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 Thir d C ir c uit 2-29-2008 

# P ie rre v . BIC E P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 04-3759

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_2008

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 2008 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 " P ie rr e v . BIC E " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1507. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1507H onor abl e Paul S. D i amond, U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctJ udge forthe East ern D i s tr i ct * of Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. -1- 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. 04- 3759

___________ LUM ARC P I ERR E v. BU RE AU OF I M M I GR AT I ON & C US T OM S E NF OR CE M E NT , S E CR E T AR Y OF DE P AR T M E NT OF HOMEL AND S E CU RI T Y, AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L OF T HE UN I TED STATES

___________ O n R e v iew o f

a D e c isio n 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 37 323 492 I m m i gr at i on J udge: A nni e S. G ar cy T r ans ferr ed pur s uantt o the R E A L I D A ctfr om the D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey( N o. 04- cv- 02481)

___________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL . A . R . 34. 1( a)

N ovember30, 2007 B efor e: B A R R Y , FU E N T E S, C i r cui tJ udges , and D I A M O N D , D i s tr i ctJ udge. * ( O pi ni on Fi l ed: February29, 2008) OPI NI ON O F THE COURT-2-

FU E N T E S, C i r cui tJ udge: L um ar c Pi err e w as r emoved t o H ai t i i n M ay2006 aft erfai l i ng t o s eek a s t ayof depor t at i on pendi ng the r es ol ut i on of hi s pet i t i on forr evi ew befor e thi s C our t . T hr ee m o n th s la te r, o n A u g u s t 2 1 , 2 0 0 6 , a p p e lla te c o u n s e l w a s a p p o in te d to re p re s e n t P ie rr e . D e sp ite re p e a ted e f

f o rts, h o w e v e r, co u n se l w a s u n a b le to e sta b lish c o n tac t w ith P ier re to d i s c u s s h i s p e t i t i o n . Th i s c a s e p r e s e n t s th e q u e s t i o n wh e th e rP i e rr e ’ s i mmi g r a t i o n c l a i ms can be cons i der ed notw i ths t andi ng hi s ext ended a bs ence fr om thi s l i t i gat i on, orw hether hi s abs ence di ct at es a di s m i s s al . B eca us e Pi err e fa i l ed t o comm uni cat e w i th couns el or th i s Co u r tf

o ro v e re i g h t e e n mo n th s p r i o rt o s u b mi s s i o n o f th i s c a s e f

o ro u rr e v i e w, we w ill d ism iss th e p e tit io n a s m o o t. I. P i err e, a nati ve an d cit i zen o f H ai t i , w as adm i t t ed to the U nit ed S t at es i n 1 98 2 as a law f u l re sid e n t. N in e y e a rs la ter , P ier re p led g u iltyto se x u a l as sa u lt o f a m in o r, in viol at i on of N . J. S TAT . A NN . § 2 C : 14 -2B , for w hich he w as sent enced t o fo ur y ears ’ i m pr i s onm ent . T hi s convi ct i on w as the bas i s forr emoval pr ocee di ngs , w hi ch bega n w hen Pi err e w as s erved w i th a N ot i ce t o A ppear( “N T A ”) on J une 6, 2000. T he N T A char ged P ie rr e w ith re m o v a b ility f o r t h e c o m m is s io n o f

a n a g g ra v a te d f

e lo n y . S e e 8 U .S .C . § 1227( a) ( 2) ( A ) ( i i i ) ( “A nyal i en w ho i s convi ct ed of a n aggr avat ed fe l onyatanyt i m e af t er admi s s i on i s deport abl e. ”) . U pon r ece i ptof the N T A , Pi err e appl i ed forr el i ef f r om r emoval i n t he form of as y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval , and r el i ef unde rthe C onvent i on-3-

