - w a iv e rp r o v is io n . I d . § 1 2 2 7 (a)(2 )(A )(v ). T h e p ard o n restri ct edB al o g u n ’ s ri g h tt o o w n an dp o ssess a f ir e a rm a n ds ta te dth a t h is c o n v ic tio n w a s s ub je c t to th e h ab itu a l o f

f e n d e ra c t. T h e B I A a f

f irm e dth e I J ’s d e c is io n a n da d o p te dh is r e a s o n in g a s its o w n .4

B a l ogun pe t i t i one d thi s C ourtt o r e vi e w the B I A ’ s or de ra f f i rm i ng the I J ’ s de c i s i on to d e n yh im r e lie f

f r o m r e m o v a l. S h o rtlya f

te rB a lo g u n p e titio n e dth is C o u rt f o rr e v ie w , h e f

ile dam o tio n w ith the B I A t o r e ope n hi s r e m ova l pr oc e e di ngs ba s e d on ne w f a c t s nota va i l abl e a tthe t i m e of the ori gi nal deci si on . S ee 8 C . F . R . § 1 00 3. 2(c) (1). S even days af t er B a l ogun r e c e i ve d the B I A ’ s or de ra f f i rm i ng the I J ’ s de c i s i on, he r e c e i ve d apar don f r om the s t a t e of

A l aba m ar e s t or i ng w i thoute xc e pt i on a l l the s t a t e c i vi l a nd p o litic a l r ig h ts th at h e h a dlo s t a s ar e s u lt o f h is f e d e r a l e m b e z z le m e n t c o n v ic tio n s . B a l ogun a s s e rt e d i n hi s m ot i on t o r e ope n tha t , be c aus e thi s ne w par don w a s now

“ ful l and u ncon di t i on al , ” he w as ent i t l ed t o h ave hi s i nadm i ss i bl e s t atus w ai ved un der 8 U . S . C . § 1 22 7(a) (2)( A )( v). T he B I A de ni e d the m ot i on t o r e ope n. I the l d tha tthe ne w pa r don w a s not

“ ful l and u ncon di t i on al ” a s r equi re d b y § 12 27 (a )( 2)(A )( v). T he B IA expl ai ned tha tthe pa r don di d notr e l e a s e B a l ogun f r om “ a l l l e ga l c ons e que nc e s f l ow i ng f r om hi s f eder alcr i m i nal conv i ct i on s, ” s peci fi ca l l y tho se consequences i m po se d u nd er fe d er al, rath erth an state, law . B alo g u n p etit io n ed th is C o u rt to re v iew th e B IA ’s o r d e ro n h is m o tio n to r e o p e n , a s w e ll. W e h a v e c o n s o lid a te dB a lo g u n ’s p e titio n s f o rth e p u rp o s e s o f

th is ap p e a l. II.5

R e g a r d in g h is in itia l p e titio n f o rr e v ie w o f

th e B I A ’s f

in a l o r d e ro f

r e m o v a l, B a lo g u n c o n te n d s th a t h e d idn o t c o m m it an “a g g r a v a te df e lo n y ” d is q u a lif

y in g h im f r om ha vi ng hi s “ i na dm i s s i bl e ” s t a tus w a i ve d. A f e l onyi s onl y“ a ggr a va t e d” u n d e rth e s ta tu te , B a lo g u n s a y s , w h e n it is c o m m itte da g a in s t ap e r s o n o rc o rp o r a te e nt i ty . C r i m e s c om m i tt e d a ga i ns tthe U ni t e d S t a t e s , on the othe rha nd, c annotbe aggravat ed fe l on i es , because the U ni t ed S t at es i s notconsi dere d a “ vi ct i m ” und er the st atut e. W e do n otagre e. A n a l i e n m a ynote nt e rthe U ni t e d S t a t e s i f he ha s c om m i tt e d ac r i m e of m or a l turpi tude . 8 U . S . C . § 1182( a ) ( 2) ( A ) ( i ) ( I ) . T he a l i e n’ s i na dm i s s i bl e s t a tus m aybe w ai ved atthe di sc re t i on of the A tt orney G ener ali f “ the ac t i vi t i es for w hi ch th e a li en is in ad m issib le o cc u rr ed m o re th an 1 5 ye ar s b ef o re th e d ate o f th e a li en ’s ap p lic a tio n f

