2010 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
4-22-2010 

# H e athcli ffe B ra d ley 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 . 08-4184

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and 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 ll anova 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 2010 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova 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 ll anova . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" H e athcl i ffe B r a dley v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1407. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1407P 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. 08- 4184

_____________ HE AT HC L I F F E J OHN B RA DL E Y, Pet i t i oner
v. A TTO RN EY G EN ER A L O F TH E U N I TED STA TES, R es pondent

_____________ O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an A dm i ni s tr at i ve O r derof R e m o v a l o f

th e D e p a r t m e n to f

H o m e l a n d S e c u r i ty O r der i ng R emoval pur s uantt o 8 U
. S. C
. § 1187

( A 87- 074- 865)

_____________ A r gued M ar ch 11, 2010

_____________ B efor e: A M B R O , SM I T H and A L D I SE R T , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed: A pr i l 22, 2010)2 H ar outyun A s atr i an, E s q. ( A r gued) Str a s s e rAs a tr i a n , LLC 744 B r oad Str eet , 16th Fl oor N ew ark, N J 07102 C ouns el forPet i t i oner M ich a e l F . H e rtz A ct i ng A s s i s t antA t t orneyG ener al C i vi l D i vi s i on C arl H
. M cIn tyre, Jr
. A s s i s t antD i r ect or O ffi ce of I m m i gr at i on L i t i gat i on G aryJ
. N ew ki r k, E s q. ( A r gued) St ephen F. D ay , E s q. J us t i n R
. M arkel , E s q. U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof J us t i ce O ffi ce of I m m i gr at i on L i t i gat i on, 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 forR es pondent

_____________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

_____________W e h a v e ju ri s d ict ion p u rsua n t t o 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1 2 5 2 (a)(1), 1 w hi ch perm i t s us t o r evi ew fi nal or der s of re m oval
. A l though s o me c o u r t s h a v e s u g g e s t e d th a t 8 U. S
. C. § 1 1 8 7 ( b ) ( 2 ) n a rr o ws o u rj u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e v i e w r e m o v a l o r d e r s i n v o l v i n g V WP e n tra n ts, se e , e.g ., L a c e yv . G o n z a les , 4 9 9 F .3 d 5 1 4 , 5 1 9 (6 th C i r . 2007) , w e vi ew § 1187( b) ( 2) as a s ubs t ant i ve, r atherthan a j ur i s di ct i onal , bart o a V W P entr ant ’ s abi l i tyt o obt ai n r el i ef f ro m re m o v a l. In p a rticu lar , § 1 1 8 7 ( b )(2 ) d o e s n o t ap p e a r to abr ogat e 8 U
. S. C
. § 1252( a) ( 2) ( D ) , w hi ch pr ovi des that
“ [ n ]o th in g . . . in a n yo th e r p ro v isio n o f th is A c t (o th e r th a n th is 3 A L D I SE R T , C i r cui tJ udge. Pet i t i onerH eathcl i ffe J ohn B r adl ey , a ci t i zen a nd nat i onal of N ew Z eal and, s eeks r evi ew of a f i nal r emoval or derof the D epart m entof H om el and Secur i ty , I m m i gr at i on and C us t om s E nfor cement( “the D epart m ent ”)
. B r adl ey cont ends thatthe D epart m ent ’ s r emoval or deri s voi d under W o o d b yv . IN S , 3 8 5 U
. S
. 2 7 6 , 2 8 6 (19 6 6 ), b ec au se th e re co rd l acks “cl ear , unequi vocal , and convi nci ng evi dence ” thathe w ai ved hi s r i ghtt o cont es thi s r emoval underthe V i s a W ai ver P ro g ra m (“ V W P ” ), 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 8 7 . B ra d ley ad d iti o n a lly c o n ten d s th a t h e d id n o t v a lid lyw a iv e h is rig h t to c o n tes t h is r emoval underthe V W P becaus e hi s w ai verw as not
“ k n o w in g a n d v o lu n tar y .” F in a lly , B ra d ley co n ten d s th a t, n o tw ith sta n d in g a n yV W P w a iv e r, h e m a yre n e w h is ap p li ca ti o n fo r a m arriage -ba sed ad justm en t of

statu s b ef

o re an i m m i gr at i on j udge. See 8 U
. S. C
. § 1255( c) ( 4)
. Forthe r eas ons thatfol l ow , w e w i l l denyhi s pet i t i on. 1s ect i on) w hi ch l i m i t s orel i m i nat es j udi ci al revi ew , s hal l be cons trued as pr ecl udi ng r evi ew of cons ti tuti onal cl ai m s or ques t i ons of l aw r ai s ed upon a pe t i t i on for r evi ew fi l ed w i th an a p p r o p ria te c o u rt o f

