2006 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
2-14-2006 

# H e r n a nde z v

. Att y Ge n U S A
P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 04-3832

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t 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 a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no va U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2006 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no va U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min
. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du

. Re c omme nde d C it a t ion

" H e r n a ndez v

. Att y Ge n U SA" (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1507. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/1507H onor abl e L oui s H

. Pol l ak, U ni t ed S t at es D i s t r i ct J udge 1 for t he East er n D i s t r i ct of P enns y l vani a, s i t t i ng by des i gnat i on. 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. 04- 3832

DO MING O ANT ON I O H ER NAND EZ , Peti ti on er

v. *A LB ER TO R. GO NZ AL ES , Att or ne y Ge ne r a l of T h e U n itedS tates, Re s ponde nt

*( Pur s uant

t o Rul e 43( c ) FRAP)

A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D ist ri ct C o u rt for t he D i s t r i ct of N ew J er s ey ( D

. C

. C i vi l A ct i on N o. 04- cv- 02186) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le J e ro m e B . S im a n d le

A r gued N ovember 16, 2005 B efore: B A R R Y and A M B R O , C i rcui t Judg es, and PO L L A K , D i s t r i ct J udge 12 ( fi l ed Febr uar y 14, 2006) J os eph C

. H ohens t ei n, E s qui r e ( A r gued) O r l ow & O r l ow, PC 620 C hes t nut St r eet , Sui t e 656 Phi l adel phi a, PA 19106 C ouns el for Pet i t i oner C h risto p h e r J. C h ristie U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney L o u is J. B izza rri A s s i s t ant U

. S. A t t or ney M at t hew J

. Skahi l l , E s qui r e ( A r gued) U

. S. A t t or ney ’ s O ffi ce 401 M ar ket St r eet P. O

. B ox 2098, 4t h Fl oor C amden, N J 08101 C ouns el for R es pondent

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

A M B R O , C i r cui t J udge D o m in g o A n to n io H ern an d ez p etitio n s u s to ru le, inte r a lia , that the r e pe a l of s us pe ns i on of de port at i on unde r the fo rm er Im m igrati on and N at ionali ty Act ( INA) § 2 44 (a ) has an i m pe rm i s s i bl e r e tr oa c t i ve e ffe c t on a l i e ns l i ke hi m

whoSi nce M ar ch 1, 2003, t he I N S ha s been mer ged i nt o t he 2 D epar t m ent of H om el and Secur i t y , an d i s now cal l ed t he B u rea u o f Im m igrati o n an d C u stom s E n fo rce m en t. H o w ev er, s i nce t he cas e began as an I N S mat t er , w e s hal l cont i nue t o r efe r t o t he I N S. 3 pled gu il ty

to a deporta

ble off ense and w ho wo uld h ave been elig ib le f o r su sp en sio n o f

d ep o rtatio n relief

b u t f o r th e rep eal. Fo r the re as on s provided b el ow , we dis agre e.

I . Fac t s and Pr oc e dur alBac k gr ound Hernandez, a

nati ve and cit iz en of

the Dom inic an Re publ i c , e nt e r e d the Uni t e d St at e s a s a B- 2 “ vi s i t or

for plea sure ” on S epte m

ber 9, 197 4, and w as authoriz ed to st ay in this coun tr

y on ly un ti l Oct ob er

10 , 197 4. Hernandez, h o w ev er, rem ain edin th e U n itedS tates b ey o n dth at d ate wi thout author i z at i on fr om

the I mm i gr at i on and Natura li zati on Servic e ( INS). 2 On June 27 , 198 4, Hernandez pled guilty in New Y ork st at e c ou rt

to ente ri ng a ple a of g uilt y to atte m pted cr im inal po ss es si on of

a c on tr olle d sub st ance (c ocai ne) i n the thir d d eg ree in v io latio n o f

N ew Y o rkP en al L aw § 2 2 0 .1 6 . A s a resu lt, h e w as sen ten cedto f iv e y ears p ro b atio n . On Marc h 1 2, 19 97 , Her

nand ezm ar

ri ed a Unite d Stat es ci ti ze n w ho file d a visa peti ti on on his behal f, wh ic h was a pp roved o n A ug ust 14, 19 97 . I n 1 99 8, Hernandez file d an a ppl i c at i on for

a djus tm e nt

of s t at us ( Form I

- 485) ba s e d on hi s m arr i a ge . I n hi s I

- 485 a ppl i c at i on, He rnande z di d not disc lose his pri or New Y ork con vict ion. Hernandez’s ad j u stm en t o f

statu s ap p licatio n w as d en iedan da N o tice to Ap pear was i ss ued o n Jun e 21, 19 99 , s tart ing h is re m ov al4 proceedi ng s. Th e Notic e t o A pp ear c harged Hernandez as be i ng r e m ovabl e fr om

the Uni t e d St at e s pur s uant t o § 23 7(a) (1)( B) of

the INA , 8 U.S.C. § 1 22 7(a) (1)( B), a s an a l i e n w ho a ft e r

a dm i s s i ona s ano n- i mm i gr ant un de r INA § 10 1(a) (15) has r em ai ned in the Un it ed Stat es long er than p erm ittedb y

o v erstayin g h is tem

p o rary v isa. H ern an d ez ap p earedb ef

o re an Imm ig ratio n Ju d g e (IJ) on De c e m

be r 13, 1999. At

the he ar i ng, he s ought

t o pur s ue hi s a ppl i c at i on for

a djus tm e nt

of s t at us ba s e d on hi s m arr i a ge pu rs uant to INA § 24 5 and , a lt er nati vely , s ou gh t dis cr et ionary re li ef (voiding his r em ov al ) pursuant t o INA § 2 40 A. Th e I J r ul e d that He rnande z wa s i ne l i gi bl e for r e l i e f on both gr ounds be c aus e of hi s 1984 Ne w York c onvi c t i on. He rnande z a

ppe a l e d the I J ’ s de c i s i on t o the Boar d of Im m igrati on Ap peal s ( BIA). I t r em anded the m atte r t o the IJ to clarif y H ern an d ez’s id en tity

an dto ascertain sp ecif

ically w h eth er th e N ew Y o rkco n v ictio n actu ally p ertain edto h im

. Mo re ov er , the BIA p ointed ou t t hat the Go vernm ent had f ailedto ch arg e H ern an d ez w ith th e p rio r co n v ictio n as a b asis o f rem o v al. On Se pt e m

be r 27, 2000, the I Jr

ul e d that the 1984 Ne w Yor k c onvi c t i on wa s for

He rnande z . The ne xt

day the Gove rnm e nt

i s s ue d Addi t i ona l Char ge s of I na dm i s s i bi l i ty

/ De po rt abi l i ty

pur s uant t o INA § 23 7(a) (2)( B)(i ), char ging Hernandez with being rem ov able as an a l i e n w ho ha s be e n c on vi c t e d o f a l aw o r r e gu l at i onof

a St at e , the Uni t e d St at e s , or afor e i gn c ountry

r e l at i ng t o a co n tro lledsub stan ce. On Augus t

13, 2002, ahe ar i ng wa s he l d and, on the basi s of the 19 84 cr im inal conv ic ti on , the IJdete rm ined that Hernandez was i neli gible for the r el ie f h e s ou gh t. Hernandez5 agai n app ea le d to the BIA. Ex ce pting the IJ ’s ruli ng that He r nande z ha d be e n c onvi c t e d of an “ a ggr avat e d fe l ony , ” the BI A a ffi rm e d the I J ’ s de c i s i on. H ern an d ez, w h o w as n o t in IN S cu sto dy , so u g h t a w rit of h a b ea s co rp u s pur s uant

t o 28 U. S. C. § 2241( c ) ( 3) i n the U n itedS tates D istrict C o u rt f o r th e D istrict o f