A g a in st T o rtu re (“ C o n v e n tio n ” ), b a sin g h is c laim s o n h is a c q u a in tan c e w ith c e rta in d is f a v o re d p o litic a l H a itia n s a n d th e p ri s o n c o n d itio n s h e w o u ld f a c e if re m o v e d to H a iti. O n D ece m ber13, 2000, fol l ow i ng a hea r i ng on the mer i t s , an i m m i gr at i on j udge ( “I J ”) deni ed Pi err e’ s appl i cat i ons forr el i ef a nd or der ed hi m r emoved t o H ai t i . O n M ay18, 2 0 0 1 , th e B IA a f

f ir m e d th e IJ ’s d e c is io n . T her eaf t er , the pr ocedur al hi s t oryof Pi err e’ s cas e bec ame i ncr eas i ngl ycompl ex beca us e of c oncurr entchal l enges br oughtbyPi err e i n both the D i s tr i ctC our tand the i m m i grat i on cou rt s and an ever- chan ging bo dyof im m i grat i on l aw . In these ch al l eng es, Pi err e s oughtr econs i der at i on of the deni al of r el i ef unde rthe C onvent i on and a d isc re tio n a ryw a iv e r o f

re m o v a l u n d e r f

o rm e r § 2 1 2 (c ) o f

th e Im m ig ra tio n a n d N a tio n a lity A ct . See 8 U . S. C . § 1182( c) ( r epea l ed 1996) ; I . N . S. v. St . C yr , 533 U . S. 289, 326 ( 2001) (h o ld in g th a t th e re p e a l o f § 2 1 2 (c ) d id n o t ap p lyto a lien s w h o e n ter e d a p lea o f g u ilty befor e A pr i l 1, 1997, and w ho “w oul d have be en el i gi bl e for§ 212( c) r el i ef a tthe t i m e of th e irp le a u n d e r t h e la w th e n in e f f e c t” ). E ventual l y , i n A ugus t2004, the D i s tr i ctC our tagr eed w i th the B I A thatPi err e w as in e lig ib le f

o r r e lie f u n d e r § 2 1 2 (c ), d e n y in g h is p e titio n f o r a w ri t o f

h a b e a s c o rp u s . Pi err e appe al ed t o t hi s C our t , ar gui ng thatthe deni al of § 212( c) r el i ef de pr i ved hi m of due pr oces s of l aw beca us e the I J fai l ed t o cons i derPi err e’ s ar gum entthathe had be en r ehabi l i t at ed, and bec aus e the I J hel d Pi err e t o an i m pr oper l yel evat ed s t andar d due t o the natur e of the cr i m e under l y i ng the cha r ges of deport at i on. T hatappea l , w hi ch w asT he R E A L I D A ctof 2005, w hi ch ca m e i nt o eff ecton M ay11, 2005, amended 8 1 U . S. C . § 1252( a) ( 2) t o el i m i nat e the fe der al di s tr i ctcourt s ’ habea s j ur i s di ct i on over ch all en g es to fin al rem o v al ord ers. Se e F ran co is v. G o n za les, 4 4 8 F . 3 d 6 4 5 , 6 4 7 (3d C ir . 2006) . W e dea l w i th a pendi ng appea l fr om a di s tr i ctcourt ’ s habea s pet i t i on byvaca t i ng th e d istric t co u rt’s o p in io n a n d a d d re ss in g th e c laim s ra ise d in th e h a b e a s p e tit io n a s if th e yw e re p re s e n te d , in th e f ir s t in s ta n c e , a s a p e titio n f o r r e v ie w o f

th e B IA ’s d e c is io n . I d. at648. Pi err e’ s pr es entpet i t i on forr evi ew di d nott echni cal l yar i s e outof the deni al of 2 rel i ef un der the C on ven t i on , bu trather the d enial of rel i ef un der § 21 2(c) . N evertheles s, the br i ef f

