2008 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 11-17-2008 

# S udol 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 . 07-4585

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd 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 l l a nova 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 2008 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a nova 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 l l a nova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" S udo l v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 224. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/224NOT P 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. 07- 4585
PI OTR SUD OL,

Pet i t i oner v. ATTO RN EY G ENER AL O F THE UN I TED STATES

O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof the B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( A gencyN o. A 12- 751- 377) I m m i gr at i on J udge: H onor abl e Fr eder i c Leeds Subm i t t ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

O ct ober30, 2008 B efor e: A M B R O , FI SH E R and J O R D A N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: N ovember17, 2008)

OP I NI ON
P E R C UR I AM P io tr S u d o l p e tit io n s f

o r re v iew o f

a n o rd e r o f

th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( BI A) . F o rt h e r e a s o n s b e l o w, we wi l l d e n yt h e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.Sudol comm i t t ed aggr avat ed s exual as s aul tagai ns tone of hi s daught er s w hen s he 1 w as betw een thi r t een a nd s i xt een y ear s ol d. 2 I n M ay2007, Sudol , a nat i ve of Pol and, w as char ged as r emovabl e as an ag g rav ated fe lon . S u d o l den ied th e c h arg e o f re m o v ab il ityan d ap p li ed fo r a d iscreti o n ary w a iv e r o f

re m o v a l p u rs u a n t to 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 8 2 (c ) ( a ls o k n o w n a s “ § 2 1 2 (c ) r e lie f ” ). A ft era hea r i ng, t he I m m i gr at i on J udge ( I J ) s us t ai ned the cha r ge thatSudol comm i t t ed an aggr avat ed fe l onyr el at ed t o t he s exual abus e of a m i nor . T he I J det erm i ned thatSudol 1
w as n o t el igible f

o r § 2 1 2 (c) reli ef

an d o rde red S u d o l r em o v ed to P o land . T h e B IA adopt ed and a ffi r m ed the I J ’ s deci s i on and di s m i s s ed the appe al . T hr ough couns el , Sudol f i l e d a t i me l yp e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. W e hav e j uri sdi ct i on t o co nsi der w hetherS ud ol i s an agg ravat ed fe l on and exerci se pl enaryr evi ew overt he B I A ’ s concl us i on. G ar ci a v. A t t ’ yG en. , 462 F. 3d 287, 290- 91 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . W e have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew anycons t i tut i onal cl ai m s orques t i ons of l aw d e n o v o . C aro leo v . G o n za les, 4 7 6 F . 3 d 1 5 8 , 1 6 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). Sudol ar gues t hatt he I J err ed i n fi ndi ng t hathe had be en convi ct ed of a n a g g ra v a ted f

e lo n yb e c a u se h e w a s c o m m itt e d to a m e n tal h e a lth f a c ili tyf o r p sy c h iatric t r eatm ent . H ow ever , pur s uantt o 8 U . S. C . § 1101( a) ( 48) ( A ) , t he def i ni t i on of a convi ct i on i ncl udes a form al j udgm entof gui l tent er ed bya courtora gui l t ypl ea byan a lien a n d th e im p o sitio n o f re stra in t o n th e a lien ’s lib e rty . H e re , S u d o l p lea d e d g u iltyto aggr avat ed s exual as s aul tand aggr avat ed s exual cont actand w as s ent ence d t o fi ft eenSudol r el i es on H ol zapf el v. W yr s ch, 259 F. 2d 890 ( 3d C i r . 1958) , i n w hi ch the 2 a lien ’s p riso n se n ten c e w a s s u sp e n d e d , an d h e w a s p lac e d o n p ro b a tio n w ith p sy c h iatric t r eatm entas a condi t i on of pr obat i on. H ow ever , i n H ol zapf el , t he al i en w as char ged as re m o v a b le f

o r b e in g c o n v icte d o f

a c rim e o f

m o ra l tu rp itu d e a n d se n ten c e d to confi nementfora y earorm or e. H er e, Sudol i s char ged as r emovabl e forbei ng an aggr avat ed fe l on – t he def i ni t i on of w hi ch does notdepend on a nys ent ence r ece i ved.

3 y ear s of conf

i nementatA venel A dul tD i agnos t i c and Tr eatm entC ent er . Such confi nementw as a r es t r ai nton hi s l i ber t y . T hus , he w as “convi ct ed” of an aggr avat ed 2 fel onyand i s r emovabl e. In order forS ud ol t o est abli sh el i gibi l i t yfor r el i ef un der § 21 2(c) , he m ust demonst r at e, i nt eral i a, t hatt he bas i s forhi s r emoval has a “s t atut or ycount erpar t ” gr ound forexcl us i on i n § 212( a) of the I m m i gr at i on and N at i onal i t yA ct . C ar ol eo, 476 F. 3d at 162. Sudol ar gues t hathe comm i t t ed a c r i m e of mora l turpi tude w hi ch i s l i s t ed i n § 212( a) . W hi l e Sudol ’ s cr i m e coul d be cha r act er i zed a s a cr i m e i nvol vi ng m or al turpi tude, t he s t atut or ycount erpar tanal y s i s l ooks att he gr ound forr emoval , w hi ch her e i s t he aggr avat ed fe l onyof s exual abus e of a m i nor . C ar ol eo, 476 F. 3d at164. T hi s cat egor i cal appr oach doe s notvi ol at e equa l pr ot ect i on. I d. at165- 67. T he aggr avat ed fe l onyfor
w hi ch Sudol has been f ound r emovabl e, s exual abus e of a m i nor , does nothave a sta tu to ryc o u n ter p a rt in § 2 1 2 (a ). Z a m o ra -M a llari v . M u k a se y , 5 1 4 F .3 d 6 7 9 , 6 9 2 -9 3 (7 th C i r . 2008) ; A bebe v. G onzal es , 493 F. 3d 1092, 1105 ( 9t h C i r . 2007) ; A vi l ez- G r anados v. G onzal es , 481 F. 3d 869, 872 ( 5t h C i r . 2007) . B uts ee Bl ake v. C arbone, 489 F. 3d 88, 104 (2d C i r. 20 07 )( ho l ding an a gg ravat ed fe l on i s el i gibl e for § 2 12 (c) w ai ver i f his off ense4

cou l d fo rm t he b asi s for excl usi on as a cr i m e of m oral turpi tud e un der § 21 2(a) ). T hu s, t he B I A di d noterri n concl udi ng t hatSudol i s notel i gi bl e for§ 212( c) r el i ef. F o rt h e a b o v e r e a s o n s , we wi l l d e n yt h e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.