P u r su a n t to F e d e r a l R u le o f A p p e lla te P r o c e d u r e 4 3 (c )(2 ), A tto r n e y G e n e r a l M ic h a e l B . M u k a se y is * aut om at i cal l y s ubs t i t ut ed f or f or m er A t t or ney G ener al A l ber t o R. G onz al es as r es pondenti n t hi s ca s e. T he H onor abl e Eri c N
. V i t al i ano , U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ct J udge f or t he Eas t er n D i s t r i ct of N ew Y or k, s i t t i ng by ** des i gn at i on. 1 07- 0460- ag A l i v. M ukas ey UN ITED STA TES CO URT OF AP P EALS F OR TH E S ECO N D CI RCU IT Aug us t T erm, 200 7 (S ub mi tt ed: J anu ary 18 , 20 08 Dec id ed: M ay 2, 200 8) Do cket No . 07 -0 460 -ag M I RZA A LI , Petitioner

, v. M I CHAEL B. M UKA S EY , At to rney Gen er al, * Responden t. B ef or e: J ACO BS , Chi

ef Judge, C AB R ANES , Cir

cui t J udg e, and VI T A L I A NO , District Judge
. ** Pe ti ti on er s eeks r evi ew o f a n o r der

of th e B oar d o f I mmigr ati onApp eals (“ B I A”) di s mi s s ing hi s app eal o f afi nal

or der of r emo val . T he B I A f

ou ndth at p et

it io ner hadwaiv ed his r

igh t o f app eal, thereby depriving it of jurisdiction over this matter . We conclude that, on the facts presented, the B I A’s fi nding that

pet it io ner hadwaiv ed his r

igh t o f app eal w as no t b as ed o n s ub s tan ti al ev id enc e. Pe ti ti ongr ant ed. U S MA N A HM AD , Ahm ad &Ho rn, P. C., New Yor k, N Y, for Petitioner. D EB ORA H G ERA DS , Trial Attorney, (Peter D. Keisler, Ass istant Attorney General, Leslie McKa y, Seni or Litigation Cou ns el, on the brief

), Office of Im migration Litigation, U.S . D epar tm ent

of J us ti ce, Wa s hi ngt on , D C, for Responden t.A l i ’ s f i r s t ap pl i cati on f

or adj us t m ent on t he b as i s of hi s al l eg ed m ar r i ag e t o a U ni t ed St at es ci t i z en was deni ed 1 in N o v e m b e r 1 9 9 9 fo r fa ilu r e to a p p e a r w ith h is sp o u se a t a n in te r v ie w c o n c e r n in g h is a p p lic a tio n . In A p r il 2 0 0 1 , A li f i l ed ano t her ap pl i cati on o n t he s am e ba s i s . Becaus e Al i an d hi s s pous e f ai l ed t o a ppea r f

or an i nt er vi ew, hi s s econ d app l i cati on was deni ed i n J ul y 20 02. H i s t hi r d appl i cati on f or adj us t m ent of

s t at us was f

i l ed i n Sep t em ber 2002 an d w as d en i ed i n 2 00 4 fo r fai l u re to ap pe ar.

Purs uant t o 8 C
. F. R
. § 1240
. 10( a) ( 3) , t he I J “ s hal l [ a] s cer t ai n t hatt he r es pondentha s r eceived .
. . a copy of 2 a p p e a l r i g h t s ” a t t h e o u t s e t o f p r o c e e d i n g s . T h e r e c o r d b e f o r e u s d o e s n o t i n c l u d e a n y c o p y o f t h e a p p e a l r i g h t s , E O I R41, al t houg h i t does i ncl ude a co py o f t he N ot i ce t o Appear
. Res pondent ’ s br i ef as s um es , ba s ed on t he r eg ul at i on a nd pet i t i oner ’ s f

ai l ure t o s t at e ot her w i s e, t hatA l i r eceived t he c opy of ap pea l r i gh t s . Res pondent ’ s Br. 15. Pet i t i oner ’ s br i ef d o e s n o t ad d re ss re c e ipt vel non of t he f or m . For t he p urp os es of t hi s ap pea l , an d i n t he a bs ence of an y cl ai m s or 2 J OS É A. C AB R ANES Circuit Jud ge : Petitioner Mir za F. Ali, a na tive and c itizen of Pakistan, seeks review of a n order of the Board of I mmigr ati onApp eals (“ B I A”) di s mi s s ing hi s app eal f or lack of ju r is di ct io n. In re: M ir za F . A li , N o. A 76 552 712 (B.I.A. Jan. 11, 2007 ). The BIA found that petitioner had wa ived his right to appeal during
r emo val pr oce edi ngs bef