a p p e a ls.” W e a re f

u rth e r p e rsu a d e d th a t § 1187( b)( 2) i s notj ur i s di ct i on- s tr i ppi ng beca us e i tdoes not cl ear l yand expl i ci t l ydepr i ve fe der al court s of j ur i s di ct i on. See C al cano- M art i nez v . I N S, 533 U
. S. 348, 351- 352 ( 2001) ( concl udi n g tha t“C ongr es s has nots poken w i th s uffi ci ent cl ar i tyt o str ip the di s tr i ctcourt s of j ur i s di ct i on t o hearhabea s pet i t i ons rais i ng” cl ai m s notr evi ew abl e bypet i t i ons fordi r ect r e v i e w )
. C o m p a r e 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1 1 8 7 ( b ) ( 2 ) ( p r o v i d i n g th a ta V WP ent r an t mus t “ wai v e a n y r i g h t . . . t o c o n t e s t . . . a n y a c t i on for re m o v a l”) , w ith , e .g ., 8 U .S .C
. § 1 1 5 8 (a )(3 ) (“N o c o u r t s h a ll h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e v i e w . . . . ” ) , 8 U. S
. C. § 1 2 5 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( A) , ( B) (sa m e ), an d 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (a )(5 ) (“ F o r p u rp o se s o f th is A c t, i n everypr ovi s i on thatl i m i t s orel i m inates j udi ci al r evi ew or j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew , the t erm s ‘ j udi ci al rev i ew ’ and
‘ j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew ’ i ncl ude h ab ea s corpus r evi ew . . . and r evi ew pur s uantt o anyotherpr ov isi o n of l aw ( s t atut oryor nons t atut ory )
. ”)
. I n vi ew of the “s tr ong pr es um pt i on i n favorof j udi ci al r evi ew of admi ni s tr at i ve ac t i on, ” I N S v. St
. C yr , 533 U
. S. 289, 298 ( 2001) , w e do notbel ieve t hat§ 1187( b) ( 2) a f f e c ts o u r ju risd ictio n to c o n sid e r B ra d ley’s c laim s. A s w e w ill expl ai n, how ev er, § 1187( b) ( 2) has a s i gni fi canteff ecton B ra d ley’s a b ili tyto p u rsu e su b sta n tiv e re lief f ro m re m o v a l. 4 I. B r adl eyarr i ved i n the U ni t ed St at es on A ugus t28, 1996 w i thouta val i d non- i m m i gr antvi s a, butw as admi t t ed“A p p . ” re fe rs t o the p eti ti o n er’s ap p en d ix, w h il e “ R esp ’t 2 A pp. ” r efe r s t o t he r es pondent ’ s appendi x. 5 underthe V W P. B r adl eyr epr es ent s thathe w as i nt oxi cat ed w hen he a r r i ved, and he c l ai m s t o have l i t t l e r ecol l ect i on of hi s admi s s i on. N everthel es s , B r adl ey ’ s decl ar at i on es t abl i s hes th a t, af ter h is a rriv a l, he sig n e d a f o rm , p re se n ted th a t f

o rm to a cust om s officer , and w as adm i t t ed int o the U nit ed S t at es. A c c o r d i n g t o B r a d l e y, [u] pon m yarr i val atJ ohn F. K ennedy I nt ernat i onal A i rpor ti n N ew Y or k, I w as gi ven a f o rm to c o m p lete , w h ich I v a g u e lyre c a ll c o m p le tin g o r e v e n s ig n in g f o r t h a t m a tte r. . . . I handed the form t o the C us t om ’ s agent , w ho wa i v e d me th r o u g h a f

t e rt a k i n g a p a r to f

my form , w i tho ut anyqu est i on s. (B ra d ley D e c l. ¶¶ 1 8 , 2 0 (e rro rs in o rig in a l).) A c c o rd in g to h is F o rm I-9 4 W D e p a rtu re R e c o rd , B ra d ley w a s a u th o riz e d to r emai n i n t he U ni t ed St at es forthe 90- dayper i od endi ng N ovember27, 1996. ( A pp. 8. ) I ti s undi s put ed thatB r adl ey 2 r emai ned i n the U ni t ed St at es bey ond hi s author i zed s t ay , and th a t h e re m a in s h e re still. O n J u ly 2 9 , 2 0 0 6 , B ra d le ym a rr ie d C h e ryl L o s e e , a U ni t ed St at es ci t i zen. I n D ece m ber2007 and w i th the as s i s t ance of an a t t orney , B r adl eyand Losee appl i ed t o U ni t ed6 S t at es C i t i zenship and Im m i grat i on S ervi ces t o ad j ust B rad ley ’s st atus to tha t of a law fu l perm an en t r esid en t. In co n jun cti o n w ith that ap p li ca ti o n , B rad ley ’s w ife f il ed an I1 3 0 im m e d iate -re lativ e v isa p e tit io n , a p re re q u isite to obt ai ni ng a mar r i age- bas ed adj us tm entof s t atus . T hatpet i t i on w as deni ed pur s uantt o 8 C
. F. R
. § 103. 2( b) ( 13) w hen B r adl ey a n d L o s e e f

a i l e d t o a p p e a rf

o ra s c h e d u l e d i n t e r v i e w. O n O ct ober8, 2008, B r adl eyw as arr es t ed and or der ed r emoved, pur s uantt o 8 U
. S. C
. § 1187( b)
. O n O ct ober14, 2008, B r adl eyfi l ed a Pet i t i on forR evi ew i n thi s C our tand mo v e d f o ra s t a yo f