i l ed byPi err e’ s appoi nt ed couns el s ugges t s thatw e s houl d cons i derthe deni al o f re lie f u n d e r t h e C o n v e n tio n a s p a rt o f th e p re s e n t p ro c e e d in g . -4- tra n sf o rm e d in to a p e tit io n f

o r re v iew o f

a f in a l o rd e r o f

re m o v a l, is p re se n tlyb e f o re th is 1 C o u rt. M eanw hi l e, on A pr i l 5, 2005, the B I A deni ed r el i ef unde rthe C onvent i on, and or der ed Pi err e deport ed. Pi err e fi l ed a mot i on forr econs i der at i on w i th the B I A , w hi ch w as r ej ect ed as unt i m el yon O ct ober27, 2005. 2 In M a y2 0 0 6 , an d n o tw ith sta n d in g h is rig o ro u s p u rsu it o f h is c laim s f

o r re lief a t all l evel s , Pi err e w as deport ed t o H ai t i . T hr ee mont hs l at er , i n A ugus t2006, w e appoi nt ed c o u n se l to re p re se n t P ier re . S h o rtlya f ter e n ter in g h is a p p e a ra n c e , co u n se l n o ted in h is o p en ing b ri ef

that h e “ h as b ee n u n ab le t o co n tact M r. P ierre ab o u t th is pe ti ti o n . ” (P etr. ’s B r . 8 n. 3. ) U pon fur theri nqui r ybythe C our t , couns el r epr es ent ed thathe r ece i ved cont acti nform at i on forPi err e i n H ai t i fr om a r el at i ve r es i di ng i n the U ni t ed St at es , but des pi t e r epea t ed ef

for t s , had nots ucce eded i n corr es pondi ng w i th Pi err e. ( Petr . ’ s Supp. M em . 4 -5.) II.W h il e m o o tnes s is “roo ted” in the ca se o r co n tr o v ersyreq u ir em en t of A rt icl e III, 3 w e h av e a lso n o ted th e “ m o o tnes s d o ctri n e’s im p li citco m m o n law co n ce rn w ith the m o re p ra c tica l co n sid e ra tio n s o f ju d icia l ec o n o m y. . . . ” N e w Je rse yT p k . A u th . v . Je rse yC e n t. P o w er a n d L igh t, 7 7 2 F . 2 d 2 5 , 3 1 n . 1 1 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 5 ). -5- P ier re ’s la c k o f

c o m m u n ica tio n w ith h is a tto rn e ya n d h is f a ilu re to m a in tain cont actw i th t hi s C our tbegs the ques t i on of w hetherhe has abandone d hi s cl ai m s . T he Supr eme C our thas r epea t edl yaff i r m ed thatthe “duty ” of f eder al court s “i s t o deci de actual contr over s i es bya j udgm entw hi ch ca n be ca rr i ed i nt o eff ect , and nott o gi ve opi ni ons upon m ootques t i ons orabs tr actpr opos i t i ons , ort o decl ar e pr i nci pl es orrul es of l aw w hi ch ca nnotaff

ectthe mat t eri n i s s ue i n the ca s e bef or e i t . ” M i l l s v. G r een, 159 U . S. 651, 653 ( 1895) ; s ee a l s o C hur ch of Sci ent ol ogyof C al . v. U ni t ed St at es , 506 U . S. 9, 12 ( 1992) ; Pr ei s erv. N ew ki r k, 422 U . S. 395, 401 ( 1975) ; N or th C ar ol i na v. R i ce, 404 U .S . 2 4 4 , 2 4 6 (1 9 7 1 ). T h e p rin c ip le th a t w e w ill n o t d e c id e m o o t ca se s is ro o ted in A r t i cl e I I I , Sect i on 2 of the C ons t i tut i on, w hi ch l i m i t s ourj ur i s di ct i on t o “ca s es ” or