N ew Jersey

. The Di s tr i c t

Court e nt e rt a i ne d He rnande z ’ s § 2241 pe t i t i on but de ni e d hi m

r e l i e f on the ba s i s that

he fa i l e d t o s at i s fy

the c r i t e r i afor

e nt i t l e m e nt

of the r e l i e f he s ought

. He know s e e ks our r e vi e w. I I . Jur i s di c t i on Unde r the ne w judi c i a l r e vi e w r e gi m e i m pos e d by the Re a l I D Ac t , Pub. L. No. 109- 13, di v. B, 119 St at
. 231 ( 2005) , ape t i t i on for

r e vi e w i s now the s ol e and e xc l us i ve m e ans of judi c i a l r e vi e w for a l l or de r s of r e m ova l e xc e pt th o se issu edp u rsu an t to 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 5 (b )(1 ). See 8 U. S. C. § 1252( a ) ( 5)

. Our

jur i s di c t i on wa s a l s o e nl ar ge d, a s we now have the author i ty

t o c ons i de r

c ons t i t ut i ona l c l a i m s or que s t i ons of l aw r a i s e d i n ac r i m i na l a l i e n’ s pe t i t i on for rev iew . 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (a)(2 )(D ). M o reo v er, all habe as co rp u s pe t i t i ons br ought

by a l i e ns that

we r e pe ndi ng i n the di s tr i c t c ourt s on the dat e the Re a l I D Ac t be c am e e ffe c t i ve ( May 11, 2005) we r e c onve r

t e d t o pe t i t i ons for

r e vi e w and tran sf erredto th e ap p ro p riate co u rts o f ap p eals. See Real ID Ac t , Pub. L. No. 109- 13, di v. B, t i t
. I , § 106( c )

. W e have h eldth at h a b ea s peti ti on s that wer e pending befo re ou r Cou rt o n th e ef f ectiv e d ate o f

th e R eal ID A ct— su ch as th e o n e in this ca se —w er e properl y conv erte d to p et it ions fo r r evie w an dretain edb y

u s. Bo nh om et

rev. Go nzales , 414 F. 3d 442, 446 ( 3d Ci r . 2005)

. I nde e d, we ar e obl i ge d t o va c at e the D istrict C o u rt’s o p in io n an dad dress th e claim s raisedinA lt h o u g h H ern an d ez ’s ap p ea l o f th e D ist ri ct C o u rt ’s 3 den i al of h i s ha bea s pet i t i on has n o w b een c onver t ed i nt o a pet i t i on for r evi ew , our s t andar d of r evi ew r emai ns t he s ame. B on ho m et re , 414 F. 3d 442, 445. “A r evi ew for ‘ cons t i t ut i onal c laim s o r qu e stio n s o f

law ,’ as d e sc rib e d in § 1 0 6 (a )(1 )(A )(iii) of t he R E A L I D A ct , 8 U

. S. C

. § 1252( a) ( 2) ( D ) , m ir rors our pr evi ous l y enunci at ed s t andar d of r evi ew over an al i en’ s habea s pet i t i on. ” K am ara , 420 F. 3d at 2 1 1. T hus , w e r evi ew H ernand ez’s con st i t uti on al and l egal quest i on s de novo

. Id

. 6 H ern ad ez’s habe as peti ti on as if they were pres ente d b efore u s in th e f

irst in stan ce as a p etitio n f o r rev iew

. Ka ma ra v. At tor ne yGe ne ral

of U. S. , 420 F.3d20 2, 21 0 (3dCir. 20 05 ). 3 III. M erits H ern an d ez seek s a ru lin g o n th e m erits o f h is ap p licatio n seek in g to av o idrem o v al f ro m th e U n itedS tates. I n s up po rt

of hi s r e qu e s t

fo r r e l i e f, he pr e s e nt s two ar gum e nt s . Fi r s t , he m a i nt a i ns that he ha s adue pr oc e s s r i ght to a heari ng on the m er it s of h is disc re ti on ar y re li ef applic at ion. Second , he s ub m it s that, beca use he fil ed an ap p licatio n f

o r d iscretio n ary

relief , th e IN S is statu to rily bound t o c ons i de r

i t pur s uant t o form e r

s e c t i on 244( a ) of the IN A

. OnAp r i l 1, 19 97 , “ s us pe ns i onof de po rt at i on ” r e l i e f, INA § 24 4(a) , 8 U.S.C. § 1 25 4(a) , was re peal ed and replac ed b y “can cellatio n o f

rem o v al” relief

, IN A § 2 4 0 A , 8 U .S .C . § 1229b( b) , whe n Congr e s s pa s s e d the I l l e ga l I mm i gr at i on Re form and I mm i gr ant

Re s pons i bi l i ty

Ac t , Pub. L. No. 104- 208, di v. C. , 110 St at
. 3009 ( 1996) ( I I RI RA)

. Unde r the form e r r e l i e f, anon- pe rm ane nt

r e s i de nt a l i e n a ga i ns t

whomA ny cont r ol l ed- s ubs t ance convi ct i on— ot her t han a 4 s i ngl e off

ens e i nvol vi ng p o sse s s i on for one’ s ow n us e of 30 g ra m s o r l e s s o f

m a ri ju a n a

— is a d i s q u a lif

y in g c ri m e . See 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 2 2 9 b (b)(1 )(C ) (cit ing 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 2 2 7 ).

7 de port at i on pr oc e e di ngs on m os t c r i m i na l gr ounds ha d be gun could app ly

fo r s uspension o f d eportati on , provided h e had be e n phy s i c a l l y

pr e s e nt c ont i nuous l y

i n the Uni t e d St at e s for t e n y e ar s i mm e di at e l y

fol l owi ng the c r i m i na l a c t c ons t i t ut i ng the gr ounds for

de port at i on, ha d good m or a l c har a c t e r , and c oul d s how that

de port at i on woul d work as e ve r e har ds hi p on h im o r o n certain U n itedS tates citizen relativ es. See INA § 2 4 4 (a), 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 4 (a) (rep ealed1 9 9 6 ). B y co n trast, “c ance ll at ion o f rem ov al ” provides for rel ie f f rom re m ov al whe r e an non- pe rm ane nt r e s i de nt a l i e n ( 1) ha s be e n pr e s e nt in the Unite d S tate s c on ti nu ou sl y fo r t en years , ( 2) has had
“ good m or a l c har a c t e r ” dur i ng that pe r i od, ( 3) ha s no conv ic ti on s for disquali fying cri m es , and (4) has a s po use, 4 par e nt , or c hi l d who i s aU. S. c i t i z e n or l awful a l i e n and for wh om the a pp li cant’s re m ov al wo uld lea d to “exce ptional an dex trem ely

u n u su al h ard sh ip .” IN A § 2 4 0 A , 8 U .S .C . § 12 29 b(b)(1). A . D u e P

ro cess As not e d, He rnande z ar gue s that due pr oc e s s de m ands h e b e p erm ittedto ap p ly

f o r d iscretio n ary

relief seek in g to avoid rem ov al from

the Unite d S tate s. Th e procedural co m p o n en t o f th e F if th A m en d m en t’s D u e P ro cess C lau se p ro tects ag ain st th e d ep riv atio n o f lif e, lib erty , o r p ro p ertyI n Dums c hat , th e S u p re m e C o u rt h e ld th a t a s tate in m a te 5 d o e s n o t en

jo y a c o n stitu tio n a llyp ro te c te d lib e rty in ter e st in h a v in g h is o r h e r se n ten c e c o m m u te d , e v e n w h e re th e sta te
“ c o n sis te n tly ” c o m m u ted th e se n ten c e s o f in m a tes in “ m o st” cas es . 452 U