r e mo v a l
. On No v e mb e r1 0 , 2 0 0 8 , we s t ay ed B r adl ey ’ s r emoval or der , and on N ovember14, 2008, Br a d l e ywa s r e l e a s e d f

r o m i n c a r c e r a t i o n , p e n d i n g o u rr e v i e w. II. B efore w e add res s B radl ey ’s con t enti on s, w e fi rs t rev iew the p u rpo se a n d role o f th e V W P w ith in o u r na ti o n ’s b o d yo f i mm i g r a t i o n l a w. C o n g re ss e sta b lish e d th e V W P “ ‘to f a c ili tate i nt ernat i onal tr avel and pr om ot e the more eff ect i ve us e of the r es our ces of af

fec t ed governm entagenc i es w hi l e notpos i ng a thr eatt o the w el far e, heal th, s afe ty , and s ecur i tyof the U ni t ed S tat es.’” N o se v . A tt ’yG en . , 9 9 3 F
. 2 d 7 5 , 7 7 n . 2 (5th C ir
. 19 93 ) ( qu ot i ng 53 Fe d. Reg. 24 , 89 8 ( 19 88 ) )
. U nd e rthe V W P, a qual i fy i ng vi s i t orm ayent erthe U ni t ed St at es w i thoutT he V W P ’s w ai ver provis i on st at es: 3 A n al i en maynotbe pr ovi ded a w ai ver underthe p ro g ra m u n les s th e a lien h a s w a iv e d a n yrig h t– ( 1) t o r e v i e w ora p p e a l u n d e rth i s Acto f an i m m i gr at i on offi cer ’ s det erm i nat i on as t o the a d m iss ib ili ty o f

th e a lien a t th e p o rt o f

e n tryin to the U ni t ed St at es , or ( 2) t o cont es t , otherthan on the bas i s of an a p p l i c a t i o n f

o ra s y l u m, a n ya c t i o n f o rr e moval a g a in s t th e a lie n . 7 obt ai ni ng a vi s a, s o l ong as a var i etyof s t atut oryand r egul at oryr equi r ement s ar e met . A m ong otherthi ngs , a vi s i t or se e k in g a d m iss io n u n d e r th e V W P m u st e x e c u te c e rta in i m m i gr at i on form s , pr es enta pas s por tfr om a qual i fy i ng co u n try , an d p o sses s a ro u n d -tri p ti ck et. 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1 1 8 7 (a). O nce a dm i t t ed underthe V W P, a vi s i t orm ayr emai n i n the U n it ed S tat es f

o r 90 d ay s. 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1 1 8 7 (a)(1). A l though t he V W P affor ds vi s i t oral i ens w i th gr eat f lex ib ili tya n d c o n v e n ien c e , tho se b e n e f its c o m e a t a c o st. M os ts i gni fi cant l y , a V W P vi s i t orm us tw ai ve hi s orherr i ght t o cont es tthe governm ent ’ s admi s s i bi l i tydet erm i nat i ons and r emoval act i ons , exce ptthatthe al i en maycont es tr emoval ac ti o n s o n the b asis o f a sy lum
. 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1 1 8 7 (a)-(b). 38 U
. S
. C
. § 1 1 8 7 (b). 8 A ccor di ngl y , a V W P appl i cantm us t , pr i ort o admi s s i on, p r e s e n tU
. S
. o f

f i c e r s w i th a “ c o m p l e t e d , s i g n e d F o r m I
- 9 4 W, N oni m m i gr antV i s a W ai verA rr i val / D epartur e For m , ” 8 C .F .R . § 2 1 7 .2 (b )(1 ), ex p re ss lyw a iv in g , inte r a lia, a n y“ rig h t .

. . t o cont es t , ot herthan on the bas i s of an a ppl i cat i on for a s y lu m , a n ya c tio n f

o r r e m o v a l o f

th e a lie n .” 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 8 7 ( b ) ( 2 )
. T h i s r e q u i r e m e n ti s i r o n c l a d
. I n d e e d , a V WP appl i cant“maynotbe pr ovi ded a w ai verunderthe pr ogr am unl es s ” the al i en has s i gned a V W P w ai ver , i d. , and an appl i cantw ho does nots i gn w i l l be r efus ed admi s s i on and re m o v e d , s e e 8 C .F .R . § 2 1 7 .4 (a )( 1 ). F or a V W P entr ant, the ef fect s of t his no -cont est p rov isi o n are sev ere . A V W P en tr an t w aive s the ri g h t t o asse rt a n yn o n -a s y lu m o b

je c tio n to h is re m o v a l. 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 8 7 (b )( 2 ). A d d itio n a lly, u n lik e th e o rd in a ry re m o v a l c a s e , a V W P entr ant ’ s r emoval “s hal l be det erm i ned bythe di s tr i ct d ire c to r w h o h a s ju risd ictio n o v e r th e p lac e w h e re th e a lien is found, and s hal l be ef

fec t ed w i thoutr efe rr al of the al i en t o an i m m i gr at i on j udge fora det erm i nat i on of deport abi l i ty . ” 8 C .F .R . § 2 1 7 .4 (b ). B u t as th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls f

