FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT OCTOB ER 26, 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T 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 o. 06- 10950 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ B I A N o. A 71- 527- 786 S H E L L Y P E T I T - F R E R E , a .k .a . H e rb yP e titf

r e r e , a .k .a . S h e r lyP e tit- F r e r e , 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 on f orR e vi e w of

aD e c i s i on of

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

_________________________ ( O c t ob e r 26, 2006) B efo re D U B IN A , H U L L an dM A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:Petitioner’s motion to suppl ement the administrative record is DENIED. We ca nnot 1 consider supplements to the rec ord, as wearebound to decide this ca se on the re cord that was before the B oard of

Immigration Appeals. See I NA § 242(b) (4)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A) . 2 S he l l yP e t i t - F r e r e , ac i t i z e n and na t i ona l of H a i t i pr oc e e di ng pr o s e , pe t i t i ons for our revi ew of th e f

i nal order of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s ( B IA ), w hi ch a f f i rm e d the i m m i gr a t i o n j udge ’ s ( I J ’ s ) or de rde ny i ng a s y l um , w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l unde rthe I m m i gr a t i on a nd N a t i ona l i tyA c t( “ I N A ” ) , an d re l i e f unde rthe U n i t e d N a t i ons C onve nt i on A ga i ns tT ortur e a nd O the rC rue l , I nhum an, or D e gr a d i n g Tr e a tme n to rPu n i s h me n t( “ CA T” ) . W e i s s u e dj u r i s d i c t i o n a l q u e s t i ons f o r th e p a rtie s to a d d r e s s , in c lu d in g w h e th e rw e h a v e ju r is d ic tio n to h e arP e titF r e r e ’s p e titio n b e c au s e o f h is c r im in a l c o n v ic tio n s , s e e I N A § 2 4 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( C ) , 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 (a)( 2)(C ), and, i f § 24 2(a) (2)( C ) app l i es , w hether any const i tut i on al c ha l l e nge s orque s t i ons of l a w r a i s e d byP e t i t - F r e r e a r e r e vi e w abl e . A ft erc ar e f ul r e v ie w , w e d is m is s th e p e titio n in p art an dd e n yit in p art. 1 O n Jul y7, 2005, the D e partm e ntof H om e l and S e c ur i ty( “ D H S ” ) i s s ue d a N ot i ce t o A pp ear ( “N ot ice” ) to P et i t -F re re , w ho had b ee n adm i tt ed t o the U ni t ed S t at es as a c hi l d asy l ee i n 1 98 8, char gi ng hi m w i th rem ov abi l i ty f or havi n g b ee n c o n v ic te do f

( 1 ) c a rry in g af

ir e arm , in v io la tio n o f th e I N A § 2 3 7 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( C ) , 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 2 7 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( C ) ; ( 2 ) v io la tin g alaw r e la tin g to ac o n tr o lle ds ub s tan c e , in vi ol at i on of IN A § 2 37 (a )( 2)(B )( i ), 8 U . S . C . § 1 22 7(a) (2)( B )( i ); and (3) an a g g r a v a te df

e lo n y , in v io la tio n o f I N A § 2 3 7 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( A ) ( ii i ) , 8 U .S .C . §3

12 27 (a )( 2)(A )( i i i ). A cc ordi ng t o th e N ot i ce , i n Jun e 199 5, P et i t -F re re w as conv i ct ed i n F l ori da o f ca rr yi ng a c on ce al ed fi re arm , and i n F ebruary19 99 , he w as c o n v ic te d , a g a in in F lo r id a , o f p o s s e s s io n o f

