# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 8- 10 74

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Jo na th an Jac ie l Zaz ue ta

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Peti ti on er

v.

W il li am P. Barr, At to rn ey

Gene ral of t he Uni te d S ta te s

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Resp on de nt

__ __ __ __ __ __

Pet it io n fo r Rev ie w of a n Ord er o f th e
Bo ard of I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Jan ua ry

15 , 20 19

Fi le d: Feb ru ary 22 , 20 19

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re GRUENDER, W OLLMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __

SHEPHERD, Cir cu it Ju dg e.

Jo na th an Ja ci el Zazu et a, a ci ti zen of Mex ic o, p et it io ns for rev ie w of an or de r

of th e Bo ard of Im

m ig rat io n App eal s (BIA) up ho ld in g th e de ci si on of an im m ig rat io n jud ge (IJ ) fin di ng hi m rem ov ab le un de r th e Im m ig rat io n an d Nati on al it y Act (INA),

8 U.S.C. §§ 11 01 -1 53 7. Hav in g juri sd ic ti on pu rs ua n t t o 8 U .S.C. § 12 52 , we de ny

th e p et it io n.Z azu et a be cam e a la wfu l pe rm an en t res id en t of th e Uni te d St at es in A u g u s t

20 04

. In Ja nu ary 2 00 9, he pl ed gu il ty i n Io wa st at e c o u r t t o p os se ss io n wit h in te nt

t o d e l i ve r a co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc e (cra ck co cai ne ) in vi ol at io n of Io wa Co de

§§ 12 4

. 4 0 1 ( 1 ) ( c)(3 ), 12 4.2 06 (2 )(d ), an d 70 3.1

. The co ur t de ferr ed jud gm en t an d

pl aced Zazu et a on 4 y ears pr ob at io n un de r Io wa Co de §§ 90 1.5 an d 90 7.3

. Mo nt hs

la te r, an Io wa st at e co ur t jury fo un d Zazu et a gu il ty of a s eco nd of fen se
, se co nd

de gr ee ro bb ery, in vi ol at io n of Io wa Co de § 71 1.3

. Bec au se th e ro bb ery co nv ic ti on

co ns ti tu te d a vi ol at io n of Zazu et a’s pr ob at io n fro m hi s co nt ro ll ed -s ub st an ce de ferr ed

jud gm en t, th e st at e co ur t rev ok ed th e de ferr ed jud gm en t an d pr ob at io n an d se nt en ced

hi m to a te rm no t t o e xc eed ten y ears for th at cri m e.

The ro bb ery co nv ic ti on was va cat ed in 20 1 6 du e to in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of

co un se l an d di sm i s s e d i n 2 0 1 7. Zazu et a th en m ov ed to va cat e hi s co nt ro ll ed

su bs ta nc e co nv ic ti on an d rei ns ta te th e de ferr ed jud gm en t

. W hi le hi s m ot io n was

pe nd in g, th e D ep ar

t m en t of Hom el an d Secu rit y in it ia te d rem ov al pr oc eed in gs ag ai ns t

Zazu et a. The st at e co ur t jud ge rei ns ta te d hi s de ferr ed ju d g men t on th e co nt ro ll ed

su bs ta nc e co nv ic ti on
, va cat ed an d se t as id e th e pr ob at io n rev oc at io n an d co nv ic ti on
, al lo wed th e wit h d r a wal of hi s gu il ty pl ea, an d di sm is se d th e cas e. In do in g so
, th e

co ur t em ph as iz ed th a t Za z u e ta ha d be en “ reh ab il it at ed ” su ch th at “ [c]on ti nu in g

pr ob at io n wou ld se rv e no reh ab il it at iv e pu rp os e.” Adm in

. R. 3, ECF No. 46 22 58 4.

Za z u e t a th en m ov ed to te rm in at e hi s rem ov al pr oc eed in gs be fo re th e IJ

,

arg ui ng he no lo ng er ha d a “ co nv ic ti on ” fo r im m ig rat io n pu rp os es

. The IJ de ni ed hi s

m ot io n aft er de te rm in in g th e wit hd rawal of hi s gu il ty pl ea “ was m erel y a fu nc ti on of

hi s co m pl et io n o f th e d efer red jud gm en t[.]” Adm in . R. 69

. Thu s, Zazu et a st il l ha d

a req ui si te “ co nv ic ti on ” an d was rem ov ab le un de r th e INA as an al ie n co nv ic te d of

an ag gr av at ed fel on y an d as an al ie n co nv ic te d o f an off en se rel at ed to a co nt ro ll ed

su bs ta nc e. 8 U

. S

. C

. § § 11 01 (a)( 43 )(A), 12 27 (a)( 2) (B)( i). The IJ or de red Zazu et a

rem ov ed to Mex ic o.