. S. at 464- 65. T he C o u rt reas oned t hat “a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l e n t i t l e me n t c a n n o t ‘ b e c r e a t e d

- - a s i f by esto p p el--m ere ly b ec au se a w h o ll y an d ex p ressly d iscreti o n ary s t at e pr i vi l ege has been gr ant ed gener ous l y i n t he pas t
. ’ ” Id

. at 465 ( quot i n g Lei s v. F l ynt , 4 3 9 U

. S

. 4 3 8 , 4 4 4 n . 5 (19 7 9 )). Inst ead, accordi ng t o the C ou rt , “[i ]n t erm s of t he D ue P rocess C l aus e, a . . . fel on’ s expec t at i on t hat a l aw fu ll y i m pos ed 8 wi thout “ due pr oc e s s of l aw. ” U. S. Cons t
. am e nd. V. The n ecessary f irst step in ev alu atin g an y p ro cedu ral du e p ro cess cl ai m is dete rm ining w hether

a c on st it utionall y protec te d in terest h as b een im

p licated

. H ern an d ez is co rrect in co n ten d in g th at alien s w ith in th e U n itedS tates m ay

n o t b e d ep riv edo f

lib erty o r p ro p erty w ith o u t du e p ro cess. Mathe ws v . Di az , 426 U. S. 67, 77 (1 9 7 6 ); Sh au gh ness

y v . Unite d S tates e

x rel. Mez ei , 345 U. S. 20 6, 21 2 (19 53 ) ( “I t i s true that a li ens who have on ce pass ed throug h o ur gate s, even il le gall y , m ay be expell ed on ly

afte r p ro ceed in g s co n f

o rm in g to trad itio n al stan d ard s o f f airn ess e nc om pa s s e d i n due pr oc e s s of l aw. ” )

. But , l i ke othe r s , a l i e ns m u st in th e f

irst in stan ce p o ssess a lib erty o r p ro p erty

in terest. S ee B d. o f R eg en ts v. R o th , 4 0 8 U .S . 5 6 4 , 5 6 9 -7 1 (1 9 7 2 ). Al i e ns who s e e k onl y

di s c r e t i onary

r e l i e f fr om

de port at i on h av e n o co n stitu tio n al rig h t to receiv e th at relief

. C f. Conne c t i c ut

Bd. of Pardons v . Dums c hat , 452 U. S. 458, 465 ( 1981)

. Rathe r , the abi l i ty of thos e a l i e ns t o r e m a i n i n the 5s ent ence w i l l be comm ut ed or t hat he w i l l be par d oned i s no m or e s ubs t ant i al t han an i nm at e’ s expec t at i on, for exampl e, t hat h e w i l l n o t b e t r a n s f

e r r e d t o a n o t h e r p r i s o n ; i t i s s i m p l y a uni l at er al hope. ” Id

. ( i n t e r n a l f o o t n o t e o mi t t e d )

. Th e s a me anal y s i s appl i es her e. O f c o u rse, t o co n d it ion eli g ibil it y fo r t h e d iscreti o n ary 6 pr i vil ege of s us pens i on of depor t at i on on s om e i r r at i onal or i nvi di ous char act er i s t i c— e. g. , gender , or age, or pol i t i cal or rel i gious affi l i at i on

— w ou l d p ose con st i t uti on al con cerns. M o reo v er, H ern an d ez’s a t tem p t to arg u e th at a 7 c ons t i t ut i ona l i njury s t e m s not fr om be i ng de ni e d s us pe ns i on of depo rt at ion, bu t from being re nd er ed inel igible to be consider ed for s us pe ns i on, fa i l s . Thi s “ ar gum e nt dr aws adi s t i nc t i on wi tho ut ac on s t i t ut i on a l di ff

e r e nc e . W he r e no de pr i vat i onof a l i be rty or pr ope rty i nterest ha s oc c urr e d, no vi ol at i on of procedural due proces s has occurr ed.” Id

. 9 Un it ed Stat es is a m atte r of “perm is si on and toler ance .” H a risia d es v. S h a ugh n essy , 342 U.S. 58 0, 58 6-87 (195 2). I t as an “act o f

g race” th at, lik e a p resid en tial p ard o n , is exte nd ed in the Att orney

General ’s “unf

ette re d d is cr et ion.” I NS v

. Y ang , 519 U. S. 26, 30 ( 1996) ( i nt e rna l quot at i ons om i tt e d)

. I n thi s c on t e xt , He rnand e z i s no t de pr i ve d o f a lib erty o r p ro p erty

in terest. See Te

f e l v . Re no , 180 F. 3d 6 12 86 , 130 1 (11 th Cir. 19 99 ). 7 B . R etro a ctivity Hernandez al te rnat ivel y

ar gu es on appeal that I I RI RA ’ s r e pe a l of

s us pe ns i onof

de po rt at i on , fo rm e r

INA §10 244( a ) , ha s an i m

pe rm i s s i bl e r e tr oa c t i ve e ffe c t
. Re l yi ng on INS v. St. Cyr , 533 U. S. 289 ( 2001) , andPo nn ap ula v. A sh cro ft , 3 7 3 F .3 d4 8 0 (3 dC ir. 2 0 0 4 ), H ern an d ez essen tially m ain tain s th at th e retro activ ity an aly sis ap p licab le to IIR IRA ’s rep eal o f

th e f o rm er IN A § 2 1 2 (c) is inte rc hang ea

ble with the anal y si s t o b e a pp li ed to the r epea l of INA § 24 4(a) and, as a r es ult, he is enti tl ed to § 2 44 (a ) su sp en sio n o f

d ep o rtatio n . Th e Gov er

nm ent, on the other

hand , m ai ntai ns that al ie ns such as Hernandez, who are i n the Un it ed Stat es illeg ally , en

j o y n o rig h t to co n tin u e liv in g h ere an d , in en terin g a g u ilty

p lea to a crim in al ch arg e, d idn o t alter th eir c our s e i n the c r i m i na l jus t i c e s y s t e m i n r e l i anc e on the av ailab ility

o f § 2 4 4 (a) relief

. In o th er w o rd s, b ecau se He r nande z ha d no r e a s onabl e r e l i anc e on the ava i l abi l i ty of s us pe ns i on of de port at i on whe n he e nt e r e d hi s gui l ty pl e aand r e m a i ne d i n the Uni t e d St at e s i l l e ga l l y , I I RI RA’ s r e pe a l of su sp en sio n o f

d ep o rtatio n d o es n o t w o rkan im p erm issib le retro activ e ef

f ect. Un der form er

§ 2 12 (c ) of the INA, 8 U .S.C. § 11 82 (c ) (r epea le d 1 99 6), deporta

ble a li ens who had accr

ued seven y ears of lawf ul perm anent r es idence in the Unite d S tate s c oul d r e que s t

di s c r e t i onary

r e l i e f fr om

de port at i on by

ar gui ng that the e qui t i e s we i ghe d i n favor of the i r r e m a i ni ng i n the Un it ed Stat es . Even an ali en depo rt able beca use he had been co n v ictedo f

an ag g rav atedf

elo n y , se e 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 7 (a)(2 )(A )(iii), w as elig ib le f o r th is d iscretio n ary

relief if h e serv eda term

o f im p riso n m en t less th an f

iv e y ears. See 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 8 2 (c). T h ere w as also a stro n g lik elih o o dth at th is re li ef wo uld b e granted; i nd ee d, the Att orney General grante d it in o v er h alf

o f all cases in w h ich it w as so u g h t. See St. Cyr ,11 5 3 3 U .S . at 2 9 6 & n .5 . M o reo v er, th e relief w as p red ictab ly g ran tedw h ere certain f

acto rs w ere p resen t, in clu d in g f am ily ties w ith in th e U n itedS tates, resid en ce o f lo n g du ratio n in th is co u n try , ev id en ce o f

h ard sh ip to th e imm ig ran t’s f am ily as a resu lt o f

d ep o rtatio n , an da stab le h isto ry o f em p lo y m en t. S ee In re M

a rin , 1 6 I & N D ec. 5 8 1 , 5 8 4 -8 5 (B IA 1 9 7 8 ). Sect ion 3 04 (b) of IIRIRA repeal ed § 2 12 (c ) r el ie f enti re ly , r epla ci ng it