o r th e N in th C irc u it h a s re c o g n ize d , g iv e n th e e a se a n d c o n v e n ien c e w ith w h ich a V W P v isi tor m ayen ter th e U n it ed S tat es, th e V W P ’s “l i nchpi n . . . i s the w ai ver , w hi ch as s ur es thata per s on w ho comes he r e w i th a V W P vi s a w i l l l eave on t i m e and w i l l not r ai s e a hos tof l egal and fa ctual cl ai m s t o i m pede hi s r emoval9 if h e o v e rsta y s.” H a n d a v . C lar k , 4 0 1 F .3 d 1 1 2 9 , 1 1 3 5 (9 th C ir
. 2 0 0 5 ). W ith thes e p rec ep ts i n m ind , w e turn to B rad ley ’s ch all en g e to h is V W P w aive r.III
. W e fi r s taddr es s B r adl ey ’ s cont ent i on thatthe D e pa r t ment ’ s r e mova l or de ri s i nv a l i d u nd e rW oo db yv. I N S, 3 8 5 U
. S
. at 28 6 , b ec au se itw as e n tered w ith o u t “clear, unequi vocal , and convi nci ng evi dence ” thathe w ai ved hi s due pr oces s r i ghtt o cont es thi s r emoval
. I n part i cul ar , B r adl ey c o n t e n d s th a tb e c a u s e h i s r e m o v a l o r d e rr e f e rr e d t o h i s V WP w a iv e r, th a t w a iv e r is a “ g ro u n d f o r d e p o rta tio n ,” s u b

jec t to pr oof bycl ear , unequi vocal and convi nci ng evi dence under W o o d b y . H e c o n ten d s th a t b e c a u se th e D e p a rtm e n t f a iled to pr oduce hi s s i gned I
- 94W form , i thas notm eti t s bur den of pr oof, r ender i ng hi s r emoval or deri nval i d. W e di s agr ee. A l though w e doubtB r adl ey ’ s as s um pt i on thatthe D e p a rtm e n t m u st p ro v e h is w a iv e r b y“ c lea r, u n e q u iv o c a l, and convi nci ng evi dence , ” w e hol d thatthe D epart m enthas eas i l ym etthatbur den. B r adl eyadmi t s thathe ent er ed the U n ited S tate s u n d e r th e V W P , an d a lth o u g h h is d e c lar a tio n is v ag u e, he co n ce d es th at he sign ed a f o rm , p rese n ted th at fo rm t o a cu st om s officer , and w as adm i t t ed int o the U nit ed S t at es. (S e e B ra d ley D e c l. ¶¶ 1 8 , 2 0 .) C o n sis ten t w ith th a t ac c o u n t, th e r e c o r d c o n t a i n s th e t o p p o r t i o n o f a F o r m I
- 9 4 W, N oni m m i gr antV i s a W ai verA rr i val / D epartur e For m , fi l l ed10 outi n handw r i t i ng “B r adl ey , H eathcl i ffe , ” dat e of bi r th “07 10 72, ” and s t amped w i th B r adl ey ’ s admi s s i on dat e of “ N ov 27 1996. ” ( A pp. 8. ) B r adl ey ’ s admi s s i ons , t ogetherw i th the document aryevi dence , cons t i tut e pow er ful evi dence that B r adl eys i gned a Form I
- 94W , i ncl udi ng a w ai verof due process r i gh t s, befo re he w as adm i t t ed to the U nit ed S t at es. T hi s evi dence becomes near l yi rr efut abl e i n vi ew of the r egul at i ons and pr ocedur es governi ng admi s s i on underthe V W P
. U nd er the regu l at i on s, each V W P app l i cant m ust pr es enta “c om pl et ed, s i gned For m I
- 94W , N oni m m i gr ant V is a W a iv e r A rr iv a l/D e p a rt u re F o rm ,” 8 C .F .R . § 2 1 7
. 2 (b)(1 ), w h ich c o n tai n s the V W P w aive r (R esp ’tA p p . 1 ). D ur i ng the admi s s i on pr oces s “[t ] he depa r tur e r ecor d atthe bot t om of the form i s r et ai ned bythe al i en, w hi l e the i m m i gr at i on offi ci al admi t t i ng the al i en kee ps the t op por t i on, in c lu d in g th e s ig n e d w a iv e r.” (R e s p ’t B r. 1 4 n .8 .) Si gni fi cant l y , “an a l i en maynotbe pr ovi ded a w ai verunder th e p ro g ra m u n les s th e a lien h a s w a iv e d a n yrig h t . . . to co n test. . . an yac ti o n fo r rem o v al, ” 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1 1 8 7 (b)(2 ), and anyal i en w ho does nots i gn the V W P w ai verw i l l be refused adm i ssi on , see 8 C
. F
. R
. § 2 17
. 4(a) (1)
. B ecause
“ a g e n c ya c tio n . . . is e n title d to a p re s u m p tio n o f re g u la ri ty,” M c Le o d v . I NS, 8 0 2 F
. 2 d 8 9 , 9 5 ( 3 d Ci r . 1 9 8 6 ) , we p r e s u me th a t th e D e p a rtm e n t ad m itt e d B ra d ley un d e r th e V W P o n ly a f t e rc o l l e c t i n g th e t o p p o r t i o n o f h i s c o mp l e t e d I
- 9 4 W f o r m, i ncl udi ng hi s s i gned V W P w ai ver . A l though thi s pr es um pt i on i s r ebutt abl e, i d. , B r adl eyhas adduce d no evi dence thatthe11 D epart m ent adm i t t ed h i m i n v i olat i on of it s ow n regulat i on s, and i n fac t , hi s decl ar at i on i s ent i r el ycons i s t entw i th a r out i ne admi s s i on underthe V W P. W e conc l ude, ther efor e, thatthe evi dence i s m or e than s uffi ci entt o pr ove B r adl eys i gned a V W P w ai ver , even a s s um i ng thatw ai verm us tbe pr oven by
“ c l e a r , u n e q u i v o c a l , a n d c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e . ” As we s ugges t ed ator al ar gum ent , thi s cont ent i on i s underw hel m i ng. I V. B ra d ley ne x t co n ten d s th a t h is V W P w a iv e r is in v a lid beca us e i tw as not“know i ng and vol unt ary , ” and he ur ges us t o adoptthe “know i ng and vol unt ary ” r equi r ementembra ced bythe C ou rt s of A pp eal s for the F i ft h an d S even th C i rcui t s. See B ay o v. N apol i t ano, 593 F. 3d 495, 505 ( 7th C i r . 2010) (en b an c); N o se v . A tt ’yG en . , 9 9 3 F
. 2 d 7 5 , 7 9 (5th C ir
. 1993)
. T r acki ng the r eas oni ng of thes e dec i s i ons , B r adl ey a rg u e s th a t, a s w ith o th e r w a iv e rs o f c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h ts , a V W P w a iv e r o f