-2

-Zazu et a ap pe al ed to th e BIA. The BIA di sm is se d th e ap pe al

, ag reei ng wit h th e

IJ th at Zazu et a’s 20 09 Io wa de ferr ed ju dg m en t co ns ti tu te d a “ co nv ic ti on ” fo r

im m ig rat io n pu rp os es be cau se th e jud gm en t was no t de ferr ed un ti l aft er Zazu et a pl ed

gu il ty to p os se ss io n of crac k co cai ne wit h in te nt to de li ve r. The B IA fu rth er fo un d

th at th e de ferr ed jud gm en t was rev ok ed du e to Zazu et a’s ro bb ery co nv ic ti on an d th en

rei ns ta te d aft er th e ro bb ery co n v i c t i o n was se t as id e be cau se Zazu et a “ ha d al read y

se rv ed [ei gh t] y ears in pr is on
, he te st ifi ed th at he ha d ‘rehab il it at ed ,’ a n d th e co ur t

co nc lu de d th at ‘[c] on ti nu in g pr ob at io n wou ld se rv e no reh a bi li ta ti ve pu rp os e.’”

Adm in

. R. 5 (s eco nd al te rat io n in or ig in al ). Bec au se th e dr ug co nv ic ti on was va cat ed

fo r reh ab il it a t i v e p u rp os es
, it rem ai ne d a “ co nv ic ti on ” fo r im m ig rat io n pu rp os es

. Acco rd in gl y , th e BIA af

fir m ed th e IJ ’s dec is io n.

Bec au se Zazu et a do es no t di sp ut e th at a de ferr ed jud gm en t m ay “ co ns ti tu te []

a ‘con vi ct io n’ f

or im m ig rat io n pu rp os es ,” Pet ’r ’s R ep ly Br. 8, he arg ue s on ap pe al

th at th e wit hd rawal of h i s g u i l t y p le a an d va cat ur of th e de ferr ed jud gm en t ha ve

rem o ve d an y “ co nv ic ti on ” un de r th e ap pl ic ab le im m ig rat io n st at ut es

. 1 W e rev ie w

su ch le ga l de te rm in at io ns by th e BIA “ de no vo , acco rd in g su bs ta nt ia l de fere nc e to th e

BIA’s in te rp ret at io n of th e st at ut es an d reg ul at io ns it ad m in is te rs .” Ram ire z-Ba rajas

v. Se ss io ns , 87 7 F .3d 80 8, 81 0 (8t h Cir. 20 17 ), cert

. de ni ed

, 13 5 S. Ct

. 58 4 (20 18 ) .

“ Tho ug h we or di n a r i l y r e vi ew on ly th e BIA’s de ci si on
, we al so rev ie w th e IJ ’s

de ci si on as pa rt of th e fin al ag en cy act io n if th e BIA a do pt ed th e fin di ng s or th e

1 Zazu et a al so arg ue d th at th e BIA erre d by no t co ns id eri ng whe th er hi s dr ug of fen se co ns ti tu te d a rem ov ab le of fen se

. Howev er, in hi s Rep ly Bri ef, Z a zu et a

co nc ed ed th at th is co ur t la ck s juri sd ic ti on to he ar th at cl ai m be cau se he di d no t rai se it be fo re th e BIA. Re p l y B r

. a t 1 0

. The refo re, we ne ed no t ad dr es s th e is su e. See

Su lt an i v. Gon zal es
, 45 5 F.3 d 87 8, 88 4 (8 th Ci r

. 2 0 0 6 ) ( “ Fai lu re to rai se an is su e b e fo re th e ag en cy co ns ti tu te s a fai lu re to ex ha us t ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s a n d

de pr iv es th is co ur t of juri sd ic ti on to he ar th e m at te r.”); Un i t e d S ta te s v.
Ham m ers ch m id t

, 88 1 F.3 d 63 3, 64 0 (8 t h Ci r. 20 18 ) (d ecl in in g to di sc us s an is su e

co nc ed ed in a rep ly brie f).

-3

-reas on in g of th e IJ .” Eten y i v. Ly nc h

, 79 9 F.3 d 10 03

, 10 06 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 ) (in te rn al

qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)

.

Fo r im m ig rat io n pu rp os e s
, a “c on vi ct io n” is br oa dl y de fin ed as “ a fo rm al

jud gm en t of gu il t of the al ie n ent ered by a co ur t or
, if ad jud ic at io n of gu il t ha s be en

wit hh el d, whe re

. . . a jud ge or jury ha s fo un d th e al ie n gu il ty or th e al ie n ha s en te red

a pl ea of gu il ty or no lo co nt en de re or ha s ad m it te d su ffi ci en t fact s t o w arra nt a

fin di ng of gu il t, an d

. . . th e jud ge ha s or de red so m e fo rm of pu ni sh m en t, pe na lt y , or

res tra in t on th e al ie n’s li be rty.” 8 U.S.C. § 11 01 (a)( 48 )(A). “ [E]ven in cas es whe re

ad jud ic at io n is de ferr ed th e or ig in al fin di n g o r c on fes si on of gu il t is su ffi ci en t to

es ta bl is h a co nv i c t i on fo r pu rp os es of th e im m ig rat io n la ws.” Men do za-S aen z v.

