2007 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
10-9-2007 

# D eb e at o v . Atty Ge n U SA
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 . 05-3235

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_2007

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 2007 D e c i sion s b y an author i 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

" D ebe at o v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 313. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/313P 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. 05- 3235

____________ LUZ M AR TI NA FELI Z DEB EATO Pet i t i oner

v. ATTO RN EY G ENER AL O F THE UN I TED STATES R e sp o n d e n t

____________ I ni t i al l ydocket ed as an A ppeal fr om the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D
. C

. N o. 04- cv- 0603) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e C ynthi a M
. R ufe C onver t ed t o a Pet i t i on forR evi ew fr om the B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls Pur s uantt o t he R E A L I D A ctof 2005 ( B oar d N o. A 41 943 418) Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le B ru c e M ich a e l B a rre tt

____________T he H onor abl e A

. W al l ace T ash i m a, Seni orC i r cui tJ udge * f o r t he U nit ed S t at es C ou rtof A pp eal s for the N i nth C i rcuit, s ittin g b yd e s ig n a tio n . 2

A r gued M ay23, 2007 Be f o r e : CH AGAR E S , HAR DI M AN a n d T AS HI M A ,

C i r cui tJudges

. * ( Fi l ed: O ct ober9, 2007 )

J onathan Fei nber g, E s q. ( A r gued) K airy s, R u d o v sk y , M essin g & F einb erg 718 A r ch St r eet S u ite 5 0 1 S o u th Phi l adel phi a, PA 19106 A t t or neys f

orP et i t i oner R i char d M

. B erns t ei n, E s q. ( A r gued) D enni s M
. A br aham, E s q. O ffi ce of U ni t ed St at es A t t orney 615 C hes t nutSt r eet Phi l adel phi a, PA 19106 A t t or neys f

orR es pondent

____________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT3 ____________ H A R D IM A N , C i r cui tJudge

. T hi s i m m i gr at i on cas e bega n as a pet i t i on forw ri tof habea s corpus , but i s befor e us now as a pet i t i on forr evi ew . For t he r eas ons t hatfol l ow , w e w i l l denythe pet i t i on. I. P e titio n e r L u z M a rt in a F e liz -D e b e a to (D e b e a to ), a D om i ni can n ati o nal , fi r s tcame t o t he U ni t ed St at es i n 1988. T w o y ear s l at er , s he plea d ed gui l t yt o drug pos s es s i on, di s t r i but i on, and conspi r acy - r el at ed off ens es i n the C our tof C om m on Pl eas of L ehi gh C ount y , Penns y l vani a. A ft ers ervi ng th re e y e a rs o f

a s ix -ye a r s e n te n c e , s h e w a s p a ro le d

. F o l l o wi n g De b e a t o ’ s r e l e a s e f r o m p r i s o n , t h e I NS comm ence d depor t at i on pr ocee di ngs , al l egi ng that s he w as depor t abl e as an “a ggr avat ed fe l on” w i t hi n t he meani n g o f t he I m m i gr at i on and N at i onal i t yA ct( I N A )

. T he i m m i gr at i on j udge (IJ ) f o u n d h e r su b

jec t to d e p o rta tio n a s c h a rg e d

— a n d in e lig ib le fordi s cr et i onaryr el i ef unde rSect i on 212( c) of the I N A — on t he gr ound t hat s he had not l i ved i n t he U ni ted S tat es cont i nuous l yforseven y ear s . A ccor di ngl y , D ebea t o w as or der ed deport ed t o t he D om i ni can Republ i c. T he B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( B I A ) aff ir m ed the deci s i on of t he I J , fi ndi ng both t hatD ebea t o di d nothave s even y ear s of unr el i nqui s hed domi ci l e i n the U ni t ed St at es and that s he w as i nel i gi bl e for Sect i on 212( c) r el i ef beca us e s he w as an4 “ a g g ra v a ted f

e lo n ” f o r p u rp o se s o f

S e c tio n 4 4 0 (d ) o f

th e A n tiT erro ri sm an d E ff

ec ti v e D ea th P en alty A ct o f 1 9 9 6 (A E D P A ). A l t hough D ebea t o l eftt he U ni t ed S t at es i n 1998, s he w as app rehend ed at her husban d’s hom e i n R eading, P enn sy l van ia i n 2000 aft erhavi ng r eturned s urr ept i t i ous l y . D ebea t o w as c h a r g e d wi t h o n e c o u n t o f i l l e g a l r e e n t r y i n v i o l a t i o n o f 8 U. S