(a s noted) with a procedure ca ll ed “c ance ll at ion o f rem ov al ,” se e 8 U. S. C. § 1229b, and prov iding the re vise d f

orm of re li ef is no t avail able to an a l i e n c onvi c t e d of any

a ggr avat e d fe l ony . The de fi ni t i on of
“ a ggr avat e d fe l ony” wa s r e tr oa c t i ve l y e xpande d t o i nc l ude do ze ns m ore off

ense s, incl ud ing m is dem eano r andlow-le vel f elo n y o f f en ses. See 8 U .S.C. § 11 01 (a )( 43 ). Th e pra ct ic al ef f ect o f th e rep eal o f

§ 2 1 2 (c) relief

, in co n j u n ctio n w ith se vera l other

st at utory am endm ents , i s that a

far l ar ger nu m be r of i mm i gr ant s ar e no w r e m ov abl e un de r the ne w l aw, whi l e am uc h s m a l l e r

num be r ar e e l i gi bl e for

any form of relief f ro m rem o v al. I n INS v. St. Cyr , 533 U.S. at 32 6, the Sup re m e Cou rt he l d that di s c r e t i onary

r e l i e f unde r

form e r § 212( c ) “ r e m a i ns avai la ble for al ie ns . . . who se conv ic ti on s wer e obtai ned throug h p le a a gree m ents and w ho

. . . wou ld have been e l i gi bl e for

§ 212( c ) r e l i e f a t

the t i m e of the i r

pl e aunde r

the l aw the n i n e ffe c t
. ” The Court wa s a s ke d t o de t e rm i ne wh ether I IRIRA sec ti on 30 4(b) applie d retroac ti vely . After concluding that

Co ng re ss did n ot prov ide a suff ic ie ntly cl ear c omm and wi th r e s pe c t

t o the t e m

por a l r e a c h of the r e pe a l of fo rm er § 2 12 (c ) by

II RIRA se ct ion 3 04 (b), the Cou rt applie d the ne xt s t e p und e r

the fam i l i ar

pr i nc i pl e s of Landgraf

v . USIIn d e c id in g w h e th e r th e re p e a l o f IN A § 2 1 2 (c ) sh o u ld 8 be appl i ed r et r oact i vel y , t he S upr eme C our t appl i ed t he t w o- s t ep anal y s i s i t had pr evi ous l y s et out i n Landgraf

. See St

. C

yr , 533 U

. S

. at 3 1 5 -26

. U n d er Landgraf , t he fi r s t s t ep t o deci de w het her a s t at ut e has a r et r oact i ve ef fec t i s “t o as cer t ai n w het her C ongr es s ha[s ] di r ect ed w i t h t he re qui s i t e cl ar i t y t hat t he l aw be appl i ed r et r os pect i vel y . ” Id

. at 3 1 6 (i n terna l ci tat ion s o m it ted). T he s econd s t ep of t he L a n d g ra f anal y s i s i s d ec iding w het her a p p lyin g th e sta tu te r e tro a c tiv e lyh a s a n im p e rm iss ib le e f f e c t. Id

. at 321.

12 F ilm P ro d u cts , 511 U.S. 24 4 (19 94 ), to dete rm ine whether 8 th e rep eal h adan im

p erm issib le retro activ e ef f ect. Landgraf c at a l oge d ahi s t ory

of Supr e m e Court

pr e c e de nt s e s t abl i s hi ng a “ pres um

ption against

st at utory re tr oact ivit

y ,” id . at 2 7 0 , in th e ab sen ce o f

a clear co mm an df

ro m C o n g ress. A statu te will be im

perm is si bly

re tr oact ive when it att ac hes new le gal co n sequ en ces to p rio r ev en ts b ecau se its ap p licatio n “w o u ld im pair ri gh ts a party

po ss es se d w hen h e a ct ed, i ncre as e a p arty ’s liab ility

f o r p ast co n du ct, o r im

p o se n ew du ties w ith re spec t t o transac ti on s a lr ea dy com plet ed.” Id

. at

280. The qu es ti on wh ether a

new statute atta ches new legal consequences t o p ri or cond uct “ dem ands a c omm on se nse, func t i ona l judgm e nt ” that “ s houl d be i nform e d and gui de d by ‘fam il iar c on si derati on s of f ai r notic e, re as on able re li ance , and settl ed expectati on s. ’” M a rtin v. H a dix , 527 U. S. 343, 357- 58 ( 1999) ( quot i ng Landgraf , 511 U.S. at

27 0). I n St. Cyr , the Court

c onc l ude d that

the r e tr oa c t i ve applic at ion o f IIRIRA sect ion 3 04 (b) wou ld have anW e have t aken a m or e expa ns i ve vi ew t han s ever al of 9 our s i s t er ci r cui t s on t hi s issue

. F o r i ns t ance , t he C our t s of A ppeal s for the Second and Four t h C i r cui t s have c onfi ned S t. Cy r to th e p lea -a g re e m e n t co n tex t o n th e u n d e rsta n d in g th a t a qui d pr o quo is re q u ir e d

. S e e S w a b y v . A sh c ro

ft , 357 F. 3d 156, 1 6 1 -6 2 (2 d C ir. 2 0 0 4 ); Ra n k i n e v . Re no , 3 1 9 F. 3d 93, 100 ( 2d C ir. 2 0 0 3 ); C ham bers v. R eno , 3 0 7 F

. 3 d 2 8 4 , 2 9 0 -9 1 (4th C ir

. 2002)

. O t her cour t s of appea l s have a l s o l i m i t ed St

. C yr ’s r et r oact i vi t y hol di ng t o t he pl ea- bar gai n cont ex t w i t hout s peci fi cal l y i nvoki ng t he q u i d p r o q u o l a n g u a g e f

ro m it. See Mo n ten e g ro v . A sh c ro

ft , 3 5 5 F

. 3 d 1 0 3 5 (7th C ir

. 2 0 0 4 ) ( per cur i am ); Di a s v . I

NS , 3 1 1 F

. 3 d 4 5 6 (1st C ir

. 2 0 0 2 ); A rm e n d a riz -Mo n to

y a v . S o n c h ik , 2 9 1 F

. 3 d 1 1 1 6 (9th C ir

. 2 0 0 2 ); B ro o k s v . A sh c ro

ft , 283 F

. 3d 1268 ( 11t h C i r . 2002)

. A r el at ed ar gum ent advanc ed byt he G over nm ent i n t hes e ca s es i s t hat t he i m m i gr ant has “r ol l ed t he di ce” by goi ng t o t r i al and t her eby 13 im p erm issib le retro activ e ef f ect o n alien s– su ch as S t. Cy r –who ha d pl e d gui l ty

pr i or t o the r e pe a l of § 212( c )