c o c a in e w ith in te n t to s e ll. P et i t -F re re fi l ed an appl i cat i on for c ance l l at i on of re m ov al , as w el l as an ap p l i cat i o n seek i n g asyl u m , w i th h o ld in g o f rem o v al , an dC A T rel i ef. A th i s fi rst r e m o v a l h e a r in g , h e a d m itte dh is c o n v ic tio n s a n dth e I Jf o u n dth a t r e m o v ab ility w a s e s t abl i s h ed b ecau s e P e t i t - F r e r e w a s a n a l i e n, a nd hi s c onvi c t i on f orpos s e s s i on of c oc a i ne w i th i nt e ntt o s e l l w as an a ggr a va t e d f e l ony , pr e c l udi ng c anc e l l a t i on of re mova l un de r I N A § 21 2( c ) , 8 U . S. C. § 11 82 ( c ) . The r e a f t e r , the D H S prov i ded P e tit- F r e r e w ith n o tic e o f its in te n t to te rm in a te h is a s y lu m s ta tu s b e c a u s e o f h is c r im in a l c o n v ic tio n f

o rp o s s e s s io n o f

c o c a in e w ith in te n t to s e ll. A f te ras e c o n dr e m o v a l h e a r i n g , a t w h ic h th e I Jh e ar dth e te s tim o n yo f P e titF re re ’ s brother and consi dere d sup po rt i ng ev id en ce subm i tt ed by the part i es , the IJ deni ed P et i t -F re re ’ s app l i cat i on for a sy l um , w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al , C A T re l i ef , a nd c a nc e l l a t i on of

r em o v al . T he I Jc onc l ude d tha tP e t i t - F r e r e ’ s c onvi c t i on f or p o sse s s i on of

c oc a i ne w i th i nt e ntt o s e l l w a s a n a ggr a va t e d f e l ony , the r e bym a ki ng hi m s t a tut or i l yi ne l i g i b l e fo r a s y l um . T he I Ja l s o de t e rm i ne d tha tthe c onvi c t i on w as for a“ part i cul ar l y s er i ou s c ri m e, ” s o thatthe on l y type of r el i ef for w hi ch P e tit- F r e r e w o u l d q u a lif yw a s C A T r e lie f

. F in a lly , th e I Jf

o u n dth a t P e tit- F r e r e d id4

no tqu a l i f

yf orCA T r e l i e f

be c aus e he di d n otpr ov e thathe w a s , ore ve rw ou l d be, t ortur e d. T he B IA adop t ed and affi rm ed the IJ ’ s d ec isi on , fi nd i ng P et i t -F re re re m ov abl e a s c harged and d enyi ng hi s app l i cat i on for prot ec t i o n fr o m re m ov al u n d erC A T . M o re sp ec ifically, th e B IA stated th at itfo u n dn o erro r in th e I J’s d et erm i n at i o n s th at(1 ) P e tit- F rere’s cocaine co n v i ct i o n w as an ag g rav at edfel o n y, a n d( 2 ) P e tit- F r e r e w a s c o n v ic te do f ap artic u la r l y s e r io u s c r im e th a t lim ite dh is el i gi bi l i ty f

or re l i ef t o thatun der C A T . T he B IA w enton t o n ot e thatan al i en c onvi c t e d of

an a ggr a va t e d f

e l onyi s s t a tut or i l yba rr e d f r om s e e ki ng a s y l um , a nd one c onvi c t e d of

apa rt i c ul a r l y s e r i ous c r i m e i s pr e c l ude d f r om s e e ki ng w i thh o l di ng of re m ov al . F i nal l y, the B IA al so af fi rm ed the IJ ’ s f

i nd i ng thatthere w a s n o e v id e n c e th a t P e tit- F r e r e w o u ldb e to rtu r e d i f h e r e tu rn e dto H a iti. T h is appe a l f ol l ow e d. W e is s u e dth e f