o r. . . a d m is s io n .” I d . § 1 1 8 2 ( h ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ( i) . T h e a lie n ’s in a d m is s ib le st atus m ayal so be w ai ved b y the A tt orney G ener ali f the al i en i s a“ pare nt. . . of a c i t i z e n o f th e U n i t e dSt a t e s ” a n dth e “ d e n i a l o f a d mi s s i o n w o u l dr e s u l ti n e x tr e me h a r d s h ip to th e U n ite dS ta te s c itiz e n . . . s o n , o rd au g h te r .” I d . § 1 1 8 2 ( h ) ( 1 ) ( B ) . T h e A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, h o w e v e r , la c k s d is c r e tio n to w a iv e a n a lie n ’s in a d m is s ib le st atus i f the al i en com m i tt ed an “ aggravat ed fe l on y” du ri ng a t i m e w hen h e w as previ ou sl y i n the U ni t ed S t at es as a l aw ful perm anentre si dent . Id. § 1 18 2(h). T h e B IA , ad o p ti n g th e I J’s d ec isio n , fo u n dth at b ec au se B alo g u n ’s6

e m be z z l e m e ntc onvi c t i ons w e r e a ggr a va t e d f e l oni e s the A tt orne yG e ne r a l ha d no di sc re t i on t o w ai ve B al og un ’ s i nadm i ss i bl e s t atus. A s are sul t , the B IA concl ud ed thatB al og un re m ai ned i nadm i ss i bl e and w as du e t o b e r em ov ed fr om the U ni t ed S t at es. B e f

o r e M a y1 1 , 2 0 0 5 , o u rr e v ie w o f th is d e c is io n w o u ldh a v e b e e n lim ite d . S e c t i on 1252( a ) ( 2) ( c ) of the i m m i gr a t i on s t a tut e s pr ovi de s tha t“ no c ourts ha l l ha ve ju r is d ic tio n to r e v ie w a n yf in a l o r d e ro f

r e m o v a l a g a in s t an a lie n w h o is r e m o v ab le by re as on of havi ng com m i tt ed a c ri m i nal offe nse c ov er ed i n sec t i on 11 82 (a )( 2). ” 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( c ) . ( B a lo g u n c o m m itte dac r im in a l o f f e n s e c o v e r e din se ct i on 11 82 (a )( 2), i . e. , a c ri m e of m oralturpi tud e. S ee i d. § 1 18 2(a) (2)( A )( i )( I) . ) W e ha d he l d tha t , w he r e af i na l or de rof

r e m ova l m aybe s ubj e c tt o the ju r is d ic tio n a l r e s tr a in ts o f s e c tio n 1 2 5 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( c ) , o u rr e v ie w is lim ite dto de t e rm i ni ng w he the rthe pe t i t i one ri s ( 1) a n a l i e n ( 2) w ho w a s r e m ovabl e ( 3) f or c om m i tt i ng ac r i m e e num e r a t e d i n one of the s t a tut e s l i s t e d i n s e c t i on 12 52 (a )( 2)(c ). G al i nd o-D elV al l e v. A tt orney G en. , 21 3 F . 3d 59 4, 59 8 (11 th C i r. 2000) ( pe rc ur i a m ) . I f

a l l thr e e of

thos e c ondi t i ons e xi s t , and the r e a r e no c ons t i tut i ona l de f

e c t s i n the a l i e n’ s r e m ova l pr oc e e di ngs , w e m us tdi s m i s s the pe t i t i on f orw a ntof

