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

For the Eig hth Circu it

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

No. 1 1- 19 81

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

Jo hn W al dr on

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

v.

Eric H. Hold er, J r., Att or ne y 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 Bo ard of I m m ig rat io n Ap pe al s

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Marc h 1 5, 2 01 2

Fil ed : Au gu st 6, 2 01 2

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re RI LEY, Chi ef J ud ge , SMITH an d S HEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __

SHEPHERD, Cir cu it Ju dg e.

Jo hn W al dr on

, a na ti ve an d ci ti zen of th e Uni te d Kin gd om

, ha d hi s pe rm an en t

res id en t s ta tu s i n t he Uni te d S ta te s t erm in at ed be cau se of hi s co nv ic ti on for sec on d

de gr ee as sa u l t

. W al dr on so ug ht an ad jus tm en t of st at us an d a waiv er of

in ad m is si bi li ty. An im m ig rat io n jud ge (IJ ) co nc lu de d th at W al dr on was el ig ib le fo r

rel ie f, gr an ti ng bo th W al dr on ’s ad jus tm en t of st at us an d th e waiv er. The Dep art m en t

of Hom el an d Secu rit y ( D H S ) a p p eal ed th e IJ ’s or de r to th e Bo ard of Im m ig rat io nApp eal s (BIA), whi ch rev ers ed th e IJ an d or de red W al dr on rem ov e d t o th e Uni te d

Kin gd om

. W al dr on pe ti ti on s fo r rev ie w, arg ui ng th at th e BIA erre d by an al y zi ng

W al dr on ’s wa ive r ap pli ca tio n unde r an “ ex cep ti on al an d ex tre m el y un us ua l ha rd sh ip ”

st an da rd

. W al dr on al so co nt en ds th at th e BIA fai le d to ap pl y th e pr op er st an da rd of

rev ie w to th e IJ ’s fact ua l f i n d i n g s an d en ga ge d in im pr op er fact fin di ng

. W e ag ree

wit h W al dr on th at th e BIA fai le d to rev i e w th e IJ ’s fact ua l fin di ng s fo r cl ear erro r,

an d we r em an d fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs

.

I.

Jo hn W al dr on en te red th e Uni te d St at es as a no n- im m ig ran t vi si to r in Apr il of

20 02

. W al dr on su bs eq ue nt ly m arri ed a ci ti zen of th e Uni te d St at es

, an d hi s s t at us

was ad jus te d to co nd it io na l pe rm an en t res id en t in Decem be r of 20 03

. On Ja nu ary 1,

20 05

, W al dr on an d hi s wife, Tam ara, at te nd ed a New Year’s pa rty at a res ta ur an t in

Sai nt Lou is

, Mi ss ou ri. As th ey were at te m pt in g to le av e th e cro wde d ve nu e, W al dr on

an d an ot he r p a t r o n g o t in to an arg um en t th at es cal at ed in to a ph y si cal al te rcat io n.

D u rin g th e al te rcat io n, W al dr on st ru ck th e ot he r m an on th e he ad wit h a n e mp t y

m art in i gl as s. W al dr on was arre st ed an d ch arg ed wit h rec kl es sl y cau si ng se rio us

in jury to an ot he r, whi ch is a fel on y se co nd d e g r e e as sa ul t un de r Mo

. Rev

. St at

.

§ 5 65 .06 0.

On Ju ne 30 , 2 00 5, W al dr on pl ed gu il ty t o th e ch arg e. He was co nv ic te d a nd

se nt en ced to on e y ear of pro ba ti on an d 10 0 ho ur s o f co m m un it y ser vi ce. Lat er t ha t

y ear, W al dr on su bm it te d a pe ti ti on to th e DHS se ek in g to rem ov e co nd it io ns on hi s

res id en ce in th e Uni te d St at es

. Bec au se of W al dr on ’s f e l o n y co nv ic ti on

, th e DHS

de ni ed W al dr on ’s pe ti ti on

. The DHS th en se rv ed W al dr on wit h a Not ic e to App ear,

al le gi ng th at hi s co nd it io na l pe rm an en t res id en t st at us was te rm in at ed be cau se of hi s

co nv ic ti on

. The DHS su bs eq ue nt ly ch arg ed W al dr on wit h be in g su bjec t to rem ov al

be cau se : (1 ) W al dr on ’s st at us a s a co nd it io na l pe rm an en t res id en t ha d be en

te rm in at ed

, pu rs ua nt to 8 U.S.C. § 1 22 7( a)(1 )(D)(i ); an d (2 ) W al dr on ha d be en

-2

-“ co nv ic te d of a cri m e in vo lv in g m or al tu rp it ud e co m m it te d wit hi n fiv e y ears ” of hi s

en try int o t he Uni te d S ta te s, p ur su an t t o 8 U.S.C. § 1 22 7( a)(2 )(A)(i ).