o llo w in g ju r is d ic tio n a l q u e s tio n s to th e p artie s : ( 1 ) W h e th e rI N A § 2 4 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( C ) , 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( C ) lim its thi s C ourt ’ s j ur i s di ct i o n ove rthi s pe t i t i on f orr e vi e w . S e e D e l P i l arv. A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, 3 2 6 F .3 d1 1 5 4 , 1 1 5 6 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . ( 2 ) I f I N A § 2 4 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( C ) ap p lie s , w h e th e rth e s p e c if ic c ons t i tut i ona l ch al l en ge s orque s t i ons of l aw , i f a ny , r a i s e d by pe t i t i one r , a r e r e vi e w abl e. S e e 8 U . S . C . § 1252( a ) ( 2) ( D ) ; B a l ogun v. A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, 4 2 5 F .3 d1 3 5 6 , 1 3 5 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . (3) If P et i t i on erse eks j ud i ci alre l i ef o f the deni alof di sc re t i on ary r e l i e f , doe s I N A § 242( a ) ( 2) ( B ) ( i i ) pr e c l ude thi s C ourt ’ s j ur i s di c t i on.Cf. United States v. Simon, 168 F.3d 1271, 1272 (11th Cir. 1999) (holdingthat for a 2 drugoffense to fit within the definition of an “ag gravated fe lony,” the of fensemust (1) be punishable under

the Controlled Substances Act, and (2) bea fe lony). 5 U nd erthe IN A , w e l ac k j uri sdi ct i on to re v iew the fi nal re m ov alorder of an al i en w ho i s r em ov abl e f or havi ng com m itted (1 ) an “ aggravat ed fe l on y, ” or ( 2) an of f e ns e “ r e l a t i ng t o ac ontr ol l e d s ubs t anc e , ” a s tha tt e rm i s d e f i ne d by§ 802 of

the IN A . S ee IN A § 2 42 (a )( 2)(C ), 8 U .S .C . § 12 52 (a )( 2)(C ); IN A § 2 37 (a )( 2)(A )( i i i ), 8 U .S .C . § 12 27 (a )( 2)(A )( i i i ); IN A § 2 37 (a )( 2)(B )( i ), 8 U . S . C . § 1 22 7(a) (2)( B )( i ). T he t erm “ aggravat ed fe l on y” i ncl ud es “ i l l i ci ttra ff i cki ng in a c on trol l ed s ub s tan c e ,” I N A § 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 3 ) ( B ) , 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 3 ) ( B ) . M o r e o v e r , a

“ c ontr ol l e d s ubs t a nc e , ” a s d efi n ed bythe C ontr ol l e d S ubs t anc e s A c t , 21 U . S . C . §§ 80 2(6), 81 2 (a )( 4 ), i ncl ud es coca i ne. T he t erm “ aggravat ed fe l on y” al so i ncl ud es 2 po ss es si on of a f

i re arm by an al i en w ho has bee n adm i tt ed t o the U ni t ed S t at es u n d e ran o n - im m ig r a n t v is a . S e e I N A § 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 3 ) ( E ) ( ii) , 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 3 ) ( E ) ( ii) ; 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 ( g ) ( 5 ) . If ou r r evi ew of a f

i nal re m ov alorder i s barre d b ec ause of an al i en’ s c ri m i nal c o n v ic t i o n , o u rju r is d ic tio n is n a rr o w e dto r e v ie w in g o n lyw h e th e rth e p e titio n e ris

“ (1 ) an al i en (2 ) w h o i s rem o v ab l e (3 ) b ecau se h e co m m i tt ed a cri m i n al o f f en se e num e r a t e d i n the s t a tut e . ” R e s e ndi z - A l c ar a z v. U . S . A tt ’ yG e n. , 383 F . 3d 1262, 1 2 6 6 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n s a n dc ita tio n s o m itte d ) .6

P e t i t - F r e r e w a s or de r e d r e m ove d be c aus e of hi s c onvi ct i o n fo rpos s e s s i ng a f i r e a rm , pur s ua ntt o I N A § 237( a ) ( 2) ( C ) , 8 U . S . C . § 1227( a ) ( 2) ( C ) ; hi s c onvi c t i on f o rp o s s e s s io n o f

c o c a in e w ith in te n t to s e ll, p u r s u an t to I N A § 2 3 7 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( B ) , 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 2 7 (a ) ( 2) ( B ) ; a nd f orc om m i tt i ng an a ggr a va t e d f e l ony , pur s uantt o § 237( a ) ( 2) ( A ) ( i i i ) , 8 U . S . C . § 1227( a ) ( 2) ( A ) ( i i i ) . T hus , i t i s pl a i n, ba s e d on a nyone of these grou nd s, that§ 1 25 2(a) (2)( C )’ s bart o o ur re vi ew appl i es and w e m ay de t e rm i ne onl yw he the rP e t i t - F r ere i s ar e m ovabl e a l i e n be c aus e he c om m i tt e d a c r i m i na l of

