T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on a nd i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T GR E G O R E NC I O V E NT UR A L AG UA , P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 06- 72353 A ge nc yN o. A 074- 350- 656 ME MOR AN DU M *

GR E G O R E NC I O V E NT UR A L AG UA , aka R egi nal d A gu st i n L l ac un a, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 08- 70031 A ge nc yN o. A 074- 350- 656

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

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

# FI LED JU N 17 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALST he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). 2 S ubm i tt e d J une 14, 2011 ** H o n o lu lu , H a w a ii B efo re: A L A R C Ó N , W A R D L A W , an d N . R . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. O n F e brua ry27, 1993, G r e g O r e nc i o V e ntur aL a gua , ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of the P hi l i ppi ne s , e nt e r e d the U ni t e d S t a t e s a tthe H onol ul u A i rporta s al a w f ul perm anentre si dent , usi ng the nam e and i dent i ty of R egi nal d A ug ust i n L l ac un a. In 1996, L a guam a rr i e d aU ni t e d S t a t e s c i t i z e n, w i th w hom he ha d ac hi l d, a nd he m ai nt ai ned h i s a ss um ed i dent i ty unt i l hi s f raud w as di sc ov er ed and rem ov al pr oc e e di ngs w e r e i ns t i tut e d a ga i ns thi m ne a r l yade c a de a f t e rhi s e ntryi nt o the U ni t e d S t a t e s . L a guape t i t i ons f orr e vi e w of

tw o or de r s i s s ue d bythe B oa r d of I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls ( “B I A ” ) . H e r e q u e s ts th a t h is c a s e b e r e m a n d e d w ith i ns truc t i ons t o c ons i de rthe f a c ttha the i s the be ne f

i c i a ryof a n appr ove d i m m i gr a nt vi s ape t i t i on. W e gr a nti n pa rta nd de nyi n pa rtL a gua ’ s c ons ol i da t e d pe t i t i ons , a nd rem an d th e m att er t o th e B IA w i th i n stru ct i o n s. W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on t o c ons i de rthe i s s ue s r a i s e d i n L a gua ’ s pe t i t i ons f or re v iew p u rs u an t t o IN A § 2 4 2 , 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (a )( 1 ). T h e im m ig ra ti o n ju d g e’s ( “I J ” ) A p r il 1 2 , 2 0 0 5 o r a l d e c is io n w a s s u m m a r ilya f f irm e d b yth e B I A . A cc ordi ng l y, w e r evi ew the IJ ’ s dec i si on for e rr or. 8 C . F . R . § 1 00 3. 1(e) (4)( i i ).3

L agua chal l enges anu m ber of the agency’ s dec i si on s both as e rr or and as vi ol at i ng hi s due proces s r i gh t s. M i nd ful of the rul e of c on st i tut i on al avoi dance, w e f ir s t c o n s id e re a c h o f

L a g u a ’s n o n - c o n s titu tio n a l c la im s u n d e rth e ap p lic ab le s t a n d a r d o f

r e v i e w. Se e En v t l. De

f . Ctr . , I n c . v . EP A , 34 4 F . 3d 83 2, 84 3 (9th C i r. 2003) ( “ [ W ] e a voi d c ons i de r i ng c ons t i tut i ona l i tyi f a n i s s ue m a ybe r e s ol ve d on n a rr o w e rg r o u n d s . . . .” ) . I L agua argues thatthe IJerre d i n d enyi ng hi s r equestfor acont i nu ance because the adj ud i ca t i on of hi s I -130 i m m i grantvi sapet i t i on w as of grea t im p o rta n c e to h is e lig ib ilityf o rv a r io u s f

o rm s o f r e lie f f r o m r e m o v a l a n d h is e lig ib ilityto a d

ju s t h is s ta tu s to th a t o f

ala w f u l p e rm a n e n t r e s id e n t. A n I J“m a yg r a n t ac o n tin u a n c e f o rg o o d c au s e s h o w n .” 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 9 .