j ur i s di c t i on. I d. T ha ti s the f r a m e w ork tha tw oul d ha ve appl i e d he r e . B a l ogun ha s c onc e de d tha the i s a n a l i e n, tha the i s r e m ovabl e , a nd7

thathe com m i tt ed a c ri m e of m oralturpi tud e. H e has no tcl ai m ed thathe w as de pr i ve d of

ac ons t i tut i ona l r i ght . B a l ogun’ s que s t i on of l aw aboutw he the rthe B IA erre d i n d et erm i ni ng thathi s e m bezz l em entconv i ct i on s w er e a gg ravat ed f e lo n ie s w o u ldh a v e b e e n b e y o n dth e s c o p e o f o u rju r is d ic tio n . T ha ta l l c ha nge d on M a y11, 2005 w he n the P r e s i de nts i gne d i nt o l aw the E m e r ge nc yS uppl e m e nt a l A ppr opr i a t i ons A c tf orD e f e ns e , the G l oba l W aron T error, and T sunam i R el i ef , P ub . L . N o. 10 9-13 , 11 9 S t at . 31 0 (20 05 ). T hat ap p r o p r i a t i o n s a c tc o n t a i n s a n u n r e l a t e d , b u ti m p o rt an t , d i v i s i o n t i t l e dth e “ R E AL ID A ct . ” O ne of the prov i si on s i n the R E A L ID A ctl oo se ned the j uri sdi ct i on al r e s tr a i nt s of

s e c t i on 1252( a ) ( 2) ( c ) . I tha s the e f f e c tof r e s t or i ng s om e of

our j uri sdi ct i on t o d ec i de the “ qu es t i on s of l aw ” an al i en ra i se s i n a pet i t i on t o revi ew af i na l or de rof

r e m ova l . S pe c i f

i c a l l y , the R E A L ID A ctp ro v i d es: N othi ng i n [se ct i on 12 52 (a )( 2)(c )] , or i n any other provi si on of thi s A ct ( othe rtha n thi s s e c t i on) w hi c h l i m i t s ore l i m i na t e s j udi c i a l r e vi e w , s ha l l be construed as prec l ud i ng re vi ew of const i tut i on alcl ai m s or quest i on s of l aw r a is e dup o n ap e titio n f

o rr e v ie w f

ile dw ith a n ap p r o p r ia te c o u rt o f ap p e a ls in a c c or da nc e w i th thi s s e c t i on. R ea l ID A ct§ 1 06 (a )( 1)(A )( i i i ), codi fi ed at8 U . S . C . §1 25 2(a) (2)( D ). C ongr e s s e xpl a i ne d tha ti ta dde d s e c t i on 106( a ) ( 1) ( A ) ( i i i ) t o “ e l i m i na t e the pr obl e m s of

bi f ur c a t e d a nd pi e c e m e a l l i t i ga t i on. ” 151 C ong. R e c . H 2813 ( c o n f e r e n c e r e p o rtf

o rE m e r g e n c yS up p l e m e n t a l Ap p r o p r i a t i o n s Ac t ) . As we8

expl ai ned abo ve, before M ay11 , 20 05 , w e w er e w i tho utj uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew qu es t i on s of l aw ra i se d i n an al i en’ s pet i t i on for r evi ew w here the al i en com m i tt ed a c ri m e e nu m er at ed i n o ne of st atut es l i st ed i n 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2(a) (2)( c) . T o g et ar ou nd thi s j uri sdi ct i on albar, al i ens w ou l d p et i t i on a f eder aldi stri ctcourtfor a w r i tof habe a s c orpus unde r28 U . S . C . § 2241( a ) t o ge ts om e r e vi e w of the p u rp o rte dle g a l e rr o rin th e B I A ’s r e m o v a l o r d e r . T h e S up r e m e C o u rt s a idin I m m i gr a t i on & N a tur a l i z a t i on S e rv. v. S t . C y r , 533 U . S . 289, 121 S . C t . 2271 ( 2001) , tha thabe a s r e vi e w of the B I A ’ s a l l e ge d e rr orw a s notpr e c l ude d bythe j uri sdi ct i on stripp i ng st atut e i n 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2(a) (2)( c) . In ef fe ct , the S t . C yrdeci si on gave al i ens w ho had com m i tt ed cr i m es “ m ore j u d i ci al rev i ew th an n o n -cri m i n al s. ” 1 5 1 C o n g . R ec. H 2 8 1 3 . In o th er w o rd s, al i ens w ho had n otcom m i tt ed cr i m es on l y had on e opp ortun i ty t o app ea l the fi nal r e m ova l or de rof