f e ns e e num e r a t e d i n the I N A . S e e R e s e ndi z - A l c ar a z , 383 F . 3d a t1266. AtP e t i t - F r e r e ’ s r e m o v a l h e a r i n g , i twa s e s t ab l i s h e dth a th e wa s an a l i e n . As fo r w h eth er h e i s rem o v ab l e b ecau se o f h i s co m m is s io n o f a cri m i n al o ffen se e num e r a t e d i n the I N A , w e are u npe r s ua de d byP e t i t - F r e r e ’ s ar gum e nttha thi s drug c onvi c t i on doe s notf

i tw i thi n the de f

i ni t i on of

a n “ a ggr a va t e d f

e l ony , ” und er the IN A . A gai n, an aggravated fe l on y i ncl ud es “ i l l i ci ttra ff i cki ng i n a control l ed s ub s t a n c e ( a s d e f

i n e di n s e c t i o n 802 of T i t l e 2 1 ) , i n c l u d i n g ad ru g tr a f f i c k i n g c r i me ( a s de f i ne d i n s e c t i on 924( c ) of T i t l e 1 8 ). ” 8 U . S . C . § 1101( a ) ( 43) ( B ) . S e c t i on 924( c ) of

T i t l e 1 8 , i n turn, de f i ne s a“ drug tr a f

f i c ki ng c r i m e ” a s anyf e l ony p u n is h ab le u n d e rth e C o n tr o lle dS ub s t a n c e s A c t, 2 1 U .S .C . 8 0 1 , e t. s e q . C o c a in e is in c lu d e da s ac o n tr o lle ds ub s tan c e , p u r s u an t to 2 1 U .S .C . § § 8 0 2 ( 6 ) , 8 1 2 S c h e du le II (a )( 4). M or eo v er , the re cord i nd i cat es thatthe drug offe nse f or w hi ch P et i t -F re re w as c o n v ic tedw as clas sified as a f elo n y in F lo rid a. C o n trary to P etit -F re re ’s7

ar gu m ent , the foregoi ng prov i si on s of the IN A an d the C on trol l ed S ub st ance s A ct d o n o t r e q u ir e ac e rta ina m o u n t o f c o c a in e to b e in v o lv e din o r d e rf o rth e c r im e to b e c la s s if

ie da s ad ru g tr a f

f ic k in g o f

f e n s e o ra n a g g r a v a te df e l o n y . S im p lyp u t, P et i t -F re re ’ s c on vi ct i on for posse ss i ng tw o g ram s of c ocai ne w as pu ni shabl e und er the C on trol l ed S ub st ance s A ctand w as a f el on y, and thu s w as an “ aggravat ed fe l on y, ” a s def

i ned b y IN A § 1 01 (a )( 43 )( B ), 8 U . S . C . § 1 10 1( a) (43)(B ). A cc ordi ng l y, the IJ ’ s and the B IA ’ s deter m in at i on s thatP et i t -F re re had cri m i nal conv i ct i on s m aki ng hi m re m ov abl e und erthe IN A w er e noterroneou s, an d w e l ac k ju r is d ic tio n to r e v ie w h is p e titio n . W hi l e i ti s true thatw e c anno tre vi ew m any of the ar g u m en t s P et i t -F re re a s s e rt s i n hi s pe t i t i on f

orr e vi e w d u e t o the j ur i s di c t i on- s tr i ppi ng pr ovi s i ons of the I N A § 2 4 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( C ) , 8 U .S . C . § 1 2 5 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( C ) , w e n o n e th e le s s r e ta in ju r is d ic tio n to consi der c on st i tut i on alcl ai m s or quest i on s of l aw ar i si ng o u t o f hi s r em ov al pr oc e e di ng s . Se e I N A § 2 42 ( a ) ( 2) ( D ) , 8 U . S. C. § 1 25 2( a ) ( 2) ( D ) . Pe t i t -F re re a r gue s tha tthe f