“ W h en rev i ew i n g an IJ’ s d en i al o f a co n t i n u an ce, w e co n si d er a n u m b er o f fact o rs, i nc l udi ng: ( 1) the na tur e of the e vi de nc e e xc l ude d a s ar e s ul tof the de ni a l of

the c ont i nua nc e , ( 2) the r e a s onabl e ne s s of the i m m i gr a nt ’ s c onduc t , ( 3) the in c o n v e n ie n c e to th e c o u rt, a n d ( 4 ) th e n u m b e ro f c o n tin u a n c e s p r e v io u s ly grant ed. ” A hm ed v. H

older , 56 9 F . 3d 10 09 , 10 12 (9th C i r. 20 09 ). H e r e , the I Jde ni e d L a gua ’ s r e que s tf orac ont i nua nc e t o a w a i ta dj udi c a t i on of the I - 130 pe t i t i on, “ be c aus e the c a s e ha s be e n on the doc ke ts i nc e A ugus t2004,4

a n d th e D e p a rtm e n t o f

H o m e la n d S e c u r ityg iv e s n o s u g g e s tio n a s to w h e n it w ill a dj udi c a t e the vi s a . ” T he I J , how e ve r , f a i l e d t o c r e a t e ar e c or d of he rc ons i de r a t i on o f a n yo th e rr e le v a n t f

a c to r s . T h e I Jab u s e d h e rd is c r e tio n b yf a ilin g to a rtic u la te r e a s o n s s u f

f ic ie n t to s u p p o rt ad e te rm in a tio n th a t ac o n tin u a n c e w a s n o t w a rr a n te d . Se e i d. a t1014 ( “ [ T ] he I Jabus e d he rdi s c r e t i on by f a i l i ng t o pr ovi de a ny e xpl a na t i on f

orhe rde c i s i on, a nd f

a i l i ng t o t a ke i nt o a c c ounta nyof the f a c t s a nd ci rc um st ance s of [ pet i t i on er ] ’ s c as e thatw er e r el evantt o the grantor deni al of a cont i nu ance . ”) . II L a guac ha l l e nge s the I J ’ s de ni a l of hi s appl i c a t i ons f

orc a nc e l l a t i on of r e m o v a l a s an o n p e rm a n e n t r e s id e n t u n d e rI N A § 2 4 0 A ( b ) ( 1 ) , 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 9 b ( b ) ( 1 ) ; aw a iv e ro f d e p o rtab ilityp u r s u a n t to I N A § 2 3 7 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( H ) , 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 7 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( H ) ; an d p o s t- p r o c e e d in g v o lu n taryd e p artu r e u n d e rI N A § 2 4 0 B ( b ) , 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 9 c ( b ) . T h e I Jd e n ie d th o s e ap p lic a tio n s o n th e g r o u n d th a t L a g u ad id nots a t i s f ythe appl i c abl e “ good m or a l c ha r a c t e r ” r e qui r e m e nt s f orthos e f

orm s of r e lie f f r o m r e m o v a l. S ec t i on 24 2 o f the IN A bars appel l at e r evi ew of ce rt ai n d i sc re t i on ary de c i s i ons , i nc l udi ng the a ge nc y ’ s j udgm e nt s r e ga r di ng w he the rt o gr a ntva r i ous f orm s of i m m i gr a t i on r e l i e f

. . 8 U . S . C . § 1252( a ) ( 2) ( B ) ( i ) . T hi s c ourta l s o l a c ks the5

j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew the agency’ s di sc re t i on ary goo d m oral char ac t er d e te rm in a tio n s . L op ez -Castel lan os v. G on zales , 43 7 F . 3d 84 8, 85 4 (9th C i r. 20 06 ); b u t s e e a ls o Mo r a n v . A s h c r o ft , 395 F . 3d 1089, 1091 ( 9th C i r . 2005) , ( e xpl a i ni ng tha tagood m or a l c ha r a c t e rde t e rm i na t i on i s r e vi e w abl e w he r e i ti s ba s e d on one of the st atut ory e xcl usi on s f ou nd i n IN A § 1 01 (f

), 8 U . S . C . § 1 10 1(f) ), ov e rr ule d on other groun ds by Sa nchez v . H older , 56 0 F . 3d 10 28 , 10 30 (9th C i r. 20 09 ) ( en ba nc ) . W e r e t a i n, how e ve r , j ur i s di c t i on t o c ons i de rque s t i ons of l a w a nd co n stitu ti o n al q u es ti o n s r aise d in a p etit io n fo r r ev iew ch allen g in g th e a g en cy ’s di sc re t i on ary deni al of re l i ef . 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2(a) (2)( D ). W e lac kth e ju risd icti o n to re v iew th e I J’s d iscr etio n ary d en ial o f L ag u a’s ap p lic a tio n s f

o ra§ 2 3 7 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( H ) w a iv e ra n d v o lu n ta ryd e p a rtu r e . 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( B ) ( i) . R e g a r d in g L a g u a ’s ap p lic a tio n f o rc a n c e lla tio n o f

