2005 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
6-24-2005 

# P ap ageorgiou 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 : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 04-3135

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_2005

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 2005 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

" P ap ag e orgiou v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 910. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/910P 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. 04- 3135 P E RI KL I S P AP AGE OR GI OU,

Pet i t i oner

v. * A L B E R T O R
. G O N Z A L E S, A t t or neyG ener al of the Un i t e d S t a t e s ; BU RE AU OF CI T I Z E NS HI P AND

I M M I G RA TI O N SER V I CE S, R e sp o n d e n ts * Su bs t i tut e d p ur s ua ntt o Rul e 43 c , F. R. A
. P. O n A ppeal fr om t he U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof J us t i ce

B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( B I A N o. A 35- 090- 961) Subm i t t ed pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL
. A
. R
. 34. 1( a)

on J une 9, 2005

B efor e: A M B R O , V A N A N T W E R PE N , and TA SH I M A , *

C i rcui tJudg es. * T he H onor abl e A
. W al l ace T as hi m a, Seni orU ni t ed St at es C i r cui tJ udge fort he U ni t ed St at es C our tof A ppeal s fort he N i nt h C i r cui t , s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on.2 ( Fi l ed: J une 24, 2005) J ohn D

. Per ez, E s q. 41- 51 W i l s on A venue, 2nd Fl oor N ew ark, N ew J er s ey07105 C ouns el orf

orP et i t i oner Pet erD
. K ei s l er A s s i s t antA t t or neyG ener al , C i vi l D i vi s i on L ind a S
. W ern ery Seni orL i t i gat i on C ouns el , C i vi l D i vi s i on W i l l i am C
. Peache y , A t t or ney J ani ce K
. R edfe r n, A t t or ney O ffi ce of I m m i gr at i on L i t i gat i on U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof J us t i ce C i vi l D i vi s i on P. O
. B ox. 878, B en Fr ankl i n St at i on W as hi ngt on, D
. C
. 20044 C ouns el orf

orR es pondent

_____ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

V A N A N T W E R PE N , C i r cui tJ udge. Per i kl i s Papageor gi ou s eeks r evi ew of a fi nal or derof the B oar d of Imm i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) s um m ar i l yaff i r m i ng an or derof r emoval b y an Imm i gr at i on J udge ( “I J ”)

. Fort he r eas ons t hatfol l ow , w e w i l l denyt he pet i t i on.On Marc h 1, 2003, th e I NS cea sed to existas an ag ency 1 within the Depa

rtment of Just ice a

nd the I NS’s functions were transferre d to the Depa

rtment of Homeland Security

. SeeHomeland S ec uri ty Act of 2002, Pub.L . No. 107-296 §§ 441, 451 &471, 116 Stat. 2135. CA T re fers to t

he Uni ted Natio ns Conventi on Ag a ins t 2 Tortureand Other

Cruel, Inhuman or De gra ding Treatment or Punis hm en t , Dec . 10, 1984, 1465 U.N.T.S. 85, implemented in the United States by

the Foreign Affairs Reform a nd RestructuringAct of 1998, Pub.L . No. 105-277, § 2242, 112 S t at. 2681-761 (c odified at 8 U.S.C. § 1231). 3 I. Papageor g iou i s a nat i ve and c i t i zen of G r eec e w ho ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es i n 1978, l at erbecomi ng a perm anent r es i dent

. O n Sept ember 25, 1998, he w as convi ct ed i n t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he D i s t r i ctof M ary l and, pur s uantt o a pl ea a gr eement , of the off ens e of D i s t r i but ion of C oc a i n e i n v i o l a t i o n o f 2 1 U. S. C. § 8 4 1 ( a ) ( 1 )

. He w as s ent ence d t o 46 m ont hs i n pr i s on. B as ed on thatconvi ct i on, t he for m erI m m i gr at i on and N atur al i zat i on Ser vi ce ( “I N S”) 1 c h a rg e d h im w ith re m o v a b ili typ u rsu a n t to § § 2 3 7 (a )(2 )(A )(iii) an d (B )(I ) of

the IN A , 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1 2 2 7 (a)(2)(A )(i ii ) an d (B )(I ), as an al i en convi ct ed of a n aggr avat ed fe l ony , a contr ol l ed s ubs t ance offe ns e, and tr aff i cki ng i n a contr ol l ed s ubs t ance . Papageor gi ou s ubs equent l ys oughtr el i ef unde rA r t i cl e I I I of the U ni t ed N at i ons C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e ( “C A T ”) , al l egi ng t he gover nm ent of G r eec e w oul d not be abl e t o pr ot ecthi m fr om h is f o rm e r b u sin e ss p a rtn e r if P e titio n e r w a s re m o v e d to G r eec e. A n I J found agai ns t Pet i t i oner on al l i s s ues on O ct ober