ol l ow i ng i s s ue s a r e s ubs t ant i al c ons t i tut i ona l que s t i ons or q u e s tio n s o f

law th a t ar e r e v i e w ab le , p u r s u an t to I N A § 2 4 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( D ) , U .S .C . § 12 52 (a )( 2 )( D ): (1) hi s proce du ra l du e proces s r i gh t s w er e vi ol at ed because he w as c ha r ge d a s a n a g g rav at e d f e l on w i thoutha vi ng f

i r s tbe e n a dj udi c a t e d gui l tyof vi ol a t i ng the C ontr ol l e d S ubs t a nc e A c t ; ( 2) hi s s ubs t ant i ve due pr oc e s s r i g h t s ha ve be e n v i o l at e d be c aus e r e m ovi ng an a l i e n, w ho ha s l i ve d he r e f or18 y e ar s , ba s e d on8

ac onvi c t i on f

orpos s e s s i on of

c oc a i ne w i th i nt e ntt o s e l l i s t oo h arsh and “ s hoc ks th e c ons c i e nc e ” ; a nd ( 3) hi s e qua l pr ot e c t i on r i ght s ha ve be e n vi ol a t e d be c au se st at es varyon the am ou ntof a c on trol l ed subst ance re qu i re d t o charge an i n d i v i du al w i th a traffi ck i n g o ffen se. W e are u n p ersu ad edb y an y o f th ese cl ai m s. F i r s t , P e t i t - F r e r e ’ s pr oc e dur a l due pr oc e s s c l a i m f a i l s b ecaus e , a s w e ha ve di sc usse d abo ve, the IJprop er l y det erm i ned th at h e had com m i tt ed an aggravat ed f e l o n y , th e r e b y ma k i n g h i m r e mo v ab l e u n d e r th e I N A § 2 4 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( C) , 8 U . S. C. § 1 25 2(a) (2)( C ). S ec on d, hi s s ub st ant i ve du e proces s c l ai m fa i l s bec ause he has n o tsh o w n th atC o n g ress’ s d eci si o n t o ex cl u d e al i en s w h o a r e ag g rav at edfel o n s, s uc h a s hi m s e l f

, i s i rr a t i ona l . C f

. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. P l um m e r , 221 F . 3d 1298, 1 3 0 8 - 0 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) ( “U n d e ro u rs ub s tan tiv e du e p r o c e s s ju r is p ru d e n c e , a s t a tut e orr e gul a t i on w i l l be uphe l d s o l ong a s i ti s r a t i ona l l yr e l a t e d t o al aw f ul g o v ern m en t al p u rp o se an d i s n o t u n l aw fu l l y arb i trary o r d i scri m i n at o ry. ”). F i n al l y, w e d is c e rn n o e q u a l p r o te c tio n v io la tio n in th e s ta tu to ryf r a m e w o r k th a t ap p lie s to th is c a s e . T h e r e c o r d in d ic a te s th a t n e ith e rth e I Jn o rth e B I A e x e r c is e dd is c r e tio n in denyi ng P et i t -F re re ’ s c l ai m s f or re l i ef fr om re m ov al . T he B IA det erm i ned that P et i t -F re re w as i nel i gi bl e f or st atut ory r el i ef

fr om re m ov aldu e t o h is statu s a s an aggravat ed fe l on . B ec ause he w as re m ov ed fol l ow i ng a c on vi ct i on for an a g g r a v a te df

e lo n y , w e la c kju r is d ic tio n to r e v ie w h is p e titio n a n dd is m is s it.9

A l tho ug h w e r et ai n l i m i t ed j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew any l egalor const i tut i on al que s t i ons r a i s e d i n hi s pe t i t i on, the l e ga l and c ons t i tut i ona l c l a i m s i n hi s pe t i t i on are w i th o u tm eri t . W e acco rd i n g l y d en y th e p et i t i o n as t o th ese cl ai m s. D I SM I SSED I N PA R T A N D D EN I ED I N PA R T.