“ c on tr ov e r s i e s . ” Fr i e nd s of the Earth, I nc . v. Lai dl a w Envt l . Se r vs . ( TO C) , I nc . , 52 8 U. S. 167, 180 ( 2000) ( “The C ons t i tut i on’ s cas e- or - contr over s yl i m i t at i on on fede r al j udi ci al author i ty. . . underpi ns . . . ourm ootnes s j ur i s prudence . . . . ”) ; R i ce, 404 U . S. at246 ( “[O ] uri m pot ence ‘ t o r evi ew m ootcas es der i ves fr om the r equi r ementof A r t i cl e I I I of the C ons t i tut i on underw hi ch the exe r ci s e of j udi ci al pow erdepends upon the exi s t ence of a c ase o r co n tr o v ersy . ’” (q u o ti n g L iner v . Jaf co , Inc . , 3 7 5 U . S . 3 0 1 , 3 0 6 n . 3 (19 6 4 ))) . 3 B eca us e moot nes s i m pl i cat es ourA r t i cl e I I I j ur i s di ct i on, w e have an i ndepende nt-6-

obl i gat i on t o det erm i ne w hethera cl ai m i s m ootbefor e r eac hi ng the mer i t s , even w hen, as her e, the i s s ue w as notr ai s ed bythe part i es . See R endel l v. R um s fel d, 484 F. 3d 236, 240 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ; N ew J er s eyT pk. A uth. v. J er s eyC ent . Pow erand Li ght , 772 F. 2d 25, 30 n . 1 0 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 5 ). T he moot nes s doctr i ne r equi r es that“an a ctual contr over s y[i s ] ext antatal l s t ages of r e vi e w , no tmer e l ya tthe t i me the [p e t i t i on ] i s fi l e d. ” St e ff e l v. Thomps on , 41 5 U. S. 4 5 2 , 4 5 9 n . 1 0 (19 7 4 ); N ew Jerse yT p k . A u th., 7 7 2 F . 2 d at 31 (cit ati o n s o m itted). If “cha nges i n ci r cumst ance s thatpr evai l ed atthe begi nni ng of the l i t i gat i on have f or es t al l ed anyocca s i on form eani ngful r el i ef, ” w e di s m i s s the pet i t i on as m oot . R endel l , 484 F. 3d a t 2 4 0 (q u o tin g In re S u rr ic k , 3 3 8 F .3 d 2 2 4 , 2 3 0 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 3 )) . T hi s pr i nci pl e i s exempl i fi ed w hen a pe t i t i onerdi es pendi ng r es ol ut i on of a pet i t i on forr evi ew . U nders uch ci r cumst ance s , “the courtof appe al s can no l ongergr ant the r el i ef thatthe al i en s eeks . ” M cA l l i s t erv. A t t orneyG ener al , 444 F. 3d 178, 184 ( 3d C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). T h e d e a th o f th e p e tit io n e r re n d e rs c laim s f o r re lief f ro m d e p o rta tio n m o o t, re q u ir in g th e d is m is s a l o f th e p e titio n . Id . S im ilarly , a p e tit io n f