the B I A , buta l i e ns w ho ha d c om m i tt e d ac r i m e l i s t e d i n one of th e e n u m e r a te ds ta tu te s in s e c tio n 1 2 5 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( c ) h a dtw o o p p o rtu n itie s — f ir s t a pe t i t i on f orr e vi e w t o the c ourt s of appe a l s on the f

i na l or de rof

r e m ova l , a nd the n a p e titio n f o rh ab e a s c o rp u s u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 1 ( a ) to th e f e d e r a l d is tr ic t c o u rt. C ongr e s s f

ound tha tthi s doubl e - l ay e r e d r e vi e w f orc r i m i na l a l i e ns pr ol onge d and c om pl i c a t e d the r e m ova l pr oc e s s . S e e 151 C ong. R e c . H 2813. S e c t i on 106( a ) ( 1) ( A ) ( i i i ) of the R E A L I D A c tr e pl a c e s the tw o l e ve l s of9

r e vi e w w i th one . A c r i m i na l a l i e n now m us tpe t i t i on the c ourtof appe a l s f

or r e vi e w of

a l l c l a i m e d l e ga l e rr or s r e l a t i ng t o the B I A ’ s f i na l or de rof

r e m ova l . T he A c t a c c o m p lis h e dth is b yr e s to r in g th e c o u rts o f ap p e a ls ’ ju r is d ic tio n to r e v ie w a ll l e g a l e rr o r s i n ar e mo v a l o r d e rf o rc r i mi n a l a l i e n s . H ab e a s r e v i e w b e c a me u n n e c e s s a ry . T h e p r o v is io n s o f 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 1 ( a ) n o lo n g e rp laya n yr o le in i m m i gr a t i on c a s e s . S e e 151 C ong. R e c . H 2813 ( “ B ypl a c i ng a l l r e vi e w i n the c o u rts o f ap p e a ls , D iv is io n B [ i.e ., th e R e a l I D A c t] w o u ldp r o v id e a n ‘a d e q u a te a nd e f f e c t i ve ’ a l t e rna t i ve t o habe a s c orpus . ” ) . T he s e j ur i s di c t i on r e s truc tur i ng pr ovi s i ons a r e r e tr oa c t i ve l yappl i c abl e t o a l l pe ndi ng pr oc e e di ngs r e gar dl e s s of the d a te o f th e f in a l a d m in is tr a tiv e o r d e r . T h e R E A L I D A c t § 1 0 6 ( b ) ; F e rn an d e z - R u iz v . G o n z a le s , 4 1 0 F .3 d5 8 5 , 5 8 7 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . Ou rc o n c l u s i o n th a twe h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n t o d e c i d e i n ap e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w p r o c e e d in g w h e th e rth e B I A e rr e din d e te rm in in g th a t ap e titio n e r ’s c o n v ic tio n is a n a g g r a v a te df

e lo n yw ith in th e m e an in g o f 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 8 2 ( h ) is c o n s is te n t w ith tha tof e ve ryothe rc ourtof

