## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 09

- 3611 M ANUEL E S T RADA -R A MO S, P etitio ner, v. E R I C H. H OLDER, J R ., A tto rneyGenera l ofthe U ni ted S tat es, R es pond ent
.

Pe tition fo r Review o f anOrd er o f the B o ard of Immigration App eals
.

No . A 074-103- 808
A RGUED M AY 24, 2010

— D ECI DE D J UL Y 1, 2010

Befo re E A S T E RB ROOK, Chie f Judg e, an d P O SNER an d E VANS, C ircu it Judges . E VANS, Cir cu i tJudg e . T he De par tmentof Hom el an d Se curi ty ( DH S) i ni ti ate d rem ova l pro ceedi ngs a gainst M anuel Estr ada- Ram os i n 200 8. Estr ada- Ram os m ove d to ter m i na te the proc eedi ngs, al l eging tha t he w as a law ful perm an en t residen t as of 199 7 . H ow ever, there w as a fl y in the oi ntm ent: he was co nvi cted o fa cri m i nal2 N o. 09

- 3611

A t or al argum ent, w e were t old thatthe convict ion was 1 for p ossession of coca ine w ith inte nt to sell. offense i n Cal i f or ni a in 19 91
. A l though hi s co nvi cti on w as se t a sid e p u rs u an t t o s ta te law , D H S a rg u ed t h a t it re m ai ned a “c onvict i on” f orpurposes o fthe I m m i gr ati on and N ati onal i ty A ct ( I N A ) , r enderi ng i n va li d EstradaRam os’ m ove to per m anent r esi dent sta tus. A n i m m i gr at i o n j u d g e ( IJ ) a g r e e d w i th D HSa n d th e B o a r d o fI mm i gr ati on Ap peal s ( BIA) a ffi rm ed. E st ra da-Ram os now p e t i t i o n s f o r r e v i e w. Estra da-Ram os i s a 39

- yea r ol d nati ve and ci ti zen o f M exi co. I m m igrati on a nd N atur al i zati on S er vi ce ( now DH S ) a dj us te d hi s st atus t o l awfulpe rm an en t r es i den t on J une 2, 19 97. H owever, o n M ay 17, 19 91, Estr adaR am o s w as con victed i n C ali fornia state cou rt, after a g u i l t y p l e a , o n a d r u gc h a r g e in v o l vi n gc o c a i n e . He 1 w as sente nced to one year in p ri son and fi ve yea rs o f proba ti on. On M ay 15, 1 99 7, hi s guil ty ple a was se t as id e a n d h is c as e w as d ism iss ed p u rs u an t t o C alifo rn ia PenalCode § 1203
. 4. Fo r w h at ever re aso n, I N S w as unaw ar e that Estr ada- Ram os had a co nvi cti on wh en i t a dj usted hi s s tatus. E s t r a d a - Ra mo s l e ftth e Un i t e d S t a t e s o n a n u n k n o wn d at e a n d at te m p te d to ret u rn th ro u gh L ar ed o, T ex as , in October20 06. DH S gr anted hi m defer re d i nspecti on and ser ved hi m w i th a noti ce t o appear in J anuary20 08, al l eging tha t a t the ti m e I N S adj usted hi s s tatu s, h e w as not el i gibl e forthe change. DH S charg ed Estra daR am os w ith inad m issibil ity un d er I N A § 237(a)( 1 )( A ),N o. 09

- 3611 3 8 U.S
. C. § 1 227( a) ( 1) ( A ) , as an al i en with a co ntro l l ed su bs ta nc e co nv i ct i o n a t th e ti m e o fe nt r y o r a dj us tment o fs ta tu s. He d en ied the c ha r g e o fr emov ab i l i ty, a r g ui ng tha t hi s a dj us t men t t o pe r man e nt r e s i de nt s t a tus was val i d because hi s cr i m i nal co nvi cti on was exp u n ged u n d e r C a l i f o r n i a l a w. The IJ, i n an o ra l d ec ision, f ound that the 19 91 convi cti on r em ai ned effecti ve because i t was d ism isse d fo r a me l i o r a t i v e ( i
. e . , r e h ab i l i t a t i v e ) p u r p o s e s n o t f o r a ny proce du ra l o r su b st anti aldefects i n the proce edi ngs. C on se q u en tly , th e IJ d ee m ed E st ra d a-R am os ine ligib le f orr el i efun der for m erI N A § 212( c) and i nel i gibl e for can cellati on of rem oval un d er I N A § 240A (a) or § 240A (b). E st r ada

- Ra m o s appe al ed to the BI A, whi cha ffi r m ed th e IJ’ s orde r. On his peti ti on f orr evi ew , Estr ada- Ram os argu es that the c onvi cti on i s no t e ffecti ve f ori m m i gr at ion purpose s, an d thus , hi s st atus was pr op erly adj us te d t o l awful p e r ma n e n tr e s i d e n t
. T h e g o v e r n me n ts u g g e s t s th a twe l ack j uri sdic ti on t o re vi ew the re m ova l o rderbec ause E st ra da-Ram os com m i tte d a qual i fyi ng cr i m i nal o ffense u n d e r I NA § 2 4 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( C ) , 8 U. S
. C
. § 1 2 5 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( C )
. We l ack j u ris d i cti on t o re vi ew r em ova l o rder s o fal i ens r em ov ab le u n d er § 24 2(a ) ( 2 )(C ) u n les s t h er e is a va lid c on s t i t u tio n al c laim or q u es tio n of law
. Zam ora-M al l ar iv. M ukas ey , 51 4 F
. 3d 679, 69 3- 94 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08)
. W hether an offe n se co n st itu te s a “c on vic tio n ” u n d er th e IN A is su c h a q u es tio n . W e re vie w th is q u es tio n d e n ov o, w h ile gi vi n g defer ence to the BI A ’ s r eas onabl e inter preta ti on of t h e IN A
. Al i v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 722 , 727 (7th C ir.4 N o. 09