o r re v iew c a n b e c o m e m o o t if it is a b a n d o n e d b ya p a rty s eeki ng r el i ef, w hi ch r emoves a nybas i s form eani ngful r el i ef. Subse quentt o or al ar gum enti n L i n v. U ni t ed St at es D ep’ tof J us t i ce, 494 F. 3d 296 ( 2d C i r . 2007) , the Second C i r cui tl earned thatL i n’ s att orneycoul d notl ocat e hi m , and bel i eved thathe had e ith e r re tu rn e d to C h in a o r w a s d e c e a se d . Id . at 3 0 0 n .2 , 3 1 5 . T h e S e c o n d C irc u itSect i on 1208. 8, ent i t l ed ‘ L i m i t at i ons on tr avel out s i de the U ni t ed St at es , ’ s t at es 4 th a t “[ a ]n a p p lica n t w h o lea v e s th e U n ited S tate s w ith o u t f irst o b tain in g a d v a n c e p a ro le under§ 212. 5( f) of thi s chapt ers hal l be pr es um ed t o have a bandoned hi s orher ap p li ca ti o n u n d er this sec ti o n . ” 8 C . F . R . § 1 2 0 8 . 8 (a). -7- concl uded that“[g] i ven thatw e do notr et ai n j ur i s di ct i on overL i n’ s cl ai m i f he ha s re tu rn e d to C h in a a n d h a s p ro v id e d n o e x p lan a tio n to o v e rc o m e th e p re su m p tio n th a t h is a s y lu m a p p lic a tio n h a s b e e n a b a n d o n e d , s ee 8 C . F . R . § 1 2 0 8 . 8 , o r i f h e is d ec ea sed , L in’s 4 pet i t i on i s di s m i s s ed as m oot . ” I d. at315. M or eover , r epr es ent at i on bycouns el , al one, i s i ns uffi ci entt o s uppor tthe exi s t ence o f a c a s e o rc o n tr o v e r s ya n d a v o i d a f i n d i n g o f mo o tn e s s . S e e 1 3 A C HARL ES A L AN W R I GH T , ET AL ., F E D E RA L P RAC TI C E AND P R OC EDU R E § 3533. 1 ( 2d ed. 1984) ; K r emens v. B art l ey , 431 U . S. 119, 134 n. 15 ( 1977) . I n E l l i s v. D y s on, a ci vi l r i ght s cas e i nvol vi ng a c h a llen g e to a lo iterin g o rd in a n c e , p e tit io n e rs’ c o u n se l h a d n o t b e e n in c o n tac t w ith th e ir cl i ent s forappr oxi m at el yone y earand w er e unaw ar e of thei rw her eabout s . 421 U . S. 426, 434 ( 1975) . T he Supr eme C our tr emanded the ca s e on othergr ounds , butnot ed that “[u] nl es s pet i t i oner s have be en found bythe t i m e the D i s tr i ctC our tcons i der s thi s cas e on re m a n d , it is h ig h ly d o u b tf u l th a t a c a s e o r c o n tr o v e rs yc o u ld b e h e ld to e x is t.” Id . Si m i l ar l y , i n L i n, r epr es ent at i on bycouns el di d noti m pede a fi ndi ng of m ootnes s . L i n, 494 F. 3d at315. W hi l e Pi err e w as r emoved fr om the U ni t ed St at es pur s uantt o a courtor der , unl i ke th e p e titio n e r i n L in w h o p re s u m a b ly d e p a rt e d v o lu n ta ri ly, th e o u tc o m e is n o d if f e re n t.-8-

D u rin g th e e ig h tee n m o n th s f o llo w in g P ier re ’s r e m o v a l, P ier re m a d e n o c o n tac t w ith res pect t o thi s l i t i gati on . H e has no tcom m un i cat ed w i th the C ou rtt o p rovi de an add res s fors ervi ce ort o i ndi cat e thathe w i s hes t o pr ocee d w i th hi s pet i t i on. Pi err e’ s appoi nt ed couns el i ndi cat ed, on N ovember9, 2007, thathe had ne vers poken w i th Pi err e and that rep ea ted e ff

o rt s to c o n tact P ierre i n H ait i w ere u n su cc essf u l. (P etr. ’s S u p p . M em . 4 -5.) In short , everyi nd i cat i on supp ort s our con cl usi on that Pi err e has ab and on ed h i s cl ai m s, a n d h is p e titio n c a n n o lo n g e r b e c o n s id e re d a liv e c a s e o r c o n tr o v e rs y . III . T he pet i t i oner ’ s fai l ur e t o pur s ue thi s l i t i gat i on dur i ng a per i od of m or e than eigh teen m o n ths m ak es itclea r t o u s tha t his pe ti ti o n h as b ee n ab an d o n ed , an d is th ere fo re m oot . 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.