appe a l s tha tha s a ddr e s s e d the i s s ue . S e e P opa l v. G onz a l e s , 416 F . 3d 249, 251–52 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ; E l i av. G onz a l e s , 418 F . 3d 667, 67 1 (6th C i r. 20 05 ); G att em v. G on za l es , 41 2 F . 3d 75 8, 76 2-63 (7th C i r. 20 05 ); L ope z v. G onz a l e s , 417 F . 3d 934, 936 ( 8th C i r . 2005) ; F e rnande z - R ui z v. G onz a l e s , 410 F . 3d 585, 587 ( 9th C i r . 2005) . W e turn now t o the s pe c i f i c que s t i on10

of w hether B al og un ’ s e m bezz l em entconv i ct i on i s an agg ravat ed fe l on y f or § 1 1 8 2 ( h ) p u rp o s e s . A n a l i e n c om m i t s a n “ a ggr a va t e d f e l ony ” i f hi s of f e ns e “ i nvol ve s f

r aud or d e c e it in w h ic h th e lo s s to th e v ic tim o rv ic tim s e x c e e d s $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 .” 8 U .S .C . § 1101( a ) ( 43) ( M ) ( i ) . B a l ogun c onc e de s tha thi s e m be z z l e m e ntc onvi c t i on i nvol ve d a f r aud of m or e tha n $10, 000. H e a r gue s , how e ve r , tha tbe c aus e he de f r aude d the U n ite dS ta te s g o v e rn m e n t, r a th e rth an a“p e r s o n ,” h is e m b e z z le m e n t c o n v ic tio n d id noti nvol ve avi c t i m . I f the ydi d not , B a l ogun r e a s ons , he c oul d notha ve co m m i tt edan “ ag g rav at edfel o n y” as d efi n edb y th e i m m i g rat i o n st atu t es. A s s upport , B a l ogun poi nt s t o 8 U . S . C . § 1101( a ) ( 43) ( M ) ( i i ) , the pr ovi s i on i m m e di a t e l yf

ol l ow i ng the de f

i ni t i on of “ a ggr a va t e d f

e l ony . ” T ha tpr ovi s i on spec i fi es thatan al i en com m i t s an “ aggravat ed fe l on y” i f he w as conv i ct ed of t ax evas i on thatre sul t ed i n a l oss t o the U ni t ed S t at es go vernm entof m ore than $1 0, 00 0. Id. B al og un ’ s poi nti s thatC on gres s s peci fi ca l l y r ef erre d t o the U ni t ed S t at es go vernm entas a vi ct i m i n sub para graph (i i ) of i t s def i ni t i on of “ aggravat ed f e l ony , ” buti n s ubpa r a gr aph ( i ) r e f e rr e d onl yt o “ vi c t i m s ” ge ne r a l l y . F r om tha the w o u l dh a v e u s i n f

e rth a tth e U n i t e dSt a t e s g o v e rn me n ti s n o ti n c l u d e di n “ v i c t i m” as thatt erm i s use d i n sub para graph (i ) of s ec t i on 11 01 (a )( 43 )( M ). B a l ogun’ s a r gum e nti gnor e s the obvi ous poi nttha ti tw oul d notha ve m a de11

any s ense for C on gres s t o u se the broader t erm “ vi ct i m , ” w hi ch i ncl ud es i ndi vi dua l s a nd c orpor a t e e nt i t i e s , i n s ubpa r a gr aph ( i i ) ; onl ythe gove rnm e ntc an be v ic tim iz e db yta x e v a s io n w h ic h is a ll th a t s ub p ar a g r ap h ( ii) a d d r e s s e s . I n c o n tr a s t, th e v i ct i m s o f frau do r d ecei tg en eral l y, w h i ch i s w h atsub p arag rap h (i ) ad d resses, c a n i nc l ude a n i ndi vi dua l , ac orpor a t e e nt i ty , orthe gove rnm e nt . T ha ti s w hy C ongr e s s us e d the i nc l us i ve t e rm “ vi c t i m ” i n s ubpa r a gr aph ( i ) w hi l e i ts pe c i f i e d the gove rnm e nta s the vi c t i m i n s ubpa r a gr aph ( i i ) . I f C ongr e s s ha d w ant e d t o l i m i tthe de f i ni t i on of “ a ggr a va t e d f