2 1 0 , 2 0 0 3
. P eti ti o n er a p p ea led to the B IA , w h ich a ff irm ed the IJ4 w i t houti s s ui ng a sepa r at e opi ni on on J une 29, 2004, p u rsu a n t to 8 C
. F. R
. § 1003. 1( e) ( 4)

. T hi s pet i t i on forr evi ew fol l ow ed. II. W her e the B I A s um m ar i l yaffi r m s an I J ’ s deci s i on w ith o u t i ssu ing a sep ara te o p inion , w e n o rm all yrev iew the IJ’s d e c is io n its e lf

. See D ia v . A sh c ro ft , 3 5 3 F
. 3 d 2 2 8 , 2 4 5 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 3 ) ( e n b a n c )

. He r e , h o we v e r , t h e g o v e r n me n ta r g u e s t h a twe l ac k j u r i s d i c t i o n t o d o s o . I n s u p p o r t o f i t s p o s i t i o n , t he governm entcont ends t hatI N A § 242( a) ( 2) ( C ) , 8 U
. S. C
. § 1252 ( a) ( 2) ( C ) di ves t s cour t s of appeal s of j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew t he r emoval or der s of al i ens w ho ar e r emova b le on the bas i s of havi ng comm i t t ed ce r t ai n cr i m es , i ncl ud ing drug- t r aff i cki ng c ri m e s . A s w e h a v e p re v io u s ly o b s e rv e d , th is C o u rt h a s a l w a ys retaine d “jurisdicti o n to d eterm ine o u r j u ri s d ic tion ” u n d er § 242( a) ( 2) ( C ) w i t h r es pectt o bot h of the pr edi cat e fa ct s r equi r ed f o r a p p lica tio n o f

§ 2 4 2 (a )(2 )(C ) – f

irst, w h e th e r a p e tit io n e r is i n fac t an al i en, and, s econd, w hether he or s he i s ind eed r emovabl e byr eas on of havi ng b ee n co n v i ct ed of one of the e n u m e ra te d o f

f e n s e s in IN A § 2 4 2 (a )( 2 )( C ). P a tel v . A sh c ro ft , 294 F. 3d 465, 468 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ( ci t i ng D r akes v. Zi m s ki , 240 F .3 d 2 4 6 , 2 4 7 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ))

. U n ti l M ay11 of thi s y ear , i f both of thes e condi t i ons w er e s at i s fi ed, t hen fur t heradj udi cat i on of a pe t i t i on forr evi ew w as prohi bit ed u nd er I N A § 2 42 (a) (2) (C ), and w e w ou l d d i sm i ss th e p e titio n f

o r l a c k o f ju ri s d ic tio n . Id

. at 248. T hatw oul d have been t he case h ere, a s it is u nd i sputed t hat Papa geo rgi ou i s a perm anentr es i dental i en a n d thathe does notcont es thi s drug5 t r aff i cki ng convi ct ion u nder21 U
. S. C
. § 841( a) ( 1) for d is tr ib u tin g c o c a in e . T hi s j ur i s di ct i onal fr ame w o rk foral i ens convi ct ed of cert ai n enumer at ed off

ens es w as r es t ructur ed byC ongr es s and t he Pr es i den t on M ay11, 2005, how ever , w hen the Pr es i dent s i gned i nt o l aw t he R E A L I D A ct of 2005, Pub. L
. N o. 109- 13, 119 St at
. 231 ( t he “A ct ”)

. R el evantt o t hi s appea l i s Sect i on 106( a) ( 1) ( A ) ( i i i ) of the A ct , w hi ch amends 8 U
. S. C
. § 1252 by a d d in g a n e w p ro v isio n , § 1 2 5 2 (a )(2 )(D ), as f o llo w s: Ju d ici al R ev iew o f C ertain L eg al C lai m s. - N ot hi ng i n su b p ar agr aph ( B ) or( C ) , ori n any o th e r p ro v isio n o f th is A c t (o th e r th a n th is s ect i on) w hi ch li 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 ed upon a pet i t i on forr evi ew fil 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. W ith this am e n d m en t, C o n g ress e v iden ce d it s inten t t o restore j udi ci al r evi ew of co n sti tut i onal cl ai m s and ques t i ons of l aw p re se n ted in p e tit io n s fo r rev iew o f f in a l re m o v a l o rd e rs. T h is n o w p e rm its a ll alie n s, in c lu d in g c rim in a l alie n s, to o b tain r eview o f const i tut i onal cl ai m s and ques t i ons of l aw upon t he fi l i ng of a pe t i t i o n fo r r evi ew w i t h an appr opr i at e courtof appea l s . W e r eac h t hi s concl us i on bec au se C ongr es s has pr ovi ded thatn o thi ng i n 8 U
. S. C
. § 1252( a) ( 2) ( B ) , ( C ) , orany ot her pr ovi s i on of the I N A s hal l pr ecl ude j udi ci al r evi ew of s uch or der s , unl es s s uch r evi ew i s barr ed bys om e otherpr ovi s i on of 8 U
. S. C
. § 1252. Fort hi s r eas on, w e bel i eve that , w i t h pas s age6 of the A ct, C ongr es s has r epea l ed al l j ur i s di ct i onal bar s t o our d ire c t re v iew o f