. C. § 1 3 2 6 (a ) & (b )(2 ) a n d w a s s e n ten c e d to f o r ty-six m o n th s in pr i s on aft erent er i ng a gui l t ypl ea t o t hatchar ge. O n A ugus t1, 2003, D ebea t o fi l ed a pe t i t i on for w r i tof habea s corpus pur s uant t o 28 U
. S. C

. § 2241 req u est i ng cance l l at i on of h er r em ov al order an d adjustm ent of her st atus. D ebeato cl ai m ed thather p ri or d epo rt at i on w as i nv al i d b ecause the im m igrati o n co u rt erred w h en itd ee m ed h er ine li g ible fo r a S e c tio n 2 1 2 (c ) w a iv e r of d e p o rta tio n . S ix m o n th s la ter — w h ile D ebea t o r emai ned i ncar cer at ed

— t he D epart m ent o f Just i ce i s su ed a F o rm I-87 1 , N o ti ce o f In tent/D ec isi o n to R eins tat e P ri or O rde r un d er IN A § 2 4 1 (a)(5), 8 U .S .C

. § 1 2 3 1 (a)(5) (F o rm I871)

. T he For m I

- 871 s um m ar i l yr ei ns tat ed t he O ct ober1993 or derof deport at i on. II. T h e R E A L ID A ct, P u b

. L
. 1 0 9 -1 3 , D iv. B , T it le I § 10 6(c) , requi res us t o tr eatD ebeato’s h a beas pe t i t i on as a p e titio n f o r re v ie w u n d e r § 2 4 2 o f th e IN A

. See B onhom etr e v. G on zal es, 4 1 4 F .3 d 4 4 2 , 4 4 6 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ); s ee al s o Kam ar a v. At t o r n e y Gen. , 4 2 0 F
. 3 d 2 0 2 , 2 1 0 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 5 )

. Bu tf i r s twe m us tas cert ai n w hether w e have j ur i s di ct i on overt he pet i t i on for re v iew d e sp ite th e p a rties ’ a g re e m e n t th a t ju risd ictio n lies in th is5 C o u rt
. S e e S tee l C o . v. C iti ze n s for a B e tterE n v ’t, 523 U
. S. 83, 9 5 , 1 1 8 S . C t. 10 0 3 , 1 4 0 L . E d . 2 d 2 1 0 (1 9 9 8 ); see al so Sol tane v. U

. S. D ept
. of

Jus t i ce , 3 8 1 F
. 3 d 1 4 3 , 1 4 6 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 4 ). B efor e 2005, w e l acke d j ur i s di ct i on overanypet i t i on br ought b y an al i en w ho had bee n convi ct ed of one of the offe ns es l i s t ed i n 8 U
. S. C

. § 1252( a) ( 2) ( C )

. D ebea t o conce des t hats he i s an al i en, and admi t s t hat s he w as convi ct ed of one of t he en um erat ed o ffen ses s etforth in § 12 52 (a) (2 )(C ). T hu s, undert he pr ecur s or t o t he R E A L I D A ct , w e w oul d have l acke d ju ri s d ic tio n o v e r D e b e a to ’s p e titio n . See Papageor gi ou v. G onz al es , 4 1 3 F
. 3 d 356, 357 ( 3d C i r . 2005)

. H ow ever , “[t ] he ju risd ic ti o n a l f

ra m e w o rk f

o r a lien s c o n v icte d o f c e rta in enumer at ed off

ens es w as re structur ed byC ongr es s and the Pr es i denton M ay11, 2005, ” w hen t he R E A L I D A ctw as e n a c te d in to la w . Id

. at357- 58. T he R E A L I D A ctdi ves t ed al l cour t s of j ur i s di ct i on over den i al s of dis cret i on aryrel i ef an d o rder s agai nst cri m i nal al i ens, i ncl udi ng t hos e cha l l enged thr ough a habe as corpus pet i t i on. See 8 U
. S. C

. §§ 1252( a) ( 2) ( B ) and ( C )