e l ony ” t o c r i m e s i n w hi c h the vi c t i m s w e r e pe r s ons and c o rp o r a te e n titie s , a s B a lo g u n s u g g e s ts , it c o u ldh a v e u s e dth e te rm “p e r s o n s ” in s e c tio n 1 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 3 ) ( M ) ( i) . I n s te a d , C o n g r e s s u s e dth e b r o a d e rte rm “v ic tim .” T hi s i nt erpret at i on com po rt s w i th the w aycourt s have i nt erpret ed the t erm

“ vi ct i m ” i n o ther s t atut ory c on t ext s. T he S ec on d C i rc ui thas hel d thatthe Int ernal R e ve nue S e rvi c e c a n be a“ vi c t i m ” f orr e s t i tut i on purpos e s unde rthe V i c t i m a nd W i tne s s P r ot e c t i on A c t , 18 U . S . C . § 3663. S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. H e l m s l e y , 941 F . 2d 71, 101- 02 ( 2d C i r . 1991) ( l i s t i ng c a s e s w he r e gove rnm e nta ge nc i e s ha ve been foun d t o b e vi ct i m s) . T he sam e c ou rthas hel d that , un der the M andat ory V i c t i m s ’ R e s t i tut i on A c t , the gove rnm e nti s avi c t i m e nt i t l e d t o r e s t i tut i on f or em bezz l em ent(the sam e c ri m e f or w hi ch B al og un w as conv i ct ed). S ee U ni t ed S ta te s v . E k a n e m , 3 8 3 F .3 d4 0 , 4 3

– 4 4 ( 2 dC ir . 2 0 0 4 ) . L ik e w is e , th e N in th C ir c u it12

ha s he l d tha tthe P os t a l S e rvi c e w a s a“ vi c t i m ” e nt i t l e d t o r e s t i tut i on unde rthe sam e a ct . S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. D e L a F uent e, 35 3 F . 3d 76 6, 77 3– 74 (9th C i r. 20 03 ). I n th is c a s e th e B I A in te rp r e te d“v ic tim ” in 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 3 ) ( M ) ( i) to i ncl ud e the go vernm ent , and i t s i nt erpret at i on s of i m m i grat i on st atut es ar e due C he vr on de f

e r e nc e w he r e appr opr i a t e . F ar quha r s on v. U . S . A tt orne yG e n. , 246 F . 3d 1317, 1320 ( 11th C i r . 2001) ; P e r l e r a - E s c oba rv. E xe c ut i ve O f f i c e f or I m m ig r a tio n , 8 9 4 F .2 d1 2 9 2 , 1 2 9 6 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 0 ) ( “W e a r e a ls o o b lig e d. . . to d e f e rto th e B I A ’s in te rp r e ta tio n o f th e ap p lic ab le s ta tu te if th a t in te rp r e ta tio n is r e a s o n ab l e . ” ( c i t i n g Ch e v r o n v . N a tu r a l Re s . D e f . Co u n c i l , 4 6 7 U . S. 8 3 7 , 1 0 4 S. C t . 2 7 7 8 (1 9 8 4 )). G i v i n g B al o g u n ’ s arg u m en tth e b en efi to f th e d o ub t , th e m o st tha tc a n be s a i d i s tha tthe t e rm “ vi c t i m ” i n § 1101( a ) ( 43) ( M ) ( i ) i s a m bi guous . T he B I A ’s in te rp r e ta tio n o f

it to in c lu d e th e g o v e rn m e n t is r e a s o n ab le . G i ve n tha tc onc l us i on a nd B a l ogun’ s c onc e s s i on tha thi s e m be z z l e m e nt c onvi c t i on i nvol ve d af