or e an I mmigr ati onJ udge ( “I J ”) . P et it io ner con te nd s th at h e di d n ot

kn owi ngl y and voluntarily

waiv e his right to appeal a nd that the orders of the IJ and BIA violated his rights of due process. We reaffirm an IJ ’s authority to notif y an a lien of his right to appeal a nd to seek a wa iver of the
r igh t i n any me th odth at s uf fi cien tly s af

egu ar ds th e ali en’ s r

igh t. As s et

fo r thbel ow, ho weve r , we
co nc lu de tha t th e c ollo quy b et we en pe ti ti on er ’s c ou nse l a nd the IJ w a s in a de qu a te to f ully a pp rise pet it io ner of hi s r igh t t o ap peal

andto ef fe ctuat e a kn owi ng a ndvo lu nt ary wai ver of th at r igh t. BAC KGROUND Ali ente red the United States in 1996 without inspection. On August 13, 2004, after a series of
un s ucc es s ful at te mp ts to adj us t his s tatus , Aliwas s er vedwith a N ot

ice t o Ap pear . T he N ot

ice 1 informed Ali of the charges aga inst him, the nature of the r emoval proce edings, and his opportunity to
con te s t the al

legati on s of

r emo vab ili ty

andpr es ent

evi den ce o n his beh alf

. T he N ot

ice als o s tat ed that “[a]t the conc lusion of [his] hearing, [Ali would] hav e a right to appe al a n adverse deci sion by the im migr ati onju dge .” Ali first appeared before the IJ pro se, at whic h time the IJ granted a continuanc e to allowAli to find counsel. At this initial hea ring, the IJ es tablished that Ali ha d receive d the notice to appe ar. T wo 2e v id e n c e to th e c o n tr a r y , w e a ss u m e th a t A li d id re c e iv e a c o p y o f th e a p p e a l rig h ts. 3 mo nths lat er , Al

i ap pear ed b ef

or e the I J agai n, this ti me w

ith co un s el. At

this hear ing, Ali c on ced ed
r emo vab ili ty

anddi d n ot

file a r equ es t f

or any f orm o f r eli ef

fr omr emo val . Af

te r gr ant ing a f ur th er continuanc e, the IJ held another hea ring. At that hearing, A li’s counsel stated that Ali “woul d like to take a n order of [

removal] and try to reopen it” a t a later date on the basis of a putative employme nt or family-based visa. Before entering the removal order, the IJ asked if “both sides accept[ed] [the order] as final.” Ali’s counsel answered affirmatively. The IJ then ordered Ali removed. Alifileda ti mel

y no ti ce o f app eal b ef

or e the B I A, cl aiming that th e I J haderr ed b y de nyi ng him
a con ti nu ance while his all egedpet it io n f or an al ienworker

vis a was pen di ng. Af

te r r evi ewing the I

J ’s order and the transcript

of the hearing before the IJ, the BIA conc luded that Ali had wa ived his right to appea l when his counsel “a cce pted the finality of the Immigration Judge’s order.” On that basis , the B I A de te r mi nedth at i t didno t h ave j ur is di ct io n t o h ear

Ali ’s app eal. T he B I A f

ur th er det ermi nedth at whether Ali’ s decision to waive hi s appeal w as knowingly and intelli gently ma de wa s not pr operly before it , as Alihadno t r ais ed thi s argum ent onapp eal. Alino w co nt end s th at the c ollo quy be tw eenhi s counsel and the IJ did not constitut e a proper notice of his right to appeal or a va lid waiver of his r ight
to app eal; th at his r

igh ts to du e pr oce s s wer e vi ol ate d b y the I J ’s failur e t o n ot

if y hi m that he w as waiv ing hi s app eal; andth at the B I A’s s um mar y di s mi s s al d eni ed himdu e pr oce s s of law. DISCUSSI ON We r evi ew de novo con s ti tu ti on al ch all eng es to a dec is io n b y the B I A andlegal co nclus io ns dr awn by BIA, such as the determination that the BIA lac ks juris diction . See, e.g. , Arenas-Yepes v. Gonzales, 42 1 F. 3d111 , 11 4 (

2dCir . 20 05) (l egal

con clu s io ns); United Sta tes v. El-Hage, 21 3 F .3d74, 79 ( 2dCir . 20 00) (c on s ti tu ti on al ch all eng es). We r evi ew the B I A’s fa ctual fi ndings un der

th e s ub s tan ti al ev

id enc e
s tan dar d. See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dept. of Justice , 471 F. 3d315 , 33 3 - 334(2 d Ci r . 20 06)
. When a n IJ f

inds that an alie n is removable, 8 U.S. C. § 1229a(c)(5) r equires the IJ to “inform theA t th e o u tse t o f th e h e a r in g , th e IJ a d v ise d R o d r ig u e z -D ia z th a t h e h a d th e rig h t to a p p e a l a n y u n fa v o r a b le 3 deci s i on o f

t he I J an d not ed “[y] our ap pel l at e r i gh t s ar e ex pl ai ned on t he p i ece of pa per [ I N S Form I