. H ow ever , i n a new s ubpar agr aph ca pt i oned “J udi ci al R evi ew o f C ert ai n L egal C l ai m s , ” C ongr es s r es t or ed a port i on of the j ur i s di ct i on i tt ook aw ayi n sub paragraphs (B ) and (C ). T hat s ub paragraph reads, in p e rtin e n t p a rt: N ot hi ng i n s ubpar agr aph ( B ) o r( C ) , ori n any o th e r p ro v is io n o f

th is A c t (o th e r th a n th is s ect i on ) w hi ch l i m i t s orel i m i nat es j udi ci al r evi ew , s hal l be construed as pr ecl udi ng r evi ew of cons t i tut i onal cl ai m s orques t i ons of l aw r ai s ed6 upo n a pet i t i on forr evi ew fi l ed w i t h an a p p ro p ria te c o u rt o f a p p e a ls in a c c o rd a n c e w ith t hi s s ect i on. 8 U
. S. C

. § 1252( a) ( 2) ( D )

. I n P apageor gi ou , we q u o t e d t h at sam e subp aragr aph , and i nterpret ed itas fol l ow s: W it h th is a m e n d m e n t, C o n g re ss e v id e n c e d its i n tent t o r es t or e j udi ci al r evi ew of cons t i tut i onal cl ai m s and quest i ons of l aw pr es ent ed i n pet i t i ons forr evi ew of fi nal r emoval or der s . T h i s now p e rm its a ll a lien s, in c lu d in g c rim in a l a lien s, to obt ai n r evi ew of cons t i tut i onal cl ai m s and ques t i ons of l aw u p o n the fi l i ng of a pe t i t i on for r e v i e w w i t h a n a p p r o p r i a t e c o u r to f a p p e a l s . We r eac h t hi s concl us ion beca us e C ongr es s has pr ovided that n o thing in 8 U
. S

. C

. § 1 2 5 2 (a)(2)(B ), (C ), o r a n y o th e r p ro v isio n o f th e IN A sh a ll precl ud e j ud i ci al revi ew of suc h orders , un l ess s uch r evi ew i s barr ed bys om e otherpr ovi s i on of 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2
. F o r th is re a so n , w e b e liev e th a t, w ith p a ss a g e o f

th e A c t, C o n g re ss h a s re p e a led a ll j ur i s di ct i onal bar s t o ourdir ec t r evi ew of cons t i tut i onal cl ai m s and quest i ons of l aw i n fi nal r emoval or der s ot hert han thos e r emai ni ng i n 8 U
. S

. C

. § 1 2 5 2 ( e .g ., in pr ovi s i ons ot herthan ( a) ( 2) ( B ) or( C ) ) fol l ow i ng the amendm ent of that se c tio n b yth e A c t. 4 1 3 F .3 d a t 3 5 8
. A s D e b e a to c o n c e d e s , P apageor gi ou di d not d e c i d e wh e t h e rt h e g r a n to f j u r i s d i c t i o n i n § 1 2 5 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( D)7 extended t o o rder s r ei ns tat ed p u rsua n t t o 8 U
. S

. C

. § 1 2 3 1 (a)(5). B u tw e s e e n o r e a s o n w h y P apageor gi ou sh o u ld n o t ap p lyw ith equ al force t o rei nst at ed o rder s. O n t hi s poi nt , w e fin d per s uas i ve the r eas oni ng of R am i r ez - Moli n a v. Ziglar , 4 3 6 F .3 d 5 0 8 (5 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ), in w hi ch the C our tof A ppeal s for the Fi fth C i r cui tfound j ur i s di ct i on overa cha l l enge t o a r ei ns t at ed or der

. I n s o doi ng, t he Fi fth C i r cui texpl ai ned: T he R E A L I D A ct has i n fac tr emoved one barr i er t o ourj ur i s di ct i on thatm i ghtot herw i s e have exi s t ed. T i t l e 8 U
. S. C