. The Co urt highlighted the qui d pr o quo of the c ri m inalplea a g r e e m e n t , an dr e a s o n e dth at b e c au s e a l i e n s l i k e S t
. C yr a l m os t c e rt a i nl y r e l i e d on the l i ke l i hood of r e c e i vi ng d iscretio n ary

relief in d ecid in g w h eth er to f

o rg o th eir rig h t to atr i a l , the e l i m i nat i on of any pos s i bi l i ty

of § 212( c ) r e l i e f by IIR IRA h adan o b v io u s an dsig n if ican t retro activ e ef

f ect. St. Cyr , 533 U.S. at

32 2 (“I n exchang e for som e per ce ived b en ef it, d ef en d an ts w aiv e sev eral o f

th eir co n stitu tio n al rig h ts . . . an dg ran t th e g o v ern m en t n u m ero u s tan g ib le b en ef its.”). W e r e c e nt l y

e xt e nde d St. Cyr ’s im

p erm issib le retro activ ity

an aly sis to alien s w h o elect to g o to trial. 9f o rf e ite d a n y c la im to c e rt a in ty. See, e. g. , C ha m bers , 307 F. 3d at 291- 92. 14 P o n n a p u la v. A sh cro

ft , 3 7 3 at 4 9 1 (statin g th at “th e co u rts that have he l d that

I I RI RA’ s r e pe a l of § 212( c ) r e l i e f i s not im p erm issib ly

retro activ e w ith resp ect to alien s w h o w en t to tr i a l

. . . have e r e c t e d t oo hi gh abarr i e r t o tr i gge r i ng the p resu m p tio n ag ain st retro activ ity”). P o n n a p u la invo lved an a l i e n w h o h a db e e n i n d i c t e db y aN e w Y o rks t at e g r an dj u ry, a l ong wi th s e ve r a l othe r

de fe ndant s , for

gr and l ar c e ny

i n the fi r s t de gr e e , N. Y. Pe na l Law § 155. 42, and fa l s i fyi ng bu s i ne s s r e c or ds i n the fi r s t de gr e e , N. Y. Pe na l Law § 1 7 5 .1 0 . 3 7 3 F .3 dat 4 8 3 . S ub sequ en t to in d ictm en t, Po nn apula andthe Manhatt an Distri ct Attorney ’s Of

fice engaged in p le a negotiati on s. Po nn apula c on si dere d a plea o f f er an dth e imm ig ratio n co n sequ en ces o f p lead in g g u ilty vers us go ing to tri al . His coun se l a dv is ed him that , i f h e was c onvi c t e d, he woul d ve ry l i ke l y r e c e i ve the m i ni m

um sen ten ce o f

o n ly o n e to th ree y ears im

p riso n m en t, w h ich is l e s s th an th e f

i v e y e ar s n e c e s s ary

t o d i s qu a l i f

y an a l i e n f

r o m § 21 2(c) re li ef. Accordingly , Pon napu la re as on ably

beli eved that , e ve n i f he we r e c onvi c t e d of afe l ony a ft e r tr i a l , he woul d s t i l l l i ke l y

be e l i gi bl e for

har ds hi p r e l i e f fr om d ep o rtatio n p u rsu an t to f

o rm er § 2 1 2 (c). In relian ce o n th is a dvi c e , Ponna

pul ade c i de d t o t

urn down the m i s de m e anor o f f er an dp ro ceed edto trial. H e w as co n v ictedo f b o th co u n ts i n the i ndi c tm e nt

and s e nt e nc e d t o the m i ni m um t e rm of im p riso n m en t –o n e to th ree y ears. Af te r Pon napu la

was a ll ow ed ou t of p ri son o n w ork re le as e, the INS file d a deta iner and w ar rant fo r a re m ov al15 he ar i ng. At

the c onc l us i on of ahe ar i ng, an i mm i gr at i on j u d g e f o u n dP o n n ap u la rem o v ab le f ro m th e U n itedS tates. O n ap p eal, th e B IA af

f irm ed , h o ld in g th at St. C

yr c oul d not b e ex ten d edb ey o n dd ef

en d an ts w h o h adp lead edg u ilty

. On re view to ou r Cou rt , t he Go vernm ent argued that Po nn apula’ s r etroac ti vity cl ai m fail ed because St. Cyr

rests un iquely on the e xist ence of

the qui d pr o quo of

cr im inal plea a gr e e m e nt s . I nde e d, thi s wa s the vi e w a dopt e d by the Se c ond Ci r c ui t whe n fa c e d wi th the s am e i s s ue i n Rank i ne v . Re no , 319 F. 3d 93, 100 ( 2d Ci r . 2003)

. The r e , i t l a i d out the S up rem e C o u rt’s m o d ern retro activ ity d o ctrin e, see id

. at 98- 99, and the n e xpl a i ne d that the pe t i t i one r s ’ “ c hoi c e t o go t o tr i a l pu t s [the m ] o n d i ff e r e nt fo ot i ng [f

r om St

. Cy r ] i n two cr ucia l r es pect s. ” Id . at 9 9

. F irst, n o n e o f

th ese p etitio n ers d etrim en tally changed h is po si ti on in re li ance on continued e l i gi bi l i ty for § 212( c ) r e l i e f. Unl i ke a l i e ns who e nt e r e d pl e a s , the pe t i t i one r s m a de no de c i s i on t o abandon any

r i ght s and a dm i t

gui l t
- the r e by imm ed iately

ren d erin g th em selv es d ep o rtab le-in re li ance on the avail abil it y of the r el ie f o ff

er ed prior t o IIRIRA. Th e pet it ioners deci ded i ns t e a d t o go t o tr i a l , ade c i s i on that , s t andi ng a l one , ha d no i m

pa c t on the i r i mm i gr at i on s t at us . Unl e s s and unt i l the y we r e c onvi c t e d of th eir u n d erlyin g crim es, th e p etitio n ers co u ld not be de port e d. * * * * * Se c ond, the pe t i t i one r s have poi nt e d t o no co n du ct o n th eir p art th at ref lects an in ten tio n to pres er ve thei r e li gibili ty

fo r r el ie f u nd er

§16 2 1 2 ( c ) b y g o i n g t o tr i a l

. I f th e y h a dp l e dg u i l ty, p etitio n ers w o u ldh av e p articip atedin th e qu id pro q uo re lati on ship, i n w hich a gre at er e xpe c t at i on of r e l i e f i s pr ovi de d i n e xc hange for fo rgoing a tri al , that gave r is e t o the re li ance i nt e r e s t e m pha s i z e d by

the Supr e m e Court

i n St. Cyr . As the Co urt m ade c le ar , i t was that r e l i anc e , and the c ons e que nt c hange of i mm i gr at i on s t at

us , that pr oduc e d the im p erm issib le retro activ e ef f ect o f IIR IRA

. He r e , pe t i t i one r s ne i the r

di d any thi ng nor s urr e nde r e d any

r i ght s that

woul d gi ve r i s e t o a co m p arab le relian ce in terest. Id . at 9 9 -1 0 0 (citatio n o m itted ). W e r e je c t e d thi s r at i on a l e fo r

thr e e r e a s on s . Fi r s t , we not e d that

the “ Se c ond Ci r c ui t ’ s l a c k of e m pha s i s on the pr es umpt i on a ga i ns t

r e tr oa c t i vi ty

i s i n c ons i de r abl e t e ns i on w ith th e S up rem e C o u rt’s co n sisten t treatm en t o f retro activ ity anal y si s. ” P o n n a

p u la , 3 7 3 F .3 dat 4 9 0 (em p h asis in or i gi na l )

. I nde e d, the Se c ond Ci r c ui t ’ s a ppr oa c h ha d the e ffe c t of tr e at i ng Landgraf

as estab lish in g a p resu m p tio n in f av o r o f retro activ e ap p licatio n . Id . This wou ld be wron g, as the Supr e m e Court

ha s he l d e xpl i c i t l y

that afe de r a l c ourt

of ap p eals erredb y

co n clu d in g th at Landgraf c ont a i ne d a
“ s tr ong pr e s um

pt i on in fa vo r o

f re tr oact ivit

y .” Hu gh es Airc raft Co . v . Unite d S tates e

x rel. Schum er , 520 U. S. 939, 950 ( 1997) ( s t at i ng “ [t ]he Ni nth Ci r c ui t s i m pl y m i s r e a d our de c i s i on i n Landgraf