- 618, s i nce r epl ace d by D O J Form E O I R

- 41] i n fr ont of you . ” In r eR o dr i g u e z- D i az, 22 I
. & N
. D ec. at1320

- 21. At t he c oncl us i on o f t he he a r i ng , t he I

J s t a t ed: B as ed on y our adm i s s i ons t o m e a nd bas ed on t he docum ent s s ubm i t t ed by t he I m m i gr at i on Se r vi ce, I f i nd t hat you’ r e r em ova bl e f

r om t he U ni t ed St at es as cha r ge d. I ’ m notawar e of an y r el i ef

av ai l abl e t o yo u and yo u’ r e no t r eques t i ng an y r el i ef

an d, t her ef

or e, I or der t hatyou b e r em oved f r om t he U ni t ed St at es t o t he D om i ni can R epubl i c on t he c har ge s con t ai ned i n t he N ot i ce t o Appear
. D o yo u acc ept m y deci s i on a s a f i nal one ? Id
. at 1321
. Rod r i guez - D i az t hen ans w er ed, “ Yes , ” and a t t or neys f or t he I m m i gr at i on a nd N at ura l i z at i on Se r vi ce in d ic a te d th a t th e IN S a c c e p te d th e d e c isio n a s f in a l. Id. 4 ali en o f the r

igh t t o ap peal

[the] dec is io n an d o f the c on s equ enc es fo r failur e t o d epar t und er

th e or der of r emo val .” In

re Ro dri gu ez -D iaz , 22 I . & N . D ec. 1 320 (B I A 20 00) , the B I A co ns id er ed anapp eal br ought by anali en who con te nd ed, int er ali a , that hi s acqu ies cen ce inth e f

in ali ty of th e I J ’s or der di d not constitut e a va lid waiver of his r ight to appea l. Although the a lien ha d been a dvised of his r ights to app eal b oth i n wr

it ing an d b y the I

J ’s init ial or al r ef er enc e at th e he ar ing, id. at 1320-21, the IJ had not 3 exp lai nedth at a ccep tan ce o f the I J ’s or der as “f in al” a mo un te d t o a waive r of hi s r igh t t o ap peal
. B ecau s e it was no t c lear

th at the al

ien , wh o was un r epr es ent ed, un der s to odth e im pl icat io ns of th e I J ’s qu es ti onabo ut

fi nal it y, the B I A co nclud ed that

th e ali en h ad n ot

ef fe ct ive ly waive d his r

igh t t o ap peal
. Id
. at 1323. A s the B IA observed: As king the p ar ti es whe th er th ey acc ept

a dec is io n as “f

in al” i s a s ho r th andexp r es s io n co mm only us ed b y I mmigr ati onJ udges . I t r ef er s to th e language o f [ 8 C.F .R. § 100 3.3 9] , whichpr ov id es for f inality of the Immigration Judge’s decision upon waiver of the right to appeal (or upon the expiration of the time in whic h to appea l, if no appea l is taken). Those who underst and the mea ni ng o f thi s s ho r th andexp r es s io n, s uchas ali ens r epr es ent ed b y at to rney s or accr edi te d representatives, may effective ly wa ive a ppeal i n respons e to this s imple question. Id . at 1322. In United Sta tes v. F ares, 978 F.2d 52 (2d C ir. 1992), we noted tha t a reference to the finali ty of an I J ’s or der , “[ s ]t anding alo ne, ”—w itho ut any evid enc e of

wr it te n n ot if icat io n t o the al

ienof hi s right to appeal a n order of r emoval—ma y constitute an “insufficient basis on which to premise a finding that [a removable alie n] underst ood he had a right to appeal or a finding tha t he intellige ntly and in te nt io nally waive d that

r igh t. ” Id
. at 5 7. We no w agr ee wi thth e B I A that accep ti ng a n I

J ’s dec is io n as fi nal

can s er ve as an ef

fe ct iveW e co ns i der couns el ’ s s t at em ent t hatA l i woul d acce pt a r em ova l or der and s eek t o r eope n pr ocee di ng s af t er 4 se c u r in g a w o r k v isa in su ff ic ie n t b e c a u se su c h a str a te g y is n o t in c o m p a tib le w ith a n in te n t to a p p e a l th e IJ ’s o r d e r . 5 waiv er of appeal w hen the record of the interaction betwe en the IJ and the alie n fairly support s the
con clu s io n that