. § 1231( a) ( 5) s peci fi es t hat w hen the A t t or neyG ener al r ei ns t at es an or derof r emoval aft eran al i en r e- ent er s t he U ni t ed St at es i n vi ol at i on of thator der , t he orde r“i s nots ubj ect to b e in g re o p e n e d o r re v iew e d .” . . . In a d d iti o n to carvi ng outexce pt i ons t o the j ur isdi ct i ons t r i ppi ng p rov i s i ons of § 1252 forcons t i tut i onal and l egal cl ai m s , § 1252( a) ( 2) ( D ) s t at es t hat“[no] ot herpr ovi s i on of t hi s chapt er . . . w hi ch l i m i t s or el im inat es j udi ci al r evi ew , s hal l be cons t rued as pr ecl udi ng cons t i tut i onal cl ai m s orcl aim s of l aw . ” S ect i o n 1 2 3 1 i s i n the sam e chap t er as § 1252. B eca us e § 1231( a) ( 5) li m i t s j udi ci al re v iew , § 1 2 5 2 (a )(2 )(D ) pr e v e n ts i ts op e ra tio n in cas es , s uch as thi s one, i n w hi ch the val i di t yof an und erly ing o rde r i s q u esti o n ed o n co ns t i tut i onal or l egal gr ou nd s. Id

. a t 5 1 3 -1 4 . W e f

in d th e f o re g o in g re a so n in g c o n sis ten t w ithA l t ho ug h t he S i xth C i rcui tfou nd j uri sdi ct i on l acking i n these 2 ci r cumst ance s i n T

ill e y v . C h e rto

ff , 1 4 4 F
. A p p ’x 5 3 6 (6th C ir

. 2005) , and al t hough Ti l l ey w as deci ded aft er t he R E A L I D A ct beca m e l aw , i t— unl i ke R am i r ez - Mol i na — re a c h e d its re su lt b yre lyi n g o n p re -R E A L ID c a se law a n d m a d e n o e f f o rt to r econc i l e thatr es ul t w i t h t he l anguage of § 1252( a) ( 2) ( D )

. For t hatr eas on, and bec aus e w e ca nnots quar e Ti l l ey w ith our r eadi ng of the R E A L I D A ct that w e advance d i n P apageor gi ou , we d e c l i n e t o f

o l l o w Ti l l ey o n th i s p o i n to f l a w. 8 our s t at ement t hat § 1252( a) ( 2) ( D ) “r epea l [ed] al l j ur i s di ct i onal bar s t o our di r ect r evi ew of cons t i tut i onal cl ai m s and ques t i ons of l aw i n fi nal r emoval or der s . ” P apageor gi ou, 413 F. 3d at358. O urconfi dence i n t hi s con clus ion i s r ei nfor ced byour o b s e r v a t i o n i n a n o t h e rp o s t
- RE AL I D Ac tc a s e , i n wh i c h we not ed that“an or derr ei ns t at i ng a pr i orr emoval or deri s t he funct i onal equi val entof a f i nal or derof r emoval

. ” D i nna l lv. G on zal es, 421 F. 3d 247, 251 n. 6 ( 3d C i r. 2005) ( ci t at i on and interna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). A ft er P apageor

gi ou and D in n a ll , ther e i s no pr i nci pl ed re a so n f o r re a d in g § 1 2 5 2 (a )(2 )(D ) a s p e rm itt in g ju risd ictio n to r evi ew a fi nal r emoval or der , y etdeny i ng j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew a r e i n s t a t e me n to f

t h a tv e r ys a me o r d e r . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we 2 co n clud e tha t th e R E A L ID A ct, sp ec ifi ca ll y§ 1 2 5 2 (a)(2)(D ), perm i t s us t o exer ci s e j ur i s di ct i on over l egal and cons t i tut i onal chal l enges t o fi nal or der s of r emoval , i ncl udi ng t h os e fi nal or der s t hatt he A t t or neyG ener al has r ei ns tat ed pur s uantt o § 1 2 3 1 (a)(5).9 III . H aving es t abl i s hed j ur i s di ct i on, w e mustas cert ai n t he appr opr i at e s t andar d of r evi ew . “A l t hough [D ebea t o’ s ] habea s c o rp u s p e t i t i o n h a s n o w b e e n c o n v e r t e d t o a p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w, ours t andar d o f revi ew r emai ns the s ame. ” Si lva- R engi f o v. A t t or ney G en. , 4 7 3 F .3 d 5 8 , 6 3 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 7 ); see al so Kam ar a, 420 F. 3d at210- 11. T hus , w e r evi ew D ebea t o’ s cons t i tut i onal and l egal quest i on s de novo, s ee i d. , b u t def e r to th e B IA ’s re a so n a b le in terp re tatio n s o f th e sta tu tes it i s c h a rg e d w ith a d m in is te ri n g . See I