r aud of m or e than $10, 000, i tf ol l ow s tha thi s c onvi c t i on w a s f o ra n a g g r a v a te df

e lo n yw ith in th e m e an in g o f 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 3 ) ( M ) ( i) . A s are sul t , B al og un i s notent i t l ed t o a w ai ver of hi s i nadm i ss i bl e s t atus un der 8 U . S . C . § 1182( h) . T he B I A ’ s or de rof r e m ova l i s va l i d, a nd B a l ogun’ s pe t i t i on f or r e vi e w of

tha tor de ri s due t o be de ni e d.13 III. T h e o th erissu e B alo g u n ra ises co n ce rn s h is p etit io n fo r r ev iew o f th e B IA ’s o r d e rd e c lin in g to r e o p e n h is r e m o v a l p r o c e e d in g s . B a lo g u n c o n te n d s th a t h is m ot i on t o reopen sho ul d h ave been grant ed because , si x d ay s a ft erthe B IA i ss ued i t s f i nal order of re m ov al , the st at e of A l abam a grant ed hi m an un cond i t i on al p a r d o n— a s o p p o s e dto th e lim ite dp ar d o n h e h a dp r e v io u s lyr e c e iv e d

— f o rh is fed eral em b ezzl em en tco n v i ct i o n s. T h e B I A is p e rm itte dto r e o p e n r e m o v a l p r o c e e d in g s if th e a lie n , w ith in ni nety day s of the fi nal order of re m ov al , pres ent s new evi dence that“ i s m at er i al a nd w a s nota va i l abl e a nd c oul d notha ve be e n di s c ove r e d orpr e s e nt e d a tthe f orm e rhe a r i ng. ” 8 C . F . R . § 1003. 2( c ) ( 1) . B a l ogun’ s m ot i on t o r e ope n the re m ov alproceedi ng s w as t i m el y f i l ed and h e di d p re se ntnew evi dence w hi ch w as n o t a v a ilab le a t h is f

o rm e rh e a r in g . T h e q u e s tio n is w h e th e rth is n e w e v id e n c e is m a te r ia l to th e B I A ’s f

in a l o r d e ro f

r e m o v a l. B a l ogun a r gue s tha the i s e nt i t l e d t o aw a i ve rof hi s i na dm i s s i bl e s t a tus unde r8 U . S . C . § 1227( a ) ( 2) ( A ) ( v) be c aus e he “ ha s be e n gr ant e d af ul l a nd unc ondi t i ona l pa r don . . . bythe G ove rnorof a nyof the s e ve r a l S t a t e s . ” T he g o v e rn m e n t r e s p o n d s th a t B a lo g u n ’s n e w p ar d o n is n o t “f u ll an du n c o n d itio n a l” b e c au s e , w h ile a ll h is c iv il an dp o litic a l r ig h ts u n d e rs ta te law w e r e r e s to r e d , h e is14

s t i l l s ubj e c tt o the f

e de r a l c ons e que nc e s of

hi s f e de r a l e m be z z l e m e ntc onvi c t i ons ( f o re x a m p le , f

e d e r a l f e lo n inp o s s e s s io n law s a n df e d e r a l h ab itu a l o f

f e n d e rlaw s ) . A l th o u g h w e are i n cl i n edt o ag ree w i th th e B IA , w e n eedn o td eci d e w h atC o n g ress i nt e nde d by“ f