th e ali en o r

hi s cou ns el u nd er s to odth e natur e of th e wai ver . See In re Ro dri gu ez -D iaz , 22 I . & N . D ec. at 1 322 -2 3. T he f in di ng o f kno wing an d i nt ell ige nt waiv er is in evi tab ly a f

act -s pec if ic i nqui ry. See, e.g. , United States v. Jo hnson , 391 F.3d 67, 74–7 5 (2d Cir. 2004) (enga ging in fac tual ana lysis of alien’s waive r of r ight
to app eal) ; In

re Ro dri gu ez -D iaz , 22 I. & N. Dec. a t 1323 (“[T]he precise articulation of appe al rights
r equ ir ed i n any gi

vencas e will n eces s ar

ily dep endonth e cir cum s tan ces of th at c as e. . . .”); cf. Johnson v. Zerbst , 304 U.S. 4 58, 464 (1938) (“The determination of whe ther there has been an intelligent wa iver of
r igh t t o co un s el m us t d epe nd , ineachcas e, upo n the p ar ti cul ar fa ct s andcir cum s tan ces s urr ou nding that case, inc luding the ba ckground, expe rience, a nd conduct of the ac cused.”); Dallio v. Spitz er , 34 3 F .3d 553, 563 (2d C ir. 2003) (observing that “the Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized tha t a knowing andin te lligen t w aiv er

dep end s onth e t ot ali ty

of fa ct s andcir cum s tan ces ina giv en c as e”) (i nt ernal qu ot ati onmar ks omit te d)
. In the inst ant ca se, the record does not indicate whe ther Ali’s counsel was familia r with the socall ed “ s ho r th and ” way i n whichth e I J s ought a waiv er of Ali ’s r igh t t o ap peal . Fir s t, nei th er Alino r hi s counsel evinc ed an unde rs tanding that the IJ’s r eference to the fina lity of the order related to Ali’s right to appea l the order. Second, the record does not indicate that the IJ took any steps to clarify the nature 4 of his ques tion; for example, in a sking whether Ali a cce pted the deci sion as “final,” the IJ did not mention the right to appealor refer to the written notice of the right to appeal g iven in the Notice to App ear or EOI R-4 1. Li ke the B I A, we “do no t s eek t o al te r any s tat eme nt

curr ent ly u s ed b y an I mmigr ati onJ udge th at s ati s fa ct or

ily com mu ni cat es th e r

igh t t o ap peal .” In

re Ro dri gu ez -D iaz , 22 I . & N . D ec. a t 1 323
. Nonetheless we observe, consistent with Fares and Ro dri gu ez -D iaz , that absent written notification of theR es pondentar gues t hatA l i was notpr ej udi ced by t he BI A ’ s r ef us al t o co ns i der t he m er i t s of hi s ap pea l 5 be ca u se h e is no t cu rren t l y e l i gibl e fo r reli ef from rem ov al an d , t o the ex t en t he m i gh t be en t i t l ed t o so m e fo rm of reli ef, he woul d be a bl e t o f

i l e a m ot i on t o r eope n pur s uant t o 8 C
. F. R
. § 1003
. 23( b) ( 1) t o pur s ue t hatr el i ef
. W e be l i eve t hatt he B IA sh o u ld a d d r e ss th e m e r its o f h is a p p e a l in th e fir st in sta n c e , a n d , a c c o r d in g ly , d e c lin e to a d d r e ss th e se a r g u m e n ts. 6 ali en’ s r igh t t o ap peal

andclar if icat io n that accep tan ce o f the I

J ’s dec is io n as “f

in al” c on s ti tu te s a waiv er of appeal , there is insuf

ficient evide nce of a knowing and inte lligent w aive r. Because we c annot be certain that counsel unde rs tood the import of his answer to the IJ ’s question, we conclude that, on the facts pres ented here, the BIA’s determination that Ali w aive d his right t o appea l was not based on
s ub s tan ti al ev

id enc e. I n s um , the B I A err ed i n d et ermi ni ng that it di d n ot hav e ju r is di ct io n t o co ns id er

Ali ’s pet it io n. On remand, the BIA is ins tructed to consider the merits of petitioner’s appeal. Because we conclude 5 th at the B I A’s fi nding that pet it io ner waiv ed his r

igh t t o ap peal

was no t b as ed o n s ub s tan ti al ev id enc e,
we n eedno t an d d o n ot

con s id er pet it io ner ’s du e pr oce s s challenges .
CONCLUSI ON For t he fore go in g re a son s, t he pe ti ti onfor r evie w i s GRAN TED . As we have comple ted our
re vi ew , t he pe nd in g m oti onfor a sta y o f re mo va l i n th is p etitio n i s DISMI SSED as moot.