N S v. A gui r r e-A gui r r e, 526 U
. S. 415, 424, 1 1 9 S . C t. 14 3 9 , 1 4 3 L . E d . 2 d 5 9 0 (1 9 9 9 ); s ee al s o C hevr on U.S .A . In c . v . N

a tu r a l R e s . D e

f. C o u n c il, I

n c ., 467 U
. S. 837, 8 4 2 -43 , 1 0 4 S

. C t. 2 7 7 8 , 8 1 L
. E d

. 2 d 6 9 4 (19 8 4 ). A l thoug h the f

o reg o ing stan d ard of r evi ew pl ai nl yappl i es on di r ect r evi ew of an or i gi nal r emoval or der , w e r ecogni ze that D ebea t o has br oughta col l ateral at t ack on a r emoval or derfor w hi c h the Fi fth Ci r c ui tr e qu i r e d a s ho w i ng of “ a gr os s m i s carr i age of j us t i ce suf fi ci ent t o al l ow [cons i der at i on of] t he m e ri ts o f a p e titio n e r ’ s c o lla te ra l a tta c k o n a re m o v a l o rd e r.” R am i r ez - Mol i na , 436 F. 3d at514. D ebea t o char act er i zes t hi s as a “ re q u ire m e n t u n iq u e to th e F if th C irc u it, ” a n d w e a g re e w ith her t o a p oint

. Insofar as R am i r ez - Mol i na cha rac teri zed the
“ g ro s s m is c a rr ia g e o f

ju s tic e ” re q u ir e m e n t a s ju ri s d ic tio n a l, s ee 4 3 6 F. 3d at514- 15, w e dec l i ne t o fol l ow i t
. B utw e have r equi red pet i t i oner s br i ngi ng col l at er al chal l enges t o or der s of depor t at i on orexcl us i on t o s how a “gr os s m i s carr i age of j us t i ce”

— not as a j ur i s di ct i onal s how i ng, butas a pr er equi s i t e t o r el i ef. See M cLeod v. P et ers on , 283 F. 2d 1 8 0 , 1 84 ( 3d C i r . 1960) ( as amended)

. A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l appl yt he “gr os s m i s carr i age”10 s t andar d notas di d t he Fi fth C i r cui ti n R a m irez-Mol i na, but r atheras a face tof the s t andar d of r evi ew of col l at er al chall eng es t o rem ov al orders

. I V. H avi ng es t abl i s hed ourj uri sd i ct i on, and havi ng as cert ai ned the appr opr i at e s t andar d of r evi ew , w e r eac h t he m er i t s of the pet i t i on. D ebea t o chal l enges the B I A ’ s A pr i l 1, 1 9 9 7 o rd e r, w h ich h e ld , in p e rtin e n t p a rt: [D ebea t o] i s s e e k i ng r el i ef f r om depor t at i on under se c tio n 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 , 8 U
. S. C

. § 1182(c)

. A tt he t i m e of the hear i ng, t he I m m i gr at i on J udge pr oper l ydeni ed t hatr el i ef be caus e [D ebea t o] di d nott hen have t he 7 y ear s l aw ful unr el i nqui s hed domi ci l e r equi r ed f o r th e w a iv e r. M o re o v e r, [ sh e ] is n o w sta tu to rily in e ligi ble for s uch rel i ef as an “ali en w ho is depor t abl e by r eas on of havi ng comm i t t ed any cr i m i n al o ff en se co v ere d i n s ect i on 24 1(a) (2) (A )( i i i ), (B ), (C ), or ( D ), or anyoff ense cover ed bys ect i on 241( a) ( 2) ( A ) ( i i ) for w hi ch bot h pr edi cat e off

ens es ar e cove r ed bys ect i on 241( a) ( 2) ( A ) ( I )

. ” See Ant i t e rr o r i s m and Effec t i ve D eath Penal t y A ct of 1996, Pub. L
. N o. 104- 132, 1 1 0 S tat. 1 2 1 4 (“ A E D P A ” ), § 4 4 0 (d ); M at t erof S or i ano , I nt er i m D eci s i on 3289 ( A