Afte r th e DHS pl aced W al dr on i n r e mo va l pr oc eed in gs

, W al dr on co nc ed ed

rem ov ab il it y an d so ug ht an ad jus tm en t of st at us as th e sp ou se of a Uni te d S t a te s

ci ti zen

. Bec au se W al dr on was in a d m is si bl e un de r se ct io n 21 2( a)(2 )(A)(i )(I) of th e

INA, se e 8 U.S.C

. § 11 82 (a)( 2) (A)(i )(I) (“ [A]ny al ie n co nv ic te d of

. . . a cri m e

in vo lv in g m or al tu rp it ud e

. . . is in ad m is si bl e.”), W al dr on al so fil ed an ap pl ic at io n fo r

waiv er on gr ou nd s of ex cl ud ab il it y un de r se ct io n 21 2( h) of th e INA. Sect io n 21 2( h)

pr ov id es that certai n gr ou nd s fo r in ad m is si bi li ty, in cl ud in g th e co m m is si on of a cri m e

of m or al tu rp it ud e, m ay be waiv ed if “ an im m ig ran t who is th e sp ou se [o r] pa ren t

. . . of a ci ti zen of th e Uni te d St at es ” de m on st rat es th at hi s “ de ni al of ad m is si on wou ld

res ul t i n ext rem e h ard sh ip to th e Uni te d S ta te s ci ti zen .” 8 U.S.C. § 11 82 (h )(1 )(B)

.

At th is po in t in ti m e, th e W al dr on s ha d a two -y ear- ol d so n, Sam ue l, who was a Uni te d

St at es cit iz en

. 1

The IJ co nd uc te d se ve ral he ari ng s on th e m eri ts of W al dr on ’s ap pl ic at io n.

W al dr on

, Tam ara, an d Tam ara’s m ot he r al l te st ifi ed

, an d th e Gov ern m en t of fere d no

wit ne ss es

. In st ead

, th e Gov ern m en t m ad e th e arg um en t at th e cl os e of te st im on y th at

8 C.F.R. § 12 12 .7(d ) wa s “ on po in t in th is cas e” an d th at th is reg ul at io n crea te d “ a

hi gh er bu rd en fo r [Wald ro n] to m eet whi ch ha sn ’t be en m et .” On Ja nu ary 12

, 20 09

,

th e IJ gr an te d W al dr on ’s req ue st fo r a se ct io n 21 2( h) waiv er an d gr an te d W al dr on an

ad jus tm en t of st at us to pe rm an en t res id en t. At th e ou ts et of it s or de r, th e IJ no te d th at

se ct io n 21 2( h) req ui red W al dr on to sh ow th at Tam ara or Sam ue l w ou ld su ffer

“ ex tre m e ha rd sh ip ” if W al dr on were to be rem ov ed

. The IJ al so ack no wled ge d th at

th ere is an ev en hi gh er st an da rd of “ ex cep ti on al an d ex tre m el y un us ua l ha rd sh ip ” th at

m us t b e sh own by alie ns who ha ve co m m it te d “ vi ol en t or da ng ero us cri m es ” u nd er

8 C .F.R. § 1 21 2.7 (d ).

Sin ce t he se pro ceed in gs be ga n, t he W al dr on s h av e h ad an ot he r so n. 1

-3

-B a s e d o n te st im on y at th e he ari ng s an d th e ev id en ce of fere d in su pp or t o f

W al dr on ’s a pp li cat io n, th e IJ m ad e th e fo ll owi ng fin di ng s of fact : (1 ) W al dr on ha d

es ta bl is he d “ ex cep ti on al ly de ep r o o t s i n hi s co m m un it y an d in th e Uni te d St at es ”;

(2 ) if rem ov ed

, W al dr on w ou ld lo se hi s job as a m an ag er at a ph arm aceu ti cal

co m pa ny; (3 ) it wou ld be “ ex cep ti on al ly ha rd ” fo r W al dr on to fin d co m pa rab le wor k

in th e Uni te d Kin gd om

, “ es pe ci al ly du rin g a rece ss io na ry pe rio d in th ei r eco no m y ”;

(4 ) if W al dr on lo st hi s job it wou ld hi nd er hi s ab il it y to su pp or t Tam ara an d Sam ue l,

a n d he wou ld no t ha ve th e tra ve l fu nd s ne ces sa ry to vi si t Sam ue l; (5 ) W al dr on a n d

Sam ue l ha ve a ve ry cl os e fat he r-s on rel at io ns hi p; (6 ) if W al dr on were rem ov ed

