Opinion ID: 3011542
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) divests this court of jurisdiction over a final order of removal against an alien convicted of certain delineated offenses. 8 U.S.C. _________________________________________________________________ 1. Section 3732 provides: Any person who unintentionally causes the death of another person while engaged in the violation of any law of this Commonwealth or municipal ordinance applying to the operation or use of a vehicle or to the regulation of traffic except section 3731 (relating to driving under influence of alcohol or controlled substance) is guilty of homicide by vehicle, a misdemeanor of the first degree, when the violation is the cause of death. 18 Pa. C.S.A. 3732. 3 S 1252(a)(2)(C);2 Liang v. INS, 206 F.3d 308 (3d Cir. 2000). However, jurisdiction is only removed under the IIRIRA if (1) the petitioner is an alien (2) who is deportable by reason of having been convicted of one of the enumerated offenses. Drakes v. Zimski, 240 F.3d 246, 247 (3d Cir. 2001).3 Therefore, we must initially determine whether these two statutory prerequisites to the limitation of our jurisdiction are satisfied. Id. There is no dispute that Francis is an alien. Thus, the jurisdictional question that we must address is whether Francis' offense -- homicide by vehicle in violation of 18 Pa. C.S.A. S 3732 -- is one of the enumerated offenses under the IIRIRA. We hold that it is not. _________________________________________________________________ 2. Section 1252(a)(2)(C) provides: (C) Orders against criminal aliens Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no court shall have jurisdiction to review any final order of removal against an alien who is removable by reason of having committed a criminal offense covered in section 1182(a)(2) or 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) [entitled Aggravated felony], (B), (C), or (D) of this title, or any offense covered by section 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii) of this title for which both predicate offenses are, without regard to their date of commission, otherwise covered by section 1227(a)(2)(A)(i) of this title. 3. We recognize that the Supreme Court has recently held that certain provisions of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, including 8 U.S.C.A. S 1252(a)(2)(C), do not deprive district courts of jurisdiction to review a resident alien's habeas corpus petition challenging a BIA decision. INS v. Cyr , ___ S.Ct. ___, 2001 WL 703922  (U.S. June 25, 2001). That is in accord with our decision in Liang v. INS, 206 F.3d 308 (3d Cir. 2000). We pause here merely to note that the Supreme Court expressly decided not to address the jurisdictional question of whether a court of appeals has jurisdiction to determine whether the S 1252(a)(2)(C) jurisdictional bar applies to petitions for review of BIA decisions, i.e. whether an alien has been convicted of an aggravated felony. Calcano-Martinez v. INS, ___ U.S. ___, 2001 WL 703943  n.2 (U.S. June 25, 2001) (explaining that the government conceded that courts of appeals have jurisdiction to determine the jurisdictional facts of whether an individual is an alien and whether he or she has been convicted of an `aggravated felony'  but that the petitions there did not raise this issue). 4