d u e p ro c e ss rig h ts is n o t co n stitu tio n a lly enfor cea bl e unl es s i ti s know i ng and vol unt ary . B r adl ey cont ends thathi s s peci fi c w ai verw as notknow i ng and v o l u n t a r yb e c a u s e h e wa s i n t o x i c a t e d wh e n h e s i g n e d i t . At th e v e rylea st, B ra d ley co n ten d s, h e is e n tit led to a d ju d ica te the cons t i tut i onal val i di tyof hi s w ai verbefor e an i m m i gr at i on j udge. W e ca nnotagr ee. I n al l r es pect s , B r adl ey ’ s cl ai m amount s t o a cha l l enge of hi s r emoval or derunderthe D ue Pr oces s C l aus e of theS ee also K h o u za m v . A tt ’yG en . , 5 4 9 F
. 3 d 2 3 5 , 2 5 8 (3d C ir
. 4 2008) ; W i l s on v. A s hcr oft , 350 F. 3d 377, 381 ( 3d C i r . 2003) (st ati n g the ru le i n term s o f “ p rejud ice” ). 12 F if th A m e n d m e n t, an d c o n se q u e n tly , h e c a n n o t p re v a il w i thout“an i ni t i al s how i ng of s ubs t ant i al pr ej udi ce. ” K han v. A t t ’ yG en. , 448 F. 3d 226, 236 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( ci t at i on and quot at i on m arks om i t t ed)
. T hus , even a s s um i ng w i thout 4 deci di ng thatB r adl ey ’ s V W P w ai verm us tbe “know i ng and vol unt ary , ” B r adl eycannoti nval i dat e hi s r emoval or der unl es s he ca n demonstr at e he w as “s ubs t ant i al l ypr ej udi ced” b yh is a lleg e d lyu n k n o w in g w a iv e r. H e c a n n o t. B r adl ey ’ s pr ej udi ce a r gum enti s s oundl ydefe at ed by the coge ntr eas oni ng of the en ba nc C our tof A ppeal s forthe S ev en th C ir cu itin B ay o v . N ap o li tano , 5 9 3 F
. 3 d 4 9 5 (7th C ir
. 2010) ( en banc ) , a ca s e fa ctual l yon al l four s w i th thi s one. T her e the courtr econs i der ed a pa nel deci s i on gr ant i ng pet i t i onerB ay o’ s pet i t i on forr evi ew and or der i ng the D e p a rtm e n t to c o n d u c t a h e a rin g to d e ter m in e w h e th e r h is V W P w ai verw as know i ng and vol unt ary . I d. at507. A lth o u g h the e n b an c c o u rtag ree d w ith the p an el’s concl us i on thata V W P w ai verm us tbe know i ng and vol unt ary , i tr ej ect ed B ay o’ s due pr oces s cl ai m beca us e he coul d nots how pr ej udi ce. A s the courtexpl ai ned, [ h ] a d h e k n o w n w h a tth e w a i v e rs a i d , B a yo w oul d have ha d tw o opt i ons , ei therof w hi ch13 w oul d have l ed t o s um m aryr emoval
. I f he ha d sig n e d th e w a iv e r a n yw a y , k n o w in g f u ll w e ll w hati ts ai d, he w oul d be i n the s ame si tuat i on a s h e is n o w . If