, it

wou ld be di ffi cu lt fo r hi m t o t r a v e l to th e Uni te d St at es on a reg ul ar ba si s to se e

Sam ue l; (7 ) if W al dr on were rem ov ed an d Sam ue l acco m

pa ni ed hi m

, Sam

ue l wou ld

l o se reg ul ar co nt act wit h Tam ara; (8 ) if th e en ti re fam il y rel oc at ed to th e U n i t e d

Kin gd om

, W al dr on an d Tam ara wou l d no t ha ve th e m ean s of su pp or ti ng Sam ue l;

(9 ) S a mu e l “ ha d a co m pl ic at ed m ed ic al hi st or y ” an d ha d req ui red m ul ti pl e

ho sp it al iz at io ns an d tri p s t o t he em erg en cy ro om ; (1 0) if W al dr on were se pa rat ed

fro m Sam ue l, it co ul d cau se Sam

ue l “ ad di ti on al ph y si cal an d em ot io na l ha rm ”; (1 1) if

W al dr on were rem ov ed

, Tam ara wou ld no t be ab le to pa y th e m or tg ag e on th ei r ho m e

an d co ul d ha ve gr eat di ffi cu lt y se ll in g th e ho us e du e to “ a ba d real es ta te m ark et ”; an d

(1 2) if th e fam il y rel oc at ed

, it “ wou ld fu rth er di st ur b Sam ue l’s he al th y de ve lo pm en t

an d cau se hi m ex tre m e ha rd sh ip .” Im pl ic it in m an y of th es e fact ua l fin di ng s was th e

I J ’s c o n c l us io n th at W al dr on an d hi s fam il y face d a se rio us ris k of be in g se pa rat e d

fro m on e an ot he r if

W al dr on were re m ov ed

.

The IJ rel ie d on th es e fact s to fin d th at W al dr on m eri te d an ad jus tm en t of st at us

to pe rm an en t re si de nt be cau se hi s “ so li d p ro fes si on al care er” a t t he ph arm aceu ti cal

co m pa ny an d hi s lo vi ng

, st ab le rel at io ns hi p wit h hi s wife an d so n ou twei gh ed hi s on e

in st an ce of cri m in al be ha vi or

. The IJ th en tu rn ed to W al dr on ’s se ct io n 21 2( h) waiv er

req ue st

. Fi rs t

, t h e I J f

o un d th at W al dr on ’s co nv ic ti on was no t fo r a “ vi ol en t or

da ng ero us cri m e” and th at th e no rm al se ct io n 21 2( h) st an da rd of sh owi ng “ ex tre m e

ha rd sh ip ” to W al dr on ’s wife or so n sh ou ld ap pl y to th e waiv er ap pl ic at io n. Seco nd

,

-4

-th e IJ fo un d th at th e fact s ga ve ris e to a fin di ng th at bo th Tam ara an d Sam ue l wou ld

su ffer ex tre m e h ard sh ip if Wald ro n wer e rem ov ed . The IJ ad de d th at “ [e]ven if t he

Co ur t fo un d th at [Wald ro n’s] act was a vi ol en t o r d a n g e ro us cri m e, he ha s

de m on st rat ed th at he wou ld su ffer fro m ex tre m e or un us ua l ha rd sh ip if he were to be

rem ov ed .” 2

The DHS ap pe al ed to th e BIA, arg ui ng th at : (1 ) W al dr on ’s as sa ul t co nv ic ti on

qu al ifi ed as a “ vi ol en t or da ng ero us cri m e” su bjec t to th e “ ex cep ti on al an d ex tre m el y

un us ua l ha rd sh ip ” st an da rd of 8 C.F.R. § 12 12 .7(d ); an d (2 ) W al dr on fai le d to m ak e

th e req ui si te sh owi ng fo r a se ct io n 2 1 2 ( h) waiv er. At th e ou ts et

, th e BIA

ack no wled ge d th at th e IJ ’s fin di ng s of fact an d cred ib il it y de te rm in at io ns were to be

rev ie wed un de r th e cl earl y erro ne ou s st an da rd

. The BIA the n agr eed wit h th e DHS

th at th e he ig ht en ed sh owi ng of “ ex cep ti on al an d extr em el y un us ua l ha rd sh ip ” ap pl ie d

be cau se W al dr on ’s cri m e qu al ifi ed as “ vi ol en t or da ng er o u s ” un de r 8 C.F.R.

§ 12 12 .7(d ). The BIA rev ie we d t he Mi ss ou ri st at ut e un de r whi ch W al dr on was

co nv ic te d an d no te d th at W al dr on ’s “co n d u c t in co m m it ti ng th e cri m e co ns is te d of

hi tt in g t he vi ct im ov er the he ad wit h a gl as s, wh ic h [t he BIA] con cl ud e[d ] qu al ifi es

as vi ol en t o r da ng ero us .”