, for the only

‘pre sum ption’ m enti on ed i n that opi ni on i s age ne r a l pr e s um pt i on a ga in st re tr oact ivit

y”) (e m ph as is in original ). Second , we obser

ved that the Rank

i ne pass age c it ed17 ab o v e d iscu ssin g a d etrim en tal ch an g e in p o sitio n ap p ears to requ ire actu al relian ce b y th e p arty seek in g to av o id re tr oact ive a

pp li cati on despit e the fact that the Sup re m e Cou rt has never re qu ir ed ac tual re li ance in any ca se in the L a n d

gra f lin e. Id . at 4 8 9 . We n o tedth at “[ t] h e lik elih o o dth at th e p arty be for e the c ourt

di d or di d not i n fa c t r e l y on the pr i or

s t at e of the l aw is no t ger

m ane t o the qu es ti on of

re tr oact ivit

y .” Id . at 49 3 (concluding that

“the Suprem e Cou rt

has avo ided an ‘actu al relian ce’ f

o rm u latio n in f

av o r o f a ‘reaso n ab le re li ance ’ form

ulat ion in its re tr oact ivit

y anal y si s” ). “Rather, c ourt s ar e t o c onc e ntr at e on the gr oup t o whos e c onduc t the s t at ut e i s a ddr e s s e d – i n L a n d gra f it w as em

p lo y ers sub

j ect to Ti t l e VI I ; i n H

ugh es A ircra

ft it w as g o v ern m en t co n tracto rs; i n H a dixit was att orney s per fo rm ing p ri son reform m oni t or i ng s e rvi c e s ; i n St. C yr i t wa s a l i e ns who a c c e pt e d a plea agre em ent – with a vie w to d et er m ining w hether

re li ance was r ea sonable. ” Id . I n sum , “ [t]h e Landgraf lin e . . . estab lish es th at a ch an g e in law can b e f o u n dim p erm issib ly r e tr oa c t i ve wi thout

e s t abl i s hi ng that

s om e ( or a l l ) m e m be r s of the gr oup a ffe c t e d by

the c hange i n l aw r e l i e d on the pr i or st at e of the law.” Id

. Fi na l l y , we e xpr e s s e d our c onc e rn wi th the Se c ond Ci r c ui t ’ s obje c t i on that

“ pe t i t i one r s have poi nt e d t o no c onduc t on the i r part that r e fl e c t s an i nt e nt i on t o pr e s e rve thei r e li gibili ty

fo r r el ie f u nd er

§ 2 12 (c )” beca

use that s t at e m e nt s ugge s t s that

the party s e e ki ng t o avoi d r e tr oa c t i ve a ppl i c at i on be ar s an e vi de nt i ary bur de n, anothe r

r e qui r e m e nt nowhe r e t o be found i n L a n d gra f o r its p ro g en y . Id . at 4 9 0

. Re l yi ng he avi l y

on the s e thr e e poi nt s of c ont e nt i on wi th the Se c ond Ci r c ui t , we c onc l ude d that ade fe ndant

who go es to tr ia l bel ie ving that his opp ortunity

to se ek § 2 12 (c )18 r e l i e f i s s e c ur e i s a s e qua l l y di s r upt e d i n hi s r e a s onabl e and se tt le d exp ec tati on s a s i s a defend ant who ac ce pts a plea b eliev in g it to co n f

er su ch a b en ef

it. Id

. at 4 9 6

. A c c o r d i n g l y, Ponna pul awa s e nt i t l e d t o a

ppl y for di s c r e t i onary

wi thhol di ng o f d ep o rtatio n u n d er f

o rm er § 2 1 2 (c). Id

. T h e G o v ern m en t co n ten d s th at St. C yr and P o n n a

p u la d o n o t a p p l y t o a l i e n s s u c h a s H e rn an d e zb e c au s e , u n l i k e h i m, the a l i e ns r e pr e s e nt e d i n St. C yr and P o n n a

p u la h a ds o me reaso n ab le relian ce in th e av ailab ility o f d iscretio n ary

relief

. Th at is , bec ause the St. C

yr and P o n n a

p u la al ie ns had ac cr ued seven y ears of

lawf ul perm anent r es idence , they were el igible to se ek § 2 12 (c ) r el ie f at the ti m e of their plea or ju ry tr ia l. Mo re ov er , tho se al ie ns were awar e that a cr im inal conv ic ti on , e it

her via a guilty plea or ju ry tr ia l, was not an autom at ic bar t o their

applic at ion. Indeed, a li ens who pled gu il ty or were c on vict ed at

tr ia l andse ntence d to les s than f iv e y ears im

p riso n m en t still co u ldap p ly f o r § 2 1 2 (c) relief

. Th us, while the St. C

yr and P o n n a

p u la alien s alteredth eir c our s e s i n the c r i m i na l jus t i c e s y s t e m s e e ki ng t o pr e s e rve el igibil it y fo r dis cr et ionary

withho lding o f d eportati on , s uch re as on able re li ance is no t pre se nt fo r a li ens s uch as He r nand e z wh o p l e d g ui l ty

pr i or t o the r e pe a l of

fo rm e r INA § 2 4 4 (a). As pr e vi ous l y

di s c us s e d, unde r

the now- r e pe a l e d § 244( a ) , the Att orne y

Ge ne r a l c oul d s us pe nd de port at i on, and a djus t the s t at us t o that of an a l i e n l awful l y

a dm i tt e d for pe rm ane nt

r e s i de nc e , for

anon- pe rm ane nt

r e s i de nt a l i e n who a ppl i e d t o the AG for

s us pe ns i on of de port at i on and subsequent to his or her

depo rt able of

fense had been phy s i c a l l y

pr e s e nt i n the Uni t e d St at e s for

ac ont i nuous pe r i od of not

l e s s than t e n y e ar s fol l owi ng the c omm i s s i on ofH e re , the G o v e rn m e n t is w r o n g . T h e re is n o d isp u te 10 t hat pr i or t o hi s 1984 gui l t y pl ea, H er nandez ’ s el i gi bi l i t y w as g o v e r n e d b y “ s u s p e n s i o n o f d e p o r t a t i o n ” r e l i e f , f o r me r I NA § 244( a) , not “ca ncel l ati o n of r emoval r el i ef” as now defi ned by I N A § 240A

. B eca us e H er nandez had no convi ct i ons and had been i n t he U ni t ed St at es s i nce 1974, he w as el igi bl e t o appl y for r el i ef pr i or to h is 1984 gui l t y pl ea ( for w hi ch he w oul d have 19 the deporta

ble a ct . Such an ali en m

ust a dd it ionall y

prov e that he or s he ha s be e n ape r s on of good m or a l c har a c t e r for the en tire ten -y ear p erio dan dth at h e o r sh e is so m eo n e w h o se d ep o rtatio n w o u ldresu lt in ex cep tio n al an dex trem ely unus ua l har ds hi p pe r s ona l l y or t o hi s or he r s pous e , par e nt

or c hi l d who i s aUni t e d St at e s c i t i z e n or l awful pe rm ane nt resid en t. 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 4 (a). Sim ply st at ed, und er

the pre -199 6 statutory

sc hem e, w h en an alien su ch as H ern an d ez p ledg u ilty to a d ep o rtab le of fense, he had to rem ai n in the Un it ed Stat es fo r an additi on al peri odof

te n y ears un der the abov e- desc ri bed t e rm s and c ondi t i ons be for e he woul d e ve n be e l i gi bl e for d iscretio n ary

relief . If th at alien w as serv edw ith an O rd er to Show Caus e or

aNot i c e t o Appe ar

pr i or t o the c om

pl e t i on of the t e n- y e ar

pe r i od, he ne c e s s ar i l y

woul d be de port abl e and i ne l i gi bl e for

a ppl i c at i on of § 244( a ) r e l i e f. The r e for e , the Gove rnm e nt

m a i nt a i ns , a l i e ns i n the gr oup r e pr e s e nt e d by He r nande z do not