h e h a d re f

u se d to sig n , h e w o u ld have be en r emoved summ ar i l yatthe bor der beca us e he di d nothave a pr opervi s a. Perhaps th e r e i s a s l i g h tc h a n c e th a ta f t e rr e m o v a l , B a yo coul d have obt ai ned a vi s a t o come t o the U n ited S tate s, a n d th e n h e m ig h t h a v e se ttl e d in Ind iana , m et T ati an a S ia, an d m arried h er, al l ow i ng hi m t o adj us thi s s t atus bas ed on m a rria g e a t th a t ti m e . A s B a y o a d m its in h is br i ef though, “[i ] ti s di ffi cul tt o compar e w hat m i ghthave be en w i th w hati s . ” Thi s i s true, and i ti s the r eas on w hyw e fi nd the expl anat i on of how B ay o m i ghthave be en harm ed t oo s pecul at i ve t o s uppor ta s how i ng of pr ej udi ce. I d. at506. Si m i l ar l y , B r adl eycannots how he has been prej ud i ced b yan u nk no w i ng or i nv olunt aryw ai ver becau se anyharm w oul d be t oo s pecul at i ve. T he cons equenc e he now f a c e s – su m m a ryre m o v a l – is th e sa m e c o n se q u e n c e h e w o u ld have f ace d had he know n of the w ai verand r efus ed t o s i gn. H e has fai l ed t o demonstr at e how hi s know l edge of the w ai verr eal i s t i cal l ycoul d have c hanged thi s out come. R es i s t i ng thi s concl us i on, B r adl eyur ges us t o focus ourpr ej udi ce i nqui r ynoton the t i m e of e ntry , buton the14 su m m aryrem o v al resu lt ing fro m the D ep artm en t’ s enfor cementof hi s al l egedl yunknow i ng w ai ver . H e cont ends thathi s unknow i ng w ai veri s pr ej udi ci al beca us e i tdepr i ves h im o f h is rig h t to c o n tes t h is re m o v a l o n th e b a sis o f h is p e tit io n f o r a d ju stm e n t o f

sta tu s. T h is a rg u m e n t f a ils a s w e ll. B r adl ey ’ s V W P w ai verw as an expr es s condi t i on p re c e d e n t to h is 1 9 9 6 e n tryto th e U n ited S tate s, a n d h e w o u ld nothave be en admi t t ed w i thouti t . T he pr ej udi ce of w hi ch he compl ai ns – s um m aryr emoval w i thouta hea r i ng – i s a di r ect cons equenc e of the V W P’ s congr es s i onal des i gn and im p lem e n tin g re g u latio n s, a n d n o t B ra d ley’s a lleg e d f a ilu re to c o mp r e h e n d th e t e r ms o f h i s VW P v i s i t o rs t a tu s . S e e 8 C. F
. R. § 217. 4( b) ( pr ovi di ng thatr emoval of a V W P entr ant“s hal l be eff ect ed w i thoutr efe rr al of the al i en t o an i m m i gr at i on j udge fora det erm i nat i on of deport abi l i ty ”)
. T o pr evai l on hi s due pr oces s cl ai m , B r adl eym us tdemonstr at e s ubs t ant i al pr ej udi ce re su lti n g f

ro m th e d u e p ro c e ss v io latio n h e h a s a lleg e d – h is u n k n o w i n g w a i v e ro f

c o n s t i tu t i o n a l r i g h t s . A c c o r d i n g l y, B r a d l e ym u s tp r o v e th a t , b u tf o rh i s i g n o r a n c e o f

th e V WP w ai ver , he coul d otherw i s e cont es thi s r emoval on the bas i s of hi s pet i t i on foradj us t m entof s t atus . T hi s , he ca nnotdo. H ad B r adl eyknow n t he cont ent s of the w ai verand r efus ed t o s i gn, h e w o u ld b e in th e sa m e p o sitio n a s h e is n o w – su b jec t to s um m aryr emoval w i thouta hea r i ng – and he w oul d notnow b e e lig ib le to a d

ju st h is s tatu s o n th e b a sis o f h is m a rria g e to C h e r yl L o s e e . A s i n B a yo , “ th e e x p l a n a t i o n o f h o w [ B r a d l e y] m ig h t h a v e b e e n h a rm e d [ is] to o sp e c u lativ e to su p p o rt a15 s how i ng of pr ej udi ce. ” B ay o, 593 F. 3d at506. L i kew i s e, w e r ej ectB r adl ey ’ s cont ent i on that , under K h o u za m v . A tt o rne yG en era l, 5 4 9 F
. 3 d 2 3 5 , 2 5 8 (3d C ir
. 20 08 ), w e shou l d p res um e subst anti al prej ud i ce bec ause B ra d ley rec e iv e d n o p ro c e ss a t all. O u r C o u rt h e ld in K houzam t hata non- V W P pet i t i onerw as “i nher ent l y ” and “s ubs t ant i al l ypr ej udi ced” bya “c om pl et e abs ence of any pr oces s , ” w hen the governm ent , w i thoutnot i ce ora hea r i ng, t erm i nat ed the pet i t i oner ’ s defe rr al of r emoval underthe C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e. I d. at239- 240, 258. D i s t i nct fr om B r adl ey , how ever , the pet i t i oneri n K houzam di d not w a iv e h is d u e p ro c e ss rig h ts, a n d n o sta tu te c o n d iti o n e d h is adm i ssi on t o the U nit ed S t at es on an exp res s w ai ver of these r i ght s . See i d. at235- 260. A l though a compl et e deni al of pr oces s m aybe i nher ent l ypr ej udi ci al i n m os tcas es , w e fi nd no i nher entpr ej udi ce i n the enf or cementof an e xpr es s due pr oces s w ai veragai ns tan al i en w ho has al r eadyr ece i ved the b e n e f i to f th a twa i v e r . Co n s e q u e n t l y , i n th e VWP c o n t e x t , we w i l l r equi r e the s ame show i ng of “s ubs t ant i al pr ej udi ce” r equi r ed forot herdue pr oces s chal l enges t o or der s of r emoval
. See K han, 448 F. 3d at236. B eca us e B r adl eycannot s h o w p r e j u d i c e , h i s d u e p r o c e s s c l a i m d o e s n o tc a rry.