Nex t, th e BIA an al y zed W al dr on ’s waiv er ap pl ic at io n an d co nc lu de d th at

W al dr on fai le d to m ak e th e he ig ht en ed sh owi ng of ex cep tiona l an d ex tr em el y un us ua l

ha rd sh ip

. The BIA exp la in ed th at “ al th ou gh [Wald ro n] an d hi s wife tes ti fie d t o th e

fin an ci al ha rd sh ip th at th e fam il y wou ld su ffer sh ou ld [W al dr on] be de po rte d, we no te

th at he is a m an a g e r a t a ph arm aceu ti cal co m pa ny, su gg es ti ng th at he po ss es se s

tra ns fera bl e job sk il ls

, an d th at hi s wife de m on st rat ed a hi st or y of ga in fu l

em pl oym en t.” Acco rd in gl y

, th e BIA fo un d t h a t a n y ha rd sh ip to W al dr on an d hi s

Alt ho ug h t he IJ’s la ng ua ge di d no t pr eci se ly t rack th e la ng ua ge of 8 C.F.R. 2

§ 12 12 .7(d ), th ere is no di sp ut e th at th e IJ was refe rri ng to th e he ig ht en ed st a n d a r d

im po se d b y th at reg ul at io n.

-5

-fam il y in rel oc at in g wou ld fal l sh or t of th e ex cep ti on al an d e x t r e mel y un us ua l

ha rd sh ip st an da rd

. The BIA th en st at ed th at “ to th e ex te nt th at [Wald ro n] pr es en te d

ev id en ce of ha rd sh ip rel at ed to hi s s on ’s m ed ic al hi st or y , we no te th at alt ho ug h t he

ch il d ha d so m e m ed i c a l co nd it io ns req ui rin g rep eat ed ho sp it al iz at io ns in 20 08

, th e

fam il y di d no t rep or t on go in g pr ob le m s at th e ti m e of th e res po nd en t’s he ari ng .” The

BIA al so no te d th at “ th e reco rd do es no t co nt ai n pe rs ua si ve ev id en ce in di cat in g th at

[Wald ro n]’ s im m ed ia te fam il y wou ld be fo rced to se pa rat e sh ou ld he be rem ov ed or

th at th ey wou ld ex pe rie nc e ex cep ti on al an d ex tre m el y un us u al em ot io na l ha rd sh ip

st em m in g fro m an y rel oc at io n th at m ig ht oc cu r.” The BIA co nc lu de d th at W al dr on

ha d fai le d to de m on st rat e “ ex cep ti on al an d ex tre m el y un us ua l ha rd sh ip ,” va cat ed th e

IJ ’s dec is io n, an d o rd ered W al dr on rem ov ed to th e Uni te d Ki ng do m

.

One of th e th ree Boa rd Mem be rs di ss en te d, cit in g In re J ean , 23 I. & N. Dec.

37 3 (A.G

. 2 0 0 2 )

. Je an fir st art ic ul at ed th e he ig ht en ed st an da rd of sh owi ng

“ ex cep ti on al an d ex tre m e l y un us ua l ha rd sh ip ” th at was la te r co di fie d in 8 C.F.R.

§ 12 12 .7(d ). See 23 I. & N. Dec. at 38 3 (ap pl y in g th e st an da rd to an al ie n co nv ic te d

of m an sl au gh te r o f a n i n f a n t ch il d)

. The di ss en ti ng Bo ard Mem be r ex pr es se d th e

be li ef th at 8 C.F.R. § 12 12 .7( d ) s h o u l d be read “ in li gh t of th e un qu es ti on ab ly

de pr av ed co nd uc t to whi ch th e st an da rd was ap pl ie d in Mat te r of Je an

. . . . th ere i s

n o e xp li ci t in di cat io n th at th e reg ul at io n was de si gn ed to co ve r an of fen se li k e

[Wald ro n]’s t ha t is m ark ed ly le ss se rio us th an th e on e ad dr es se d in th at cas e.”

Acco rd in gl y

, th e di ss en ti ng Bo ard Mem be r wou ld ha ve rev ie wed W al dr on ’s waiv er

ap pl ic at io n fo r “ ex tre m e ha rd sh ip ” on ly an d ag reed wit h th e IJ th at th is st an da rd was

m et

.

II.