have ar e a s onabl e r e l i anc e on the avai la bili ty of suspensi on of

depo rt at ion w hen enter ing a plea of gu il ty and alt er ing their

course in the c ri m inal ju st ic e sy stem b ecau se, p rio r to en try

o f su ch a p lea, th e alien w o u ld not have be e n e l i gi bl e for

§ 244( a ) r e l i e f and woul d be 10neede d t o s ho w good m or al char act er and s ever e har ds hi p) u n d er § 2 4 4 (a). 20 in elig ib le f

o r § 2 4 4 (a) relief

f o r an ad d itio n al ten y ears. He rnande z c ount e r s that

the gr oup he r e pr e s e nt s – pe opl e who pl e d gui l ty

pr i or t o ac hange i n the l aw and who were el igible fo r s uspension rel ie f p ri or to that change – h ad r e a s on t o be l i e ve that

s us pe ns i on r e l i e f wa s ava i l abl e . Ci t i ng Landgraf , 511 U. S. at

269, he s ubm i t s that , whe the r the rep eal o f § 2 4 4 (a) to o kaw ay

h is statu to rily

v estedrig h ts, it certain ly “attach e[ d ] a n ew d isab ility” to h is p ast actio n s, whi c h c ons t i t

ut e s ac hange i n the l aw no di ffe r e nt than the c hange e ffe c t e d on the a l i e ns i n St. C yr and P o n n a

p u la

. For the r ea sons prov ided below, we disa gree . As as t art i ng poi nt

and s i m i l ar

t o the c onc l us i on r e a c he d by

the Supr e m e Court

i n St. Cyr , we hold that I I RI RA doe s not

s t at e wi th s uffi c i e nt

c l ar i ty that i t s r e pe a l of § 2 4 4 (a) su sp en sio n o f

d ep o rtatio n relief

is in ten d edto ap p ly t o an a l i e n i n He rnande z ’ s pos i t i on, s uc h that i t m us t be a ppl i e d e ve n i f i t s ope r at i on i s r e tr oa c t i ve . Li ke the s e c t i on of I I RI RA r e pe a l i ng § 212( c ) s us pe ns i on of de port at i on r e l i e f, the s t at

ut ory pr ovi s i on – s t at i ng m e r e l y , “ s tr i ke s e c t i on 2 4 4 (8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 4 )” –d o es n o t “ex p ressly p rescrib e [ its ] prop er re ac h.” Landgraf

, 511 U. S. at

280. Be c aus e the st at ute does not cl earl y

st at e that i t i s t o b e a

pp li ed re tr oact ivel y , we procee d to the se condst ep of the Landgraf an aly sis. To prevai l t

here , Her nand ezm ust s ho w that the re peal of s us pe ns i on of de port at i on ha s ar e tr oa c t i ve e ffe c t on a l i e ns lik e h im w h o p ledg u ilty

to a co n tro lledsub stan ce o f f en se21 pr i or t o the c hange i n the l aw and we r e e l i gi bl e for s us pe ns i onof

de po rt at i onr e l i e f p r i or

t o that c hang e . As de t a i l e d above , the Court i n St. Cyr

not e d that

i n de t e rm i ni ng “w h eth er a p articu lar statu te acts retro activ ely , [ th e C o u rt] s houl d be i nform e d and gui de d by fam i l i ar c ons i de r at i ons of fair no ti ce , r ea sonable r el iance, and settl ed expectati on s. ” Id

. at 32 1 (inte rnal qu otat ions om itte d). Speci fica ll y , the Co urt consider ed the ple a bar gain ente re d b y St. Cy r, and asked w h e th e r th e a p p l i c at i o n o f

I I R I RA “ ‘ att a c h e s an e w d i s ab i l i ty, in re spec t t o transac ti on s or c on si derati on s a lr ea dy past .’ ” Id

. ( quot i ng Landgraf

, 511 U.S. at

26 9). I n a ppl yi ng the s e c ond L a n d

gra f s t e p, and ba s e d on re as on ing sim il ar

to that pres ente d b y

the Gov er

nm ent her e, two c i r c ui t

c ourt s have de ni e d c l a i m s r e l at i ng t o s us pe ns i on o f d ep o rtatio n elig ib ility

th at are relev an t to o u r an aly sis. See K a ra g eo rg io u s v. A sh cro

ft , 374 F.3d15 2 (2dCir. 20 04 ); Jim en ez-A n g eles v. A sh cro ft , 2 9 1 F .3 d5 9 4 (9 th C ir. 2 0 0 2 ). I n Karage or

gi ous , father andson ali ens pre se nted them se lves t o the INS by

fi l i ng an a

ppl i c at i on for

s us pe ns i on of depo rt at ion. 37 4 F .3d at 154 . I nd ee d, the pet it ioners file d the i r a ppl i c at i on on Mar c h 28, 1997, i n ant i c i pat i on of the Apr i l 1, 1997 e ffe c t i ve dat e r e pe a l i ng s us pe ns i on of d ep o rtatio n . Id

. The pe t i t i one r s we r e pot e nt i a l l y e l i gi bl e for s us pe ns i on of de port at i on but not e l i gi bl e for

c anc e l l at i on of rem o v al. Id

. The de c i s i on of the fa the r and s on t o pr e s e nt the m s e l ve s t o i mm i gr at i on author i t i e s wa s pr e m i s e d on the e xpr e s s de s i r e of pr e s e rvi ng the i r e l i gi bi l i ty

for s us pe ns i on of d ep o rtatio n p o st-IIR IRA

. Id

. Th e Sec on d C ir cuit

Co urt hel d that the peti ti on er s we r e not s i m i l ar l y s i t uat e d t o the a l i e n c l a s s at i s s ue i n St. Cyr an d , th u s, th e rep eal w as n o t im p erm issib ly

retro activ e. Id . atU s pango deal t w i t h w hen t o begi n coun ti ng t he 11 re q u isite p h y sic a l p re se n c e re q u ire m e n t, w h ich is n o t at iss u e in t hi s cas e. 22 156. Ci t i ng ac a s e fr om

our Ci r c ui t , the Court

he l d that the rep eal o f su sp en sio n o f

d ep o rtatio n d idn o t ap p ly re tr oact ivel y

beca use the re peal did n ot atta ch any new legal co n sequ en ces to th e p etitio n ers’ p re-IIR IRA co n du ct: As the Thi r d Ci r c ui t

e xpl a i ne d i n Uspa ng o v. A sh cro ft , pe t i t i one r s “ gave up no r i ght s by fi l i ng the [i r ] pe t i t i on [for s us pe ns i on]. ” 289 F.3d22 6, 23 0 (3rd C ir . 200 2). Peti ti on er s had 11 no r i ght t o r e m a i n “ l i vi ng i l l e ga l l y and un dete ct ed in the Unite d S tate s. ” Therefore, they re li nq uished no ri gh ts and acquired no n ew o b lig atio n s w h en th ey

tu rn edth em selv es in to the INS. I n e ffe c t , pe t i t i one r s ar e no di ffe r e nt fr om a l i e ns who c hos e not

t o a ppl y for s us pe ns i on of de port at i on pr i or t o the dat e on wh ic h IIRIRA b ec am e e ff ec ti ve. Id . ( ci tati on s andqu otat ion o m itte d). Muc h l i ke the pe t i t i one r s i n Karage or gi ous , the pe t i t i one r i n Ji menez-

An geles br ought

he r s e l f t o the att e nt i on o f th e IN S in M arch 1 9 9 7 in an attem p t to b eg in a p ro cess th at w o u lden ab le h er to ap p ly f o r su sp en sio n o f

d ep o rtatio n . 291 F. 3d at

597. J i m e ne z - Ange l e s ar gue d that s he wa s l i ke the a l i e n i n St. Cyr , who pled gu il ty prior t o IIRIRA’s e ffe c t i ve dat e , and thus ha d ar e l i anc e i nt e r e s t i n the av ailab ility

o f § 2 1 2 (c) relief

. Id . at 6 0 0 . T h e N in th C ircu it Co urt c on cl ud ed that

Ji m enez -Ang el es ’ c ir cum st ance s23 di ffe r e d s i gni fi c ant l y

fr om thos e i n St. Cyr , as [ t] h e f acto rs th at m ilitatedin f

av o r o f S t. C y r– in part i c ul ar , hi s ‘ s e tt l e d e xpe c t at i ons ’ ba s e d on ‘transac ti on s or c on si derati on s a lr ea dy past ’– are n o t p resen t in Jim en ez-A n g eles’ case. . .