. G

. , Feb. 21, 1 9 9 7 ). D ebea t o ar gues t hat t he B I A i ncorr ect l ydet erm i ned thats he had11 notm ett he domi ci l e r equi r ement , and thati t erred i n appl y i ng A E D PA t o hercas e. She acknow l edges t hatt hes e i s s ues ar e not of “c ons t i tut i onal di m ens i on. ” Inst ead, s he cha r act er i zes her claim as p rese n ti n g a “ q u esti o n o f law ” re v iew a b le un d er § 1 2 5 2 (a)(2)(D ). T he governm entconce des the for egoi ng p oi nt s , and r i ght l ys o. W e have hel d t hatan ali en ’s law ful perm anent r es i dent s t atus ends w i t h t he ent r y of af i naladmi ni s t r at i ve or der o f d e p o rt a tio n . S e e Ka t s is v . I NS , 9 9 7 F
. 2 d 1 0 6 7 , 1 0 7 1 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 3 ); see al

so T i p u v . I NS , 2 0 F
. 3 d 5 8 0 , 5 8 3 ( 3 d Ci r . 1 9 9 4 )

. As to th e se c o n d p o in t, w e h a v e h e ld th a t § 4 4 0 (d ) o f A E D P A d id n o t ap p ly re tr o a c tiv e ly to c a s e s p e n d in g in 1 9 9 6
. See Sandov al v. R eno , 166 F. 3d 225, 242 ( 3d C i r . 1999) ( abr ogat i ng M at t erof Sor i ano )

. A ccor di ngl y , both of the r eas ons the B I A offe r ed for aff i r m i ng t he I J ’ s 1993 or derof deport at i on w er e, w i t h the b e n e f it o f h in d sig h t, i n c o rre c t. G i ven ou rconcl us i on thatt he B I A ’ s 1997 or derw as err oneous as a m at t er of l aw i n bot h r es pect s , t he ques t i on then becomes w hethert hes e err or s r es ul t ed i n a gr os s m i s carr i age of j us t i ce . L i ke the Fi fth C i r cui t , w e have y ett o des cr i be the c o n to u rs o f

th e “ g ro s s m is c a rr ia g e ” s ta n d a rd

. See R am i rezMol i na , 4 3 6 F
. 3 d at 51 4
. W h ere , as h ere , a p eti ti o n er’s col l at er al at t ack on a r emoval o rde rr ai s es onl ya “que s t i on of law ” w ith in th e m e a n in g o f § 1 2 5 2 (a )(2 )(D ), th e S e v e n th C irc u it has obs erved t hat a gr os s m i s carr i age of j us t i ce has been f ound o n lyw h e n “ th e in d iv id u a l s hould nothave be en depor t ed bas ed on the law as i t exis t ed at the t i m e of the or igi naldepor tat i on. ” S e e R o b led o -G o n za les v . A sh c ro ft , 3 4 2 F .3 d 6 6 7 , 6 8 2 n .1 3 (7 th C i r. 20 03 ) ( em ph asi s adde d ) (decl i ning t o find a g ross12 m i s carr i age of j us t i ce w her e a pet i t i oner “s eeks t o have a ppl i ed t o h i m a n i n t e rp r e t a t i o n o f t h e l a w m a d e s u b s e q u e n t t o t h e t i me o f t h e o r i g i n a l d e p o r t a t i o n d e c i s i o n , n a m e l y [ I NS v

. ] St

. C

yr [, 533 U
. S. 2 8 9 , 1 2 1 S. Ct

. 2 2 7 1 , 1 5 0 L. Ed

. 2 d 3 4 7 ( 2 0 0 1 ) ]