W a l d r o n pe ti ti on s fo r rev ie w, rai si ng two ch al le ng es to th e BIA’s de ci si on :

(1 ) th e BIA erre d i n c o n cl ud in g th at th e he ig ht en ed st an da rd of “ ex cep ti on al an d

ex tre m el y un us ua l ha rd sh ip ” sh ou ld be us ed to an al y ze W al dr on’ s w ai ver ap pl ic at io n;

-6

-an d (2 ) th e BIA fai le d to ap pl y a “ cl earl y erro ne o u s ” s ta nd ard of rev ie w to th e IJ ’s

fact ua l fin di ng s an d en ga ge d in im pr op er fact fin di ng

. W e ad dr es s each arg um en t in

tu rn

.

A.

W al dr on arg ue s th at th e Bo ard er r e d in ap pl y in g a he ig ht en ed st an da rd of

rev ie w un de r 8 C.F.R. § 12 1 2

. 7 ( d)

. W al dr on co nt en ds th at th e BIA fir st erre d in

de te rm in in g th at hi s co nv ic ti on fo r se co nd de gr ee as sa ul t qu al ifi ed as a “v i o l en t or

d a n g ero us cri m e” wit hi n th e de fin it io n of 8 C.F.R. § 12 12 .7(d ). Acco rd in g to

W al dr on

, th is res ul te d in th e BIA fu rth er erri ng by ex ami n i ng W al dr on ’s waiv er

a p p l i c a ti on fo r th e he ig ht en ed sh owi ng of “ ex cep ti on al an d ex tre m el y un us ua l

ha rd sh ip .”

In res po ns e, th e Gov ern m en t argu es th at we can no t revi ew W al dr on ’s cl ai m s

be cau se of th e juri sd ic ti on al ba r in 8 U.S.C. § 12 52 (a)( 2) (C), whi ch pr ev en ts jud ic ia l

rev ie w of “ an y fin al or de r of rem ov al ag ai ns t an al ie n who is rem ov ab le by reas on of

ha vi ng co m

m it te d a cri m in al of

fen se co ve r e d i n s ect io n 11 82 (a)( 2) .” The

Gov ern m en t co nt en ds th at W al dr on is ch al le ng in g th e BIA’s d i s c ret io na ry

de te rm in at io n th at W al dr on fai le d to sh ow “ ex cep ti on al or e x t r e mel y un us ua l

ha rd sh ip ,” whi ch wou ld be an is su e sh ie ld ed fro m ou r rev ie w. Howev er, th e

juri sd ic ti on al ba r do es no t prec lu de rev ie w of “ co ns ti tu ti on al cl ai m s or qu es ti on s of

la w.” 8 U.S.C. § 1 2 5 2( a)(2 )(D). Here, th e BIA’s in te rp ret at io n of “ vi ol en t or

da ng ero us cri m e” an d th e ap pr op ria te ne ss of ap pl y in g 8 C.F.R. § 12 12

. 7 ( d ) ’s

he ig ht en ed st an da rd in th e fir st pl ace are le ga l qu es ti on s we m ay ad dr es s pu rs ua nt to

se ct io n 12 52 (a)( 2) (D). See Meji a v. Gon zal es

, 49 9 F.3 d 99 1, 99 9 ( 9 t h Ci r. 20 07 )

(fi nd in g th at th e co ur t ha d juri sd ic ti on to rev ie w whe th er th e BIA erre d in cl as si fy in g

th e pe t i t i o n er’s cri m es as “ vi ol en t or da ng ero us ” an d th en ap pl y in g a he ig ht en ed

st an da rd ).

-7

-W al dr on arg ue s th at hi s co nv ic ti on fo r se co nd de gr ee as sa ul t was no t a “ vi ol en t

or da ng ero us cri m e” un de r 8 C.F.R. § 12 12 .7(d ). W al dr on as se rts th at Je an pr ov id ed

a th res ho ld de fin it io n fo r whe n a cri m e is “ vi ol en t or da ng ero us ” an d th at W al dr on ’s

cri m e do es no t ris e to th at le ve l. Je an in vo lv ed th e br ut al be at in g and sh ak in g of an

i n f a n t th at res ul te d in th e ch il d’s de at h fro m se ve re in juri es

. In re Je an

, 23 I

. & N

.

Dec. at 37 4- 75

. Bec au se th e ho ld in g of Je an res ul te d in 8 C

. F

. R

. § 12 12 .7(d ),

W al dr on co nt en ds th at th e reg ul at io n was m ean t to crea te “ a he ig ht en ed ha rd sh ip

st an da rd fo r th e wor st cri m in al of fen de rs whe re su bs ta nt ia l in jury in fli ct ed was

cl earl y th e po in t.” H e a r g u e s

, a s a m at te r of la w, th at he do es no t be lo ng in th is

cat eg or y

.