c o n stitu tio n a l c la im s a n d q u e stio n s o f law in f in a l r e m o v a l o rd e rs o th e r t h a n th o s e re m a in in g in 8 U .S .C . § 1252 ( e .g ., i n pr ovi s i ons ot hert han ( a) ( 2) ( B ) or( C ) ) fol l ow i ng th e a m e n d m e n t o f

th a t s e c tio n b yth e A c t. W e obs erve t hat t he N i nt h C i r cui t , t he onl y ot hercour tof appea l s t o have c ons i der ed thi s ques t i on t hus far , h as r eac hed th e s a m e c o n c lu s io n . S e e Fe r n a n d ez -R u iz v . G o n z a le s , __ F. 3d

__, 2005 W L 1301593 ( 9t h C i r . M ay31, 2005) , at*1 (con cl ud i ng t hat al i en p et i t i on er’ s conv i ct i on s di d n ot di vest c o u r to f j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n t t o § 1 2 5 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( B) b e c a u s e RE AL I D A ctr es t or es j udi ci al r evi ew of cons t i tut i onal cl ai m s and q u e stio n s o f law p re se n ted in p e tit io n s f o r re v iew p u rsu a n t to n ew p rov isi o n § 1 2 5 2 (a)(2)(D )). W e m u st n e x t d e ter m in e th e e f f e c tiv e d a te o f

th e A c t to s ee i f i tappl i es t o Papageor gi ou’ s pet i t i on. O urr evi ew of the A ctconfi r m s t hatC ongr es s expr es s l yi nt ended thatt he a m e n d m e n ts re sto rin g o u r ju risd ictio n b e a p p lied re tro a c tiv e ly to p e n d in g p e tit io n s f o r re v iew . T h e A c t sta tes th a t § 1 2 5 2 (a )(2 )(D ) “ sh a ll t a k e e f f e c t u p o n th e d a te o f

th e e n a c tm e n t" and thati ts hal l appl yt o anycas e “i n w h ic h t he fi nal admi ni s t r at i ve orde r of re m oval , depor t at i on, orexcl us i on w as issue d b ef

o re, on , o r a fter the d ate o f th e e n ac tm en t. ” § 1 0 6 (b). G iven thi s s t atut orylang u ag e, w e c o n clud e tha t § 1 2 5 2 (a)(2)(D ), as ad d ed b y the A ct on M ay1 1 , 2 0 0 5 , ap p li es to P ap ag eo rgio u ’s p eti ti o n f

o r rev iew , as w ell as to all o ther p en d ing o r fu ture p e tit io n s f

o r d ire c t re v iew c h a llen g in g f in a l o rd e rs o f

re m o v a l, e x c e p t a s m a yo th e rw ise b e p ro v id e d in § 1 2 5 2 . T h e N in th C ir c u it’ s c o n c lu s io n c o n c u rs w ith o u rs . S e e Fe r n a n d ez -R u iz,

__ F .3 d __ a t * 1 (“ § 1 2 5 2 (a )(2 )(D ), a s ad d e d b yth e R E A L ID A c t, appl i es t o . . . al l ot herpendi ng orfutur e pet i t i ons fordi r ect7 r evi ew chal l engi ng fi nal or der s of r emoval , exce ptas m aybe o therw ise p rov ided in § 1 2 5 2 it self” ). III
. B eca us e w e ar e no l ongerj ur i s di ct i onal l ybarr ed fr om re v iew in g P a p a g e o rg io u ' s p e tit io n f o r re v iew o n a c c o u n t o f h is pas tconvi ct i on, w e now tur n t o r eview hi s pet i t i on on t he m er i t s . Papageor gi ou’ s as s er t ed cons t i tut i onal cl ai m i s t hatt he B I A ' s s um m ary aff

i r m ance of the I J ' s deci s i on depr i ved hi m of d u e p roc ess b e c au se itw as re n d ere d w ith o u t a sep ara te B IA opi ni on . W e have pr evi ous l yhel d t hatdue pr oces s chal l enges to s u c h s u m m a ry B IA a f f ir m a n c e s a re w ith o u t m e ri t. S e e D ia v . A sh c ro ft , 353 F. 3d at 238 ( “W e agr ee w i th ours i s t ercour t s of appea l s . . . t hatt he s t r eaml i ni ng r egul at i ons [w hi ch al l ow for B I A aff i r m ance s of I J deci s i ons w i t houts epar at e opi ni ons ] do n o t violate the D u e P roc ess C laus e o f th e C o n sti tuti o n . ”). I V. F o r th e f

o re g o in g re a so n s, th e p e titio n f o r re v iew is deni ed.