ul l a nd unc ondi t i ona l pa r don” be c aus e B a l ogun i s i ne l i gi bl e f orthe p a r d o n - w a iv e rp r o v is io n o f s e c tio n 1 2 2 7 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( A ) ( v ) in a n ye v e n t. A n a l i e n i s t o be de port e d i f he i s c onvi c t e d, w hi l e i n the U ni t e d S t a t e s , of the c r i m e s l i s t e d i n s e c t i on 1227( a ) ( 2) ( A ) ( i ) thr ough ( i v) . S e c t i on 1 2 2 7 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( A ) ( v ) p r o v id e s th a t s ub p ar a g r ap h s ( i) th r o u g h ( iv ) “s h a ll n o t ap p ly ” if a n a l i e n w ho ha s be e n c onvi c t e d of one of the l i s t e d c r i m e s ha s be e n par done d by th e p r e s id e n t o rag o v e rn o ro f as ta te . N o tab ly , s e c tio n 1 2 2 7 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( A ) g o v e rn s o n ly tho se al i ens w ho ar e deport abl e. B a l ogun i s notade port abl e a l i e n. H e i s a n i na dm i s s i bl e a l i e n unde rs e c t i on 1 1 8 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( A ) ( i) ( I ) , aw h o llyd if f e r e n t p r o v is io n au th o r iz in g h is r e m o v a l. T h is s e pa r a t e c l a s s i f

i c a t i on of

i na dm i s s i bi l i tyappl i e s t o thos e a l i e ns w ho, f orone r e a s on o ra n o th e r , a r e in e lig ib le to e n te ro rr e - e n te rth e U n ite dS ta te s in th e f ir s t p la c e . S e e 8 U . S . C . § 1182( a ) . ( T hi s i ne l i gi bi l i tyt o e nt e rthe c ountryc ontr a s t s w i th the s i tua t i on of

de port abl e a l i e ns w ho a r e e i the r( 1) e l i gi bl e t o e nt e rw he n the ya rr i ve a nd a r e a dm i tt e d, butbe c om e i ne l i gi bl e t o r e m a i n be c aus e of s om e l a t e re ve nt , or ( 2) thos e w ho w e r e a dm i tt e d, butw oul d notha ve be e n ha d the i ri na dm i s s i bl e s t a tus15

b e e n k n o w n a t th e tim e o f a d m is s io n .) S e e id . § 1 2 2 7 ( a ) ) . S e c t i on 1182 doe s notha ve apar don pr ovi s i on l i ke s e c t i on 1227 doe s , a nd w e b e lie v e th a t if

C o n g r e s s h a din te n d e dto e x te n dth e p ar d o n w a iv e rto i nadm i ss i bl e a l i ens, i tw ou l d h ave don e s o. “ [I ] ti s gener al l y pre sum ed that C o n g r e s s a c ts in te n tio n a llya n dp u rp o s e lyw h e n it in c lu d e s p artic u larlan g u a g e in o n e s e c tio n o f

as ta tu te b u t o m its it in a n o th e r .” B F P v . R e s o lu tio n T ru s t C o rp ., 511 U . S . 531, 537, 114 S . C t . 1757, 1761, ( 1994) ( c i t a t i on and quot a t i on m arks om i tt ed); ac cord In re G ri ff i th, 20 6 F . 3d 13 89 , 13 94 (11th C i r. 20 00 ) ( en banc) ( n o tin g th a t “[ w ]h e r e C o n g r e s s k n o w s h o w to s ays o m e th in g b u t c h o o s e s n o t to , its si l en ce i s co n tro l l i n g ”) (al t erat i o n i n o ri g i n al ) (q u o t at i o n m ark s o m i tt ed ). T h u s, even as sum i ng thatB al og un ’ s par do n m ee t s the re qu i re m ent s of § 1 2 2 7 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( A ) ( v ) , h e w o u lds till b e u n ab le to e n te rth e U n ite dS ta te s ; h e w o u ld st i l l be re m ov abl e. I V. W e deny B al og un ’ s pet i t i on for r evi ew of the B IA ’ s f i nal order of re m ov al a n dh is p e titio n f

o rr e v ie w o f

th e B I A ’s o r d e rd e n yh is m o tio n to r e o p e n h is rem o v al p ro ceed i n g s. P E T I T I O N S D E N I E D .