“ W e gi ve su bs ta nt ia l de fere nc e to th e BIA’s in te rp ret at io n of it s st at u t e s an d

reg ul at io ns .” Ave ria no va v. Mu ka se y

, 50 9 F.3 d 89 0, 89 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ). W e m us t

de fer to th e BIA’s in te rp ret at io n of 8 C.F.R. § 12 12 .7(d ) un le ss it is “ ‘pla in ly

erro ne ou s or in co ns is te nt wit h th e reg ul at io n.’” Hail em ic ha el v. Gon zal es

, 45 4 F.3 d

87 8, 88 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (q uo ti ng Bo wles v. Sem in ol e R o c k & San d Co

., 32 5 U.S.

41 0, 41 4 (1 94 5) ). The pl ai n la ng ua ge of 8 C

. F

. R

. § 12 12 .7(d ) st at es th at th e

he ig ht en ed st an da rd of sh owi ng “ ex cep ti on al an d ex tre m el y un us ua l ha rd sh ip ”

ap pl ie s to al ie ns se ek in g a waiv er of in ad mi s s i bi li ty who ha ve be en in vo lv ed in

“ vi ol en t or da ng ero us cri m es .” The reg ul at io n sa y s no th in g ab ou t th e st an da rd be in g

ap pl ic ab le to on ly “ th e wor st cri m in al of fen de rs ” or on l y t o t h o s e who in te nd ed to

cau se su bs ta nt ia l in

jury; th e on ly cri te ria id en ti fie d in th e reg ul at io n is th at th e al ie n’s

cri m e be “ vi ol en t or da ng ero us .” W al dr on was co nv ic te d of vi ol at in g Mo

. Rev

. St at

.

§ 56 5.0 60

, whi ch co ve rs a va rie ty of kn owi ng an d reck le ss co nd uc t th at ei th er cau se s

se rio us in jury o r pl aces a pe rs on in da ng er of se rio us in jury. As t he BIA ob se rv ed

,

“ al l of th e cu lp ab le reck le ss co nd uc t co ve red by th e st at ut e is da ng ero us co nd uc t, in

th at it ei th er pl aces ot he rs at su bs ta nt ia l ris k of de at h or cau se s act ua l ph y si cal in jury

of a si gn ifi can t na tu re.” The BIA al so lo ok ed at th e act ua l of fen se co nd uc t in

W al dr on ’s cas e an d co nc lu de d th at “ hi tt in g th e vi ct im ov er th e he ad wit h a gl as s

. . .

qu al ifi es as v io le nt or d an ge ro us .”

-8

-W e ag ree th at W al dr on ’s cri m e was no t as se rio us as th e on e at is su e in Je an

.

Howev e r

, th e pl ai n la ng ua ge of 8 C.F.R. § 12 12 .7(d ) cl earl y ap pl ie s to “ vi ol en t or

da ng ero us cri m es .” Bas ed on th e st at ut e W al do n was co nv ic te d un de r an d th e act ua l

of fen se co nd uc t, t he BIA d id no t p la in ly err in co nc lu di ng th at W al dr on co m m it te d

a “v i ol en t or da ng ero us cri m e” un de r 8 C.F.R. § 12 12 .7(d ). Acco rd in gl y

, t h e B I A

pr op erl y s u b

jecte d W al dr on ’s waiv er ap pl ic at io n to th e he ig ht en ed st an da rd of

de m on st rat in g “ ex cep ti on al an d e xt rem el y un us ua l h ard sh ip .”

B.

W al dr on al so arg ue s th at th e BIA fai le d to rev ie w th e IJ ’s fact ua l fin di ng s fo r

cl ear erro r. He co nt en ds th at t h e B I A i na pp ro pr ia te ly fo un d fact s th at were th en

rel ie d up on in th e BIA’s an al y si s of whe th er W al dr on de m on st rat ed “ ex cep ti on al an d

ex tre m el y un us ua l ha rd sh ip .” In pa rti cu la r, W al dr on ta ke s is su e wit h th e BIA’s

st at em en t th at W al dr on “ is a m an ag er at a ph arm aceu ti cal co m pa ny, su gg es ti ng th at

he po ss es se s tra ns fera bl e job sk il ls ” an d th e BIA’s o bs erv at io n th at “ al th ou gh

[Wald ro n’s] c hi ld ha d so m e m ed ic al co nd it io ns req ui rin g rep eat ed ho sp it al iz at i o n s

in 20 08

, th e fam il y di d no t rep or t on -g oi ng pr ob le m s at th e ti m e of th e res po nd en t’s

he ari ng .”