r e m o v a l, how e ve r , the I Jw e i ghe d the f a c t or s e s t abl i s hi ng L a gua ’ s good m or a l c ha r a c t e r , or l ackth ereo f, an d co n cl u d ed th at“ th e b al an ce t i p s ag ai n st[L ag u a] . ” T h e IJ al so concl ud ed that“ as a m att erof l aw , [L agua] cann otm ee tthe go od m oral char ac t er c o m p o n e n t f

o rc a n c e lla tio n o f

r e m o v a l f

o rc e rta in n o n p e rm a n e n t r e s id e n t[ s ]. T h er ef o re , th at ap p li ca ti o n is p re term itted .” B ec au se itis u n clea r f ro m th e I J’s rul i ng w hether her deci si on w as base d o n the exerc i se of her di sc re t i on or her det erm i nat i on thatL agua w as st atut ori l y pre cl ud ed fr om es t abl i shi ng go od m oralO n r e m a nd, w e di r e c tthe a ge nc y ’ s a tt e nt i on t o ourde c i s i on i n D elm un do v. 1 I NS , 43 F . 3d 436 ( 9th C i r . 1994) , w hi c h i ns truc t s tha t“ f r audul e nta c t s i n appl y i ng f orpe rm a ne ntr e s i de nts t a tus a nd obt a i ni ng adr i ve r ’ s l i c e ns e , s oc i a l s e c ur i tyc a r d, and v ot er ’ s i dent i fi ca t i on card [thatar e] an ext ensi on of [an al i en’ s] i ni t i al f r au d u le n t e n try ” a r e n o t p r o p e r lyc o n s id e r e d in d e te rm in in g w h e th e ra n a lie n is e n title d to ad is c r e tio n a ryw a iv e ro f e x c lu d ab ilityf

o rf r au d . I d. a t 4 4 1 ; see a l

so Je n H u n gNgv . I

NS , 80 4 F . 2d 53 4, 53 9 (9th C i r. 19 86 ) ( “ T he i ncl usi on of an i m prop er fa ct or i n rea chi ng a di sc re t i on ary dec i si on i s groun ds for r em and. ”) . 6 c ha r a c t e r , w e r e m a nd the m a tt e rt o the a ge nc yf orc l ar i f i c a t i on of

the gr ounds f

or i t s de c i s i on. Sa n P e dr o v . A s h c r o ft , 395 F . 3d 1156, 1157 ( 9th C i r . 2005) 1 (r em andi ng for c l ar i fi ca t i on w here IJ ’ s a l t ernat i ve ho l di ng “ m a[ d] e[ ] i m po ss i bl e a d e te rm in a tio n o f

th e b a s is f

o rth e B I A ’s a f

f irm a n c e ” ) . III L a g u aa r g u e s th a t th e B I A e rr e d in d e n y in g h is O c to b e r1 1 , 2 0 0 7 m o tio n 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 e c au s e o f th e A u g u s t 1 6 , 2 0 0 6 ap p r o v a l o f h is w if e ’s I - 1 3 0 im m ig r a n t v is ap e titio n o n h is b e h a lf . G e ne r a l l y , thi s c ourtha s j ur i s di c t i on t o r e vi e w the B I A ’ s de ni a l of am ot i on to r e o p e n . N

ath v. G on zales , 4 6 7 F .3 d 1 1 8 5 , 1 1 8 8 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) . T h is c o u rt, h o w e v e r , la c k s ju r is d ic tio n to r e v ie w ac la im th a t th e B I A s h o u ld h a v e e x e r c is e d its su a sp o n t e p o w er t o reo p en d ep o rt at i o n p ro ceed i n g s. N ev arezN ev arezv. H

older , 572 F . 3d 605, 607 ( 9th C i r . 2009) . W he n i tha s j ur i s di c t i on, thi s c ourtr e vi e w s the B I A ’s d e n ia l o f

am o tio n to r e o p e n f

o rab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n . R om er o v. H older , 5687