. ”) ( ci t i ng Matter o

f Fari na s, 12 I
. & N
. D ec. 467 ( B I A 1967) , and Mat t erof

Ma lon e, 11 I & N D ec. 730, 731- 32 ( B I A 1966) ( fi ndi ng a “gr os s m i s carr i age of j us t i ce” w hen “on the bas i s of j udi ci al and admi ni s t r at i ve dec i s i ons exi s t i ng att he t i m e of the or i gi nal pr ocee di ng, no or derof deport at i on s hould have be en en tered ”)). W e fi nd t hi s appr oach pe r s uas i ve and c ons ist ent w i t h ourm or e gener al form ul at i on of the s t andar d. See M cLeod , 283 F. 2d at184 ( fi ndi ng a gr os s m i s carr i age of j us t i ce w her e the “err orw as s o obvi ous and s o cl eart hatcouns el s houl d have b ee n q u ick to ap p ea l”). U nd er t hi s appr oach, i ti s cl earthatthe B I A ’ s 1997 d e c isio n a f

f irm in g th e IJ’ s o rd e r o f

d e p o rta tio n w a s n o t g ro ss ly unj us t
. T he fi r s t gr ound t he B I A ci t ed i n s uppor t of i t s deci s i on

— namel y , t hatD ebeat o w as depor t abl e bec aus e s he had not m ett he s even- y eardom i ci l i aryr equi r ementatthe t i m e of he r 1 9 9 3 h e a rin g b e f

o re th e IJ — w a s d e m o n stra b lyw ro n g , ev e n in 1 9 9 7
. See Ka tsis , 9 9 7 F .2 d a t 1 0 7 1 ; see al so Ti pu , 20 F. 3d at 583. B ut t he B I A ’ s fi nal deci s i on w as notbas ed on thatgr ound al one. A s not ed above , i tal s o w as bas ed on the conc l us i on t hat A E D P A § 4 40 (d) app l i ed retroact i ve l ya ndbarr ed cert ai n felons, i ncl udi ng D ebea t o, fr om § 212( c) r el i ef. I n Sandoval , w e h e ld that thi s r etr oact i ve appl i cat i on of A E D PA § 440( d) w as im p ro p e r a n d th e S u p re m e C o u rt re a c h e d a sim ilar d e c isio n in St. C yr. B u t Sa n d o v a l w as not deci ded unt i l 1999, and St

. C yr w as d eci ded i n 2001. T hus , undert he A t t orneyG ener al ’s i nt er i m deci s i on i n Mat t erof Sor i ano — “the l aw as i t exi s t ed atO n this po int, w e d ec li n e to f o ll o w the S ixth C ir cu it ’s 3 unpu b li sh ed opi ni on i n Ti l l ey v . G onz al es , 228 F. A pp’ x 585 ( 6 t h Ci r . 2 0 07)

. I n Ti l l ey , t he courtvaca t ed a 1997 or derof depor t at i on — w hi ch had de pended upon aretr oact i ve appl i cat i on of the A E D PA — on t he gr ound t hati tw as “contr aryt o” P ak v. R eno , 1 9 6 F
. 3 d 6 6 6 , 6 7 6 (6th C ir. 1 9 9 9 ), w h ich in tu rn e sta b lish e d th a t A E D P A d id n o t ap p ly re tr o a c t i v e ly in th e s e c ir c u m s ta n c e s . See Ti l l ey , 2 2 8 F
. A p p ’x at587 ( ci t i ng P ak)

. T hi s appr oach i s pr obl emat i c. A l t hough t he S ix th C ir c u it h a s a p p lie d th e “ g ro s s m is c a rr ia g e ” s ta n d a rd , s ee Pa lma v . I

NS , 318 F. 2d 645, 647 ( 6th C i r . 1963) , i thas notdone s o s i nce w el l befor e t he enac t m ent of t he R E A L I D A ctand the Si x t h Ci r c u i t ma d e n o me n t i o n of i t i n Ti l l ey . In a n ye v e n t, Ti l l ey i nvol ved a di r ect , nota col l at er al , chal l enge t o a r emoval o rd e r. 13 t he t i m e of the or i gi nal deport at i on, ” R obledo -G onz al es , 342 F. 3d at682 n. 13 — t he B I A ’ s det erm inat i on t hatD ebea t o w as dep ort able pursuantt o A E D P A § 4 40 (d) w as not a gross m i s carr i age of

j us t i ce. 3 Foral l of the af

or ement i oned r eas ons , and af t ercar eful c o n sid e ra tio n o f

th e re c o rd a n d th e p a rties ’ c o n ten tio n s, w e w ill d e n yD e b e a to ’s p e titio n f o r r e v ie w .