Befo re we ad dr es s t he m eri ts of Wald ro n’s ar gu m en t, we m us t ag ai n ad dr es s

th e juri sd ic ti on al ba r of

sec ti on 12 52 (a)( 2) . The d et erm in at io n t ha t a p et it io ne r ha s

fai le d to sa ti sf

y t h e “exce pt io na l an d ex tre m el y un us ua l ha rd sh ip ” st an da rd “ is

pr eci se ly th e di sc ret io na ry de te rm in at io n th at Co ng res s sh ie ld ed fro m ou r rev ie w.”

Gom ez-P erez v. Hol de r, 56 9 F.3 d 37 0, 37 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 0 9) (ci ta ti on an d qu ot at io n

m ark s om it te d) . Yet we ret ai n ju ris di ct io n t o ad dr es s th e le ga l qu es ti on of whe th er

th e BIA ap pl ie d th e co rrec t st an da rd of rev ie w whe n rev ie win g th e IJ ’s fact ua l

fi n d in gs

. See Ram ire z-Pe y ro v. Gon zal es

, 47 7 F.3 d 63 7, 64 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 )

(ev al ua ti ng whe th er th e B I A pr op erl y rev ie wed th e IJ ’s fact ua l fin di ng s fo r cl ear

erro r).

-9

-The BIA ha s th e au th or it y to co nd uc t de no vo rev ie w of qu es ti on s of la w,

di sc ret io n, an d jud gm en t. 8 C.F.R. § 10 03 .1(d )(3 )(i i). Howev er, “ [f]acts de te rm in ed

by th e im m ig rat io n jud ge

, in cl ud in g fin di ng s as to th e cred ib il it y of te st im on y

, sh al l

be rev i ewed on ly to de te rm in e whe th er th e fin di ng s of th e im m ig rat io n jud ge are

cl earl y erro ne ou s.” 8 C.F.R. § 10 03 .1(d )(3 )(i ). The IJ ’s fin di ng s of fact “ m ay no t be

ov ert ur ne d si m

pl y be cau se th e Bo ard wou ld ha ve weig he d th e ev id en ce di ffer en tl y

or de ci de d th e f

a c t s d i f f eren tl y ha d it be en th e fact fin de r.” In re R-S- H, 2 3 I. & N.

Dec. 62 9, 63 7 (BIA 20 03 ) (ci ta ti on an d qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. “ [T]he BIA do es

no t ha ve au th or it y to en ga ge in fact fin di ng

, ex cep t to ta ke ad m in is tra ti ve n ot ic e of

co m m on ly kn own fact s.” Nab ul wala v. G o nz al es

, 48 1 F.3 d 11 15

, 11 18 (8 th Ci r.

20 07 ) (ci ti ng 8 C.F .R. § 1 00 3.1 (d )(3 )(i v) ).

Alt ho ug h t h e B I A se t fo rth th e co rrec t st an da rd of rev ie w at th e ou ts et of it s

de ci si on

, we ag ree wit h W al dr on th at it de vi at ed fro m th is st an da rd

. The BIA di d no t

co nc lu de th at th ere was c l e a r erro r in th e IJ ’s ex pr es s fin di ng th at it wou ld be

“ ex cep ti on al ly ha rd ” fo r W al dr on to fin d a co m pa rab le job in th e Uni te d Kin gd om

.

Nor di d th e BIA sq ua rel y ad dr es s th e ev id en ce o n w h i c h th e IJ ba se d it s fin di ng

,

whi ch in cl ud ed te st im on y fro m Wa l d r o n th at if he m an ag ed to fin d em pl oym en t, it

wou ld be “ on th e b ot to m

[of ] th e la dd er” and fo r si gn ifi can tl y le ss m on ey . Ins te ad

,

th e BIA en ga ge d i n i ts own fact fin di ng by stat in g th at W al dr on ’s ro le as a m an ag er

ga ve hi m “ tra ns fera bl e job sk il ls ,” de sp it e W al dr on ’s ex pr es s te st im on y th at m os t of

hi s wor k in vo lv ed th e FDA an d th at hi s ex pe rti se in th e Am eri can ph arm aceu ti cal

in du st ry wou ld no t be tra ns fera bl e to job s in Eng la nd

. If th e BIA di d no t wis h to rel y

on th e IJ ’s fin di n g t h at it wou ld be “ ex cep ti on al ly ha rd fo r [Wald ro n] to fin d

co m pa rab le wor k” or on th e IJ ’s fin di ng th at W al dr on “ wou ld lo se th e ab il it y to he lp

su pp or t hi s so n” if he were rem ov ed

, it ne ed ed to ex pl ai n why th os e de te rm in at io ns

were cl earl y

erro ne ou s b as ed on th e ev id en ce p res en te d t o t he IJ.