V. B ra d ley’s f

in a l ar g u m e n t is th a t, ev e n if h is w a iv e r is val i d and enf

or cea bl e, he i s neverthel es s ent i t l ed t o pur s ue aT he “a dj us t m ento f sta tus ” r emedyperm i t s the A t t orney 5 G ener al , “i n hi s di s cr et i on and under s uch r egul at i ons as he may p resc ri b e, ” t o adj us tan al i en’ s s t atus t o thatof a l aw ful perm anentr es i denti f “( 1) the a l i en makes an appl i cat i on for s uch adj us t m ent , ( 2) the al i en i s el i gi bl e t o r ece i ve an i m m i gr ant vi s a and i s admi s s i bl e t o the U ni t ed S t at es forperm anent re sid e n c e , an d (3 ) a n im m ig ra n t v isa is im m e d iate lya v a ilab le to h im at th e ti m e h is ap p li ca ti o n is fil ed
. ” 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1 2 5 5 (a). M or e pr eci s el y , 8 U
. S. C
. § 1255( c) ( 4) g ener al l ym akes 6 V W P e n tr a n t s i n e l i g i b l e f o rth e “ a d

j u s t m e n to f

s t a tu s ” r e m e d y, bu tcarves out an excep t i on for V W P entr ants seeki ng t o ad j ust thei rs t atu s o n the bas i s of an i m m edi at e- r el at i ve pet i t i on. T he t erm “i m m edi at e re l at i ve” i ncl udes the spous e of a U
. S. ci t i zen. S ee 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1 1 5 1 (b)(2 )(A )(I ). 16 m a rr ia g e -b a s e d a d

ju s tm e n t o f

s ta tu s u n d e r 8 U .S .C . § 1255( c) ( 4)
. H e cont ends that , beca us e 8 U
. S. C
. § 1255( c) ( 4)

5 perm i t s V W P entr ant s t o adj us tthei rs t atus on the bas i s of an “i m m edi at e r el at i ve” pe t i t i on, a V W P entr antpur s ui ng s uch 6 an adj us t m enti s “as s i m i l at ed t o the s t atus of anyotheral i en w ho has appl i ed foradj us t m entof s t atus . . . and i s nots ubj ect t o t he V W P[] no cont es t - cl aus e. ” ( Pet ’ rB r . 33 ( ci t i ng F re e m a n v . G o n z a le s , 4 4 4 F .3 d 1 0 3 1 , 1 0 3 7 (9 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ).) A nyotheri nt erpr et at i on, he cont ends , w oul d be i l l ogi cal and w oul d underm i ne congr es s i onal i nt entt o m ake the adj us t m ent o f sta tu s re m e d ya v a ilab le to V W P e n tra n ts. A g a in , h e is w r ong.See B ay o v. N apol i t ano, 593 F. 3d 495, 507 ( 7th C i r . 2010) 7 (en b an c); M cC arthyv . M u k ase y , 5 5 5 F
. 3 d 4 5 9 , 4 6 2 (5 th C ir
. 2009) ; M om eni v. C hert off, 521 F. 3d 1094, 1097 ( 9th C i r . 2008) (na rrow ing F ree m an v . G o n z a les, 4 4 4 F
. 3 d 1 0 3 1 (9th C ir
. 2 0 0 6 )); Z ine v
. M u k ase y , 5 1 7 F
. 3 d 5 3 5 , 5 4 3 (8th C ir
. 2 0 0 8 ); L a c e yv . G o n z a les , 4 9 9 F .3 d 5 1 4 , 5 1 9 (6 th C ir. 2 0 0 7 ); S c h m itt v . M au rer, 4 5 1 F
. 3 d 1 0 9 2 , 1 0 9 7 (10 th C ir
. 2 0 0 6 ). 17 B r adl ey ’ s pos i t i on has al r eadybeen r ej ect ed bys i x of ours i s t erC our t s of A ppeal s , and w e now j oi n them i n doi ng th e sa m e . A s th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls f

o r th e S e v e n th C irc u it 7 expl ai ned i n B ay o, [a] tfi r s tgl ance , i tappea r s thatther e i s a conf l i ct b e tw e e n th e a d