- 3611 20 05 ) (int er n al c ita tio n s o m itt ed ). U n d er th e IN A , a “c o nv i ct i o n” mean s, wi thr es pec t to a n a l i en : a f or m alj ud gm ent o fgui l t o fthe al i en ent er ed by a c o ur to r, i fa dj ud i c a t i o n o fg ui l th a s b e e n w i th he l d, w he re

— ( i ) a j ud ge orj ury has f ound the al i en gui l ty o r the a l i enha s en te r ed a p lea ofg ui l tyo r no l o c o ntendere o r has a dm i tte d suffi ci ent f acts to warra nt a fi n d i n go fg u i l t, a n d ( i i ) th e j ud g e h a s o r d e r e d s o me f o r m o fpuni sh m en t, pe na l ty, o r r es tr ainto n the a l i e n’ s l ib e r t y t o b e i mpo s e d. I N A § 101(a)( 48)(A ), 8 U
. S. C
. § 1101(a)(48)( A ). I f a c o nv i c t i o n wa s v a c a t e d du e t o a pr o c e du r a l o r su bs ta nt i ve de fec t i n the unde rlyingpr o ce eding, i t i s no lon ge r effe c tiv e fo r im m igr at ion p u rp os es ; ho w e v er , i f it w as vacat ed f orr ehabi l i tat i ve pu rpos es, i t r em ai ns effectiv e. A li, 3 95 F .3d at72 7; M at t e rof Picke r i ng, 23 I
. & N
. Dec. 621, 62 4 ( BIA 2003)
. Estr ada- Ram os does not dispu te th athe w as con vi ct ed o fc o ca i ne po ss es si o n wi thi nt en t to s el l ; no r does h e c la i m the r e was a ny de fec t i n the Cali f or ni a pro ceedi ng ag ai nst hi m . Thus, the con vic ti on m ust hav e be en se t a si de f oram el i or ati ve pu rpos es. N otwithstandi ng the convi cti on, E str ada- Ram os ar gues that hi s l aw ful perm anent r esi dent sta tus is v al i d becau se he did not com m it f r au d to obtain it. H ow ever, th e BI A has he l d tha t “l awfull y a dm i tt ed f o r pe r m an en t re sid en c e” d oe s n otap p ly to alien s w h o “ ob ta i n ed th eir pe r man e ntr e s i de nts t a t us b y fr a ud , orhadothe rwis eno t be en ent it le d to i t
. ” M at t e rof Kol oam ant angi, 23 I
. & N
. Dec. 54 8, 5 50 ( BI A 20 03 ) ( emph asis a dded)
. A num be r o fo ur sister c ircuits hav e sub seq ue nt ly foun d the B I A ’s int er-N o. 09

- 3611 5

The g o v e r n me n ta r g u e s th a th e f a i l e d t o e x h a u s tth i s a r g u- 2 m en t to the ag en cy ; reg ard less, it f ails on the m erits.

7- 1- 10 preta ti on r eas onabl e a nd have hel d that fra ud and m i sr e p r e s e n t a t i o n a r e n o t th e s o l e b a s e s u p o n wh i c h t he ag en c y c an co n c l u d e th at an alien d id n otlaw fu lly ob ta in adj ustm ent o fst atus. DeL a R o s a v . DHS , 48 9 F
. 3d 551, 55 4- 5 5 (2 d C ir. 20 07 ); Savo ury v . U
. S. At t or ney Ge ne r al , 44 9 F.3 d 13 07, 13 17 (11 th C ir. 20 06 ); A rellan o -G a rcia v. G o nz a les , 429 F. 3d 1183 , 11 86- 87 ( 8th Ci r. 2 00 5). W e a gr ee that to be “ law fully a dm i tte d” the a dj ustm ent o fst atus m ust be i n com pli ance with substa nti ve l ega l r eq u i re m ents, not m er e p ro c ed u ra l reg u lar ity
. Sa vo ury, 44 9 F
. 3d at 1316 ( quoti ng M atte r of Longstaff , 716 F.2d 143 9 (5th C ir. 1983)). Therefor e, we agr ee w i th th e BIA that Estra da-Ram os w as never“l aw fully a dm i tte d” f orper m anent r esi dence. E st ra d a-R am o s a lso cla im s th at h e w as d ep riv ed of h is st atutoryr i ght t o prese nt ev i dence bec ause he di d not have the o pp ortu n ity to subm i t a cer ti fi ed case r epor t. 2 H owever, he doe s no t s how how the r epor t would m ake an y m at er i a l d i ffer en c e t o th e q u es tio n of w h et h er h is convi cti on cou nts fori m m i gr ati on purpose s. In f act, Est r ada

- Ra m o s’ c o uns ela t o r ala r g um en t admi tt ed he ha s not see n t h e d o cu m en t. W ithou t know ing m ore about the r epor t, we cannot see how i t a ffects the outcom e o fthi s ca se. Forthes e r eas ons, the peti ti on forr evi ew i s D ENI ED .