The BIA al so en ga ge d in in ap pr op ria te fact fin di ng w h e n i t co nc lu de d th at

W al dr on “ di d no t repo rt on -g oi ng pr ob le m s [reg ard in g Sam ue l’s heal th ] at th e ti m e

-1 0-of [Wald ro n]’ s he ari ng .” Thi s se em s to co nf li ct wit h th e IJ ’s de te rm in at io n, ba se d on

a le tt er fro m Sam

ue l’s pe di at ric ia n, th at W al dr on ’s rem ov al “ co ul d cau se ad di ti on al

ph y si cal an d em ot io na l ha rm to Sam ue l an d pu t hi m at ris k.” It al so co nf li ct s wit h th e

I J ’s f i n d in g th at if th e W al dr on fam il y were to rel oc at e, it “ wou ld fu rth er di st u r b

Sam ue l’s h eal th y

de ve lo pm en t an d c au se hi m ex tre m e h ard sh ip .”

Fi na ll y

, th e BIA’s st at em en t th at th ere was in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce th at “ th e

res po nd en t’s im m ed ia te fam il y wou ld be fo rced to se pa rat e sh ou ld he be rem ov ed ,”

was an im

pr op er fin di ng of fact th at in he ren tl y co nt rad ic ts m an y of th e IJ ’s fact ua l

fin di ng s. The IJ ’s fin di ng s of fact im pl ic it ly ack no wled ge d a da ng er th at W al dr on ’s

rem ov al co ul d res ul t in hi s se pa rat io n fro m hi s im m ed ia t e f a mi l y

, an d th e IJ ’s

h a rd sh ip an al y si s un de r se ct io n 21 2( h) m ad e refe ren ce to th is da ng er. Adm i t t e d l y,

th e IJ di d no t m ak e an ex pr es s fin di ng as to th e sp eci fic li ke li ho od th at W al dr on ’s

rem ov al wou ld res ul t in se pa rat io n fro m hi s im m ed ia te fam il y

, an d th ere is te st im on y

in th e reco rd su gg es ti ng th at W al dr on ’s fam il y wou ld acco m pa ny hi m to th e Uni te d

Kin gd om in th e ev en t of hi s rem ov al

. Howev er, if th e BIA co nc lu de d th at th e IJ erre d

by no t sp eci fic al ly ad dr es si ng th e pr ob ab il it y th at W al dr on an d hi s fam il y wou ld be

se pa rat ed , i t sh ou ld ha ve rem an de d th e cas e to th e I J f o r f u r t h e r fact fin di ng on th is

po in t. See Ram ire z-Pe y ro , 47 7 F .3d at 6 41

.

W e ack no wled ge th at th e BIA ha s th e di sc ret io n to w e ig h th e IJ ’s fact ua l

fin di ng s d iff

eren tl y th an th e IJ when m ak in g th e ul ti m at e de te rm in at io n of whe th er

an ap pl ic an t de m on st rat ed “ ex cep ti on al or ex tre mel y un us ua l ha rd sh ip ” un de r

8 C.F.R. § 12 12 .7(d ). Howev er, it m ay no t di sr eg ard th e IJ ’s fact ua l fin di ng s a n d

su pp la nt th em wit h it s own

, ab se nt a fin di ng of cl ear erro r. The Gov ern m en t arg ue s

th at th e BIA was si m

pl y “ weig hi ng th e fact s di ffer en tl y ,” bu t th ere is a di ffer en ce

be twee n weig hi ng th e fact ua l fin di ng s of th e IJ an d rewei g h in g th e un de rlyin g

ev id en ce an d t e s ti m on y be hi nd th os e fact ua l fin di ng s to reac h ne w fact ua l

co nc lu si on s. In th e ab se nc e of an y cl ear erro r, th e BIA’s ro le was to acce pt th e fact s

as fo un d by th e IJ an d de te rm in e d e n o v o w h e th er th os e fact s ro se to th e le ve l of

-1 1-“ ex cep ti on al an d ex tre m el y un us ua l ha rd sh ip ” as a m at te r of la w

. S e e 8 C.F.R.

§ 10 03 .1(d )(3 ). Tha t rol e was no t pro pe rly ex ecu te d. Acco rd in gl y , we rem an d th is

cas e so th at th e BIA ha s “ th e op po rtu ni ty to di sc ha rg e it s st at ut or y du ty to rev ie w th e

IJ ’s fact ua l fin di ng s fo r cl ear erro r a nd rem an d to th e IJ fo r fu rth er pr oc eed in gs if

ap pr op ria te .” Ram ire z-Pe y ro , 47 7 F .3d at 6 42

.

III.

Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we gr an t W al dr on ’s pe ti ti on fo r rev ie w an d rem an d

hi s ca se to th e BIA fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs co ns is te nt wit h t hi s o pi ni on

.

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

-1 2-