ju s tm e n t- o f

-s ta tu s s ta tu te , 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 5 (c )( 4 ), a n d th e V W P s ta tu te , 8 U
. S. C
. § 1187( b) ( 2)
. U pon cl os erexami nat i on, how ever , w e bel i eve thattheycan be r econc i l ed. D u rin g th e tim e w h e n a n o n im m ig ra n t v isito r is w i thi n t he V W P’ s 90- dayw i ndow , s he may s ubm i tan adj us t m ent - of- s t atus appl i cat i on bas ed on an i m m edi at e r el at i ve. A n appl i cat i on su b m itt e d a t th a t ti m e w o u ld n o t re p re se n t a c h a l l e n g e t o r e m o v a l
. A f t e rth e v i s i t o ro v e r s t a ys her90- dayvi s i t , how ever , the ef fec tof the V W P w ai verki cks i n, pr event i ng anyobj ect i on t o r emoval ( exce ptforas y l um ) , i ncl udi ng one b a s e d o n a d

ju s tm e n t o f

s ta tu s .18 B ay o, 593 F. 3d at507. W e agr ee a nd hol d that , al though B ra d le yw a s o n c e s ta tu to ri ly el ig ib le u n d e r 8 U .S .C . § 1255( c) ( 4) forthe adj us t m enthe now s eeks , he maynot , aft er the ex pir at i on of h i s 90-dayst ay , adjusthis st atus as a defen se to re m o v a l. B ra d ley’s V W P w a iv e r sq u a re lyf o re c lo se s h im from con t est i ng his rem ov al on this basi s. C ontr aryt o B r adl ey ’ s cont ent i on, the dec i s i on of the N i nth C i r cui tC our tof A ppeal s i n Fr eeman v. G onzal es , 444 F .3 d 1 0 3 1 (9 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ), d o e s n o t co m p e l an o th e r re su lt. A l tho ug h thatcase ruled the V W P ’s no -cont estcl ause i nappl i cabl e w hen “a V W P vi s i t orpr oper l yfi l es an ad justm en t of

statu s ap p li ca ti o n , ” id. at 10 3 5 , the c o u rt s u b s e q u e n t l yn a r r o we d th a td e c i s i o n t o c o v e ro n l yVWP entr ant s w ho pet i t i on t o adj us tthei rs t atus dur i ng thei rl aw ful 90- days t ay , s ee M om eni v. C hert off, 521 F. 3d 1094, 1097 ( 9th C i r . 2008)
. T hus , aft erM om eni , a V W P entr anti n the N i nth C i r cui tm aycont es therr emoval on the bas i s of an adj us t m ent - of- s t atus pet i t i on fi l ed dur i ng herl aw ful 90- day s t ay , butas i n t he otherC our t s of A ppeal s , noton the bas i s of a pet i t i on fi l ed af

t erthatper i od. See Lacey , 499 F. 3d at519 n. 6 ( emphasi zi ng thatFr eeman does notappl yt o adj us t m ent o f s t a tu s p e t i t i o n s f

i l e d b yVWP o v e r s t a y s )
. T h u s , e v e n i f we a d o p ted F re e m a n , tha t d e c isio n w o u ld b e u n a v a ili n g to B rad ley , w h o p eti ti o n ed fo r an ad justm en t of

statu s y ea rs b e yo n d th e e x p i r a t i o n o f h i s a u th o r i z e d s t a y. C o n s e q u e n t l y, w e conc l ude thatB r adl ey ’ s V W P w ai verfor ecl os es hi m fr omA t o ral a rgu m en t an d in a su p p lem en tal let ter t o this C o u rt 8 underR ul e 28(

j ) of the Feder al R ul es of A ppel l at e Proce dur e, B r adl eyr ai s ed the ar gum entthatcert ai n reg u la t i ons of the D epart m entof St at e ( namel y , the s o- cal l ed “30/ 60 day rul e” found at9 For ei gn A ffa i r s M anual 40. 63 n. 4. 7- 1 t o 4. 7- 4) r ender § 1 2 5 5 ( c ) ( 4 ) ’ s a d

j u s t m e n to f s t a tu s p r o v i s i o n a n u l l i tyf o rV WP entr ant s . T hi s ar gum ent d id n otappea ri n B r adl ey ’ s openi ng br i ef nor i n hi s r epl y br i ef, and w e deem i t w ai ved. See U ni t ed S tate s v . P e lu llo , 3 9 9 F .3 d 1 9 7 , 2 2 2 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ) (“ It is w e ll se ttl e d th a t an a p p e llan t’s f a ilu re to id e n tify o r arg u e a n iss u e in h is op en ing b rief

co n sti tutes w aive r of

that issue o n ap p ea l. ”); L att ab v. A s hcr oft , 384 F. 3d 8, 17 ( 1s tC i r . 2004) ( not i ng “[t ] he us ual rul e, . . . thatnew theor i es cannotbe r ai s ed i n a p o st- arg u m en t R u le 28 (j ) fil ing ”). 19 con t est i ng his rem ov al via a pet i t i on for adjustm ent of st atus. 8 V I. F o r th e f o reg o ing rea so n s, w e w il l den yB rad ley ’s p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.