. W he n St

. Cy

r e nt e r e d i nt o hi s pl e abar ga i n, he g av e up v alu ab le leg al rig h ts, in clu d in g h is ri gh t t o tri al by

ju ry . By contra st , when J i m e ne z - Ange l e s r e ve a l e d he r s e l f t o the INS, s he gave up onl y

he r abi l i ty t o c ont i nue l i vi ng illeg ally an du n d etectedin th e U n itedS tates. Id

. at 602. B ecau se o u r co lleag u es in th e S eco n dan dN in th Ci r c ui t s e nga ge i n ar e tr oa c t i vi ty ana l y s i s di ffe r e nt

fr om the o n e w e ap p ly , Karage or

gi ous and Ji menez-

An geles ar e di s t i ngui s habl e . As e xpl a i ne d i n P o n n a p u la , unde r

our retro activ ity

stan d ard s, a p resu m

p tio n ag ain st retro activ ity is “easily trig g ered ” (th o u g h n o t au to m atic), se e 37 3 F .3d at 490- 91, and we do not

l ook t o the a c t

ua l r e l i anc e of the p etitio n er b rin g in g th e claim , id . at 493 . I nd ee d, Hernandez r e l i e s on P o n n a

p u la for the pr opos i t i on that , whe n he r e ve a l e d hi s unl awful s t at us by fi l i ng an a

ppl i c at i on for adju stm ent of status, he had a settl ed expectati on that , i f that ap p licatio n w as d en ied , h e w o u ldb e ab le to requ est su sp en sio n o f

d ep o rtatio n . P o n n a

p u la n o tw ith stan d in g , th is arg u m en t is u np ersu asiv e f o r sev eral reaso n s. Fi r s t , we t ake i s s ue wi th He rnande z ’ s c l a i m that he vo luntar il y

re veal ed his unlawfu l s tatus bec ause the r ec ord m akes cl ear that Her

nand ezfail ed to disc lose his 198 4 N ew Y o rkco n v ictio n in h is ad j u stm en t o f

statu s ap p licatio n . Mor e ove r , he wa s e l i gi bl e t o r e que s t s us pe ns i on of24 de port at i on on June 27, 1994 – ne ar l y thr e e y e ar s be for e the ef f ectiv e rep eal o f

§ 2 4 4 (a) –b u t h e d idn o t rev eal h im self to authorit ie s t o m ake s uch a request un ti l wel l a fter

the r epea l of that s e c t i on. By

c ontr a s t , i t

wa s undi s put e d that

the pe t i t i one r s i n Karage or

gi ous and Ji menez-

An geles vo luntar il y

re veal ed thei r i ll egal st at us to the INS , andin fact di d s o pr i or

t o the r e pe a l of e i the r

§ 244( a ) or

§ 212( c ) of the INA. No ta

bly , the Karage or

gi ous and Ji menez-

An geles pe t i t i one r s ’ c l a i m s s t i l l fa i l e d be c aus e the y r e l i nqui s he d no ri gh ts and acquired no n ew ob li gati on s by turning them se lves i n t o the INS. M o r e i mp o rt an t l y , H e rn an d e z c an n o t c r e d i b l y c l a i m a retro activ e ef

f ect f ro m h is g u ilty

p lea b ecau se imm ed iately a ft e r he e nt e r e d hi s pl e ahe wa s i ne l i gi bl e for any ki nd of r e l i e f and, i n fa c t , woul d r e m a i n i ne l i gi bl e for any ki nd of r e l i e f for ade c a de

. Thi s fa c t

di s t i ngui s he s He rnande z fr om the pe t i t i one r s i n St. C

yr and P o n n a

p u la , both o f w ho m

were qua l i fi e d t o a

ppl y for § 212( c ) r e l i e f a t

the t i m e the y

m a de thei r r es pect ive dec is ions to plea d g uilt y and g o to tri al , a s e a c h pe t i t i one r

ha d a l r e a dy

a c c r ue d the r e qui s i t e y e ar s of law f u l p erm an en t resid en ce in th e U n itedS tates. S im p ly stated , H ern an d ez d idn o t an dco u ldn o t en ter h is p lea in r e l i anc e on§ 2 44 ( a ) r e l i e f. I n e s s e n c e , th e n , a l l th at

H e rn an d e z c an c l a i m a retro activ e ef

f ect f ro m is h is v o lu n tary

co mm u n icatio n w ith the INS t o a

ppl y for abe ne fi t – a djus tm e nt

of s t at us ba s e d on hi s m arr i a ge t o aUni t e d St at e s c i t i z e n. The uns t at e d c r ux of Hernandez’s cl ai m

is that he wo uld n ot have applie d f or an INS b enefit

if he had k no wn that

he was i neli gible for § 24 4(a) re li ef. W e r efuse t o rule that t he re peal of

§ 2 44 (a ) att a c he s ane w di s abi l i ty

t o He rnande z ’ s de c i s i on t o c onc e de25 vol unt ar i l y

hi s a l i e na ge pos t
- I I RI RA be c aus e s uc h a d e t e rmi n at i o n i mp l i c i t l y

p r e s u me s th at

H e rn an d e z h a ds o me ri gh t t o con ti nu e t o con ce al his i ll egal st at us. As e xp la ined ab o v e, H ern an d ez h adev ery o p p o rtu n ity

to rev eal h im self

to the INS wh il e the pre-I IRIRA rules were st il l i n eff ec t and , at th at j u n ctu re, co u ldh av e reaso n ab ly reliedo n th en -ex tan t § 244( a ) r e l i e f. Be c aus e He rnande z ’ s a ppl i c at i on for a djus tm e nt

of s t at us am ount s t o ade c i s i on t o gi ve up so m eth in g to w h ich h e h adn o rig h t in th e f irst p lace—h is abi l i ty t o c on t i nu e l i vi ng i l l e ga l l y i n the Un i t e d S t at e s —w e c onc l ude that

He rnande z ’ s 1999 c onc e s s i on of hi s a l i e na ge doe s not c aus e Congr e s s ’ r e pe a l of s us pe ns i on of de port at i on as ap p liedto h im

to b e im p erm issib ly

retro activ e. * * * * * For the r e a s ons de t a i l e d above , due pr oc e s s doe s not de m and He rnande z be pe rm i tt e d t o a ppl y for s us pe ns i on of de port at i on. Mor e ove r , the 1996 r e pe a l of s us pe ns i on of depo rt at ion u nd er

se ct ion 2 44 (a ) of the INA d oes not have an im perm is si bly

re tr oact ive e ff

ec t on ali ens who bo th pled gu il ty to a deporta

ble off ense prior t o the re peal of that sectio n an dw ere elig ib le f o r relief p rio r to its rep eal. In th is cont ext , H er nandez ’ s pet i t i on for r evi ew i s deni ed.