F . 3d 1054, 1059 ( 9th C i r . 2009) . U nde rthi s s t a nda r d, the B I A ’ s de c i s i on w i l l be up hel d u nl es s i ti s “ arbi trary , i rr at i on al , or contraryt o l aw . ” I d. C i t i ng 8 C . F . R . § 1003. 2( c ) ( 2) , the B I A de ni e d L a gua ’ s O c t obe r11, 2007 m ot i on t o r e ope n a s unt i m e l ybe c aus e i t s f i na l or de rha d be e n e nt e r e d on A pr i l 7, 2006, a nd “ w i th c e rt a i n e xc e pt i ons notr e l e va nthe r e , am ot i on t o r e ope n m us tbe f i l e d w i thi n 90 da y s of

the a dm i ni s tr a t i ve l yf

i na l or de r . ” A s s um i ng w i thout d e c id in g th a t th is c o u rt h a s ju r is d ic tio n to r e v ie w th e B I A ’s d e c is io n , th e B I A d id no tabuse i t s di sc re t i on i n d et erm i ni ng thatL agua’ s m ot i on w as un t i m el y and that it w a s n o t r e q u ir e d to d e n yth e m o tio n o n a n yo th e rb a s is . C on c l u s i on W e grantL agua’ s pet i t i on because the IJdeni ed L agua’ s r equestfor a cont i nu ance w i tho utprov i di ng an adequat e e xp l anat i on of the basi s f or her d eci si o n . W e rem an d t o p erm i tth e ag en cy t o ad d ress rel ev an tco n si d erat i o n s, in clu d in g b u t n o t l im it ed to : th e im p o rt o f th e p en d in g I- 1 3 0 p etit io n to L ag u a’s el i g i b i l i ty fo r an y o f th e req u est ed fo rm s o f rel i ef fro m rem o v al , th e reaso n ab l en ess of L a gua ’ s c onduc ti n c onne c t i on w i th the r e m ova l pr oc e e di ngs , a nd the num be rof c ont i nua nc e s pr e vi ous l ygr a nt e d. B e c aus e the I J ’ s a rt i c ul a t e d ba s i s f orthe de c i s i on t o pr e t e rm i tL a gua ’ s appl i c a t i on f ora§ 212( i ) appl i c a t i on f l ow e d di r e c t l yf

r om the d en ial o f L ag u a’s r eq u es t fo r a co n ti n u an ce , w e in clu d e th e q u es ti o n o f L ag u a’s8

e lig ib ilityf

o rth is f o rm o f r e lie f w ith in th e s c o p e o f

th is r e m a n d . See I

N S v. O rla n do V

en tu ra , 5 3 7 U .S . 1 2 , 1 6 ( 2 0 0 2 ) ( “G e n e r a llys p e a k in g , ac o u rt o f ap p e a ls shou l d rem and a cas e t o an agency for dec i si on of a m att erthatst atut es pl ac e pri m ar i l y i n agency hands. ”) . W e a l so grantL agua’ s pet i t i on for r evi ew on the grou nd thati ti s uncl ear w he the rthe I J ’ s de ni a l of hi s r e que s tf

orc a nc e l l a t i on of

r e m ova l w a s ba s e d on a di s c r e t i ona ryde t e rm i na t i on tha the l a c ke d good m or a l c ha r a c t e r , oron the gr ound th a t h e w a s s ta tu to r ilyp r e c lu d e d f r o m e s tab lis h in g g o o d m o r a l c h a r a c te r . W e r e m a nd the m a tt e rt o pe rm i tthe a ge nc yt o c l a r i f ythe ba s i s f

ori t s de c i s i on. T he s c ope of thi s r e m a nd a l s o pe rm i t s the B I A t o r e vi s i tthe di s c r e t i ona ryde t e rm i na t i on of L agua’ s goo d m oral char ac t erfor e ac h o f the other r equest ed form s of r el i ef f r o m r e m o v a l. W e d en y L ag u a’s p etit io n in all o th erre sp ec ts. W e m ay co n sid erL ag u a’s du e proces s argum ent s, i f L agua rai se s them i n a future pet i t i on for r evi ew , af t er th e a g e n c yh a s a d d r e s s e d th e f o r e g o in g is s u e s o n r e m a n d . Se e Ve n tu r a v . I NS , 317 F .3 d 1 0 0 3 , 1 0 0 5 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) ( p e rc u r ia m ) ( r e m a n d in g “w ith o u t p r e ju d ic e to V e ntur ar e i ns t a t i ng hi s pe t i t i on f orr e vi e w . . . f

ol l ow i ng r e c ons i de r a t i on by the B IA ”) .9

T he consol i dat ed pet i t i on s are G R A N T E D IN P A R T and D E N IE D IN P A R T , an d R E M A N D E D w i th i n stru ct i o n s.