Ses si on s
, 86 1 F.3 d 72 0, 72 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 17 ) (q uo ti ng Herre ra-I ni rio v. INS

, 20 8 F.3 d

29 9, 30 5- 06 (1 st Ci r. 20 00 )); se e al so In re Mar ro qu in -Garc ia

, 23 I&N Dec. 70 5, 71 5

(BIA 19 97 ) (n ot in g “ co nv ic ti on ” en ve lo ps in st an ces whe re a de fen da nt pl ead s gu il ty

an d a “ jud ge ha s wit hh el d a fo rm al ad jud ic at io n of gu il t bu t ha s ne ve rth el es s im po se d

pe n a l t i es or res tra in ts up on th e de fen da nt ’s li be rty” (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s

om it te d) ). “ If a co ur t va cat es an al ie n’s cri m in al co nv ic ti on fo r a reas on un rel at ed to

th e m eri ts of th e cas e—s uc h a s t o av oi d im m ig rat io n co ns eq ue nc es or fo r

reh ab il it at iv e reas on s— rat he r th an to co rrec t a pr oc ed ur al or su bs ta nt iv e de fect

, th e

co nv ic ti on wil l st il l s ta nd fo r im m ig rat io n pu rp os es de sp it e it s va cat ur .” And rad eZam or a v . Ly

nc h , 81 4 F .3d 94 5, 9 48 (8t h C ir. 2 01 6)

.

Here, Zazu et a’s rei ns ta te d de fe r r e d jud gm en t qu al ifi es as an im m ig rat io n

“ co nv ic ti on ” un de r 8 U.S.C. 11 01 (a)( 48 )(A) be cau se Zazu et a “ en te red a pl ea of

gu il ty” an d, in res po ns e, th e IJ or de red a “ res tra in t on [h is ] li be r t y ”: de ferr ed

jud gm en t an d pr ob at io n. Fu rth erm or e, th e rei ns ta te m en t of th e d e f erre d jud gm en t

was no t in te nd e d “t o co rrec t a pr oc ed ur al or su bs ta nt iv e de fect ” in th e un de rlyin g

of fen se

. And rad e-Zam or a
, 81 4 F.3 d at 94 8. The st at e co ur t’s la ng ua ge m ak es cl ear

th at it s va ca t u r was gr ou nd ed in “ reh ab il it at iv e reas on s,” se e id

. , rep eat ed ly

-4

-em

ph as iz in g reh ab il it at io n with ou t no ti ng an y in fir m it y in th e co nt ro ll ed -s ub st an ce

ch arg e:

The co ur t can n o t ig no re th e ap pl ic an t’s te st im on y th at he ha s in de ed

le arn ed th at cri m e do es no t pa y

. The co ur t can no t ig no re t h e f a c t th at

th e ap pl ic an t ha s a c o mm i tt ed fam il y an d ch il dr en th at wou ld be ne fit

fro m hi s in vo lv em en t. It is on ly eq ui ta bl e th at th e de ferr ed jud gm en t be

rei ns ta te d. It is pr ob ab le th at th e de fen da nt ha s be en reh ab il it at ed

. The

pu rp os e fo r pr ob at io n, i.e. reh ab il it at io n, ha s l i k e l y be en ach ie ve d.

Co nt in ui ng pro ba ti on wou ld ser ve no reh ab il it at iv e p ur po se

.

Adm in . R. 19 2.

It is no t di sp os it iv e th at Zazu et a br ou gh t hi s cl ai m fo r wit hd rawal of hi s gu il ty

p l e a u nd er Io wa Co de ch ap te r 82 2, whi ch he al le ge s req ui res le ga l erro r. The

la ng ua ge of ch ap te r 82 2 is br oa de r th an Zazu et a co nt en ds

, al lo win g cl ai m s in vo lv in g

“ ev id en ce of m at eri al fact s, no t pr ev io us ly pr es en te d an d he ard

, th at req ui res va cat io n

of th e co nv ic ti on or se nt en ce i n th e in te res t of jus ti ce.” Io wa Co de § 82 2.2 (1 )(d ).

Fu rth erm or e, th e st at e co ur t co nc lu de d it s or de r a l l o w in g wit hd rawal of hi s gu il ty

pl ea by ci ti ng an ot he r st at ut e, Io wa Co de § 90 7.3 (1 ). Adm in

. R. 19 3. Zazu et a do es

no t di sp ut e th at a de ferr ed jud gm en t un de r § 90 7.3 (1 ) “ co ns ti tu te s a ‘con vi ct io n’ fo r

im m ig rat io n pu rp os es [.]” Pet ’r’ s Rep ly Br. 8

. The refo re, th e BIA di d no t err in

co nc lu di ng th at Zazu et a h ad a “ co nv ic ti on ” fo r rem ov al pu rp os es

.

Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we d en y th e p et it io n.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-5

-