Opinion ID: 78627
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Five-Year-Permanent-Residence Requirement

Text: First we address the government’s argument that we must deny relief because Mr. Contreras failed to appeal to the BIA the IJ’s ruling that he had not satisfied the five-year-permanent-residence requirement of § 1229b(a). We reject the argument, because the government cannot rely on the IJ’s permanentresidence ruling. The BIA dismissed Mr. Contreras’s appeal in a substantive, albeit short, opinion in accordance with the procedure set forth in 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(5). See generally Uanreroro v. Gonzales, 443 F.3d 1197, 1203–04 (10th Cir. 2006) (outlining the differences between methods of BIA decisionmaking and the implications for appellate review). Under these circumstances, it would be improper for us to “affirm on grounds raised in the IJ decision unless they [were] relied upon by the BIA in its affirmance.” Id. at 1204. Uanreroro held that “[a]s long as the BIA decision contains a discernible substantive discussion, . . . [this court’s] review extends no further, unless [the BIA decision] explicitly incorporates or references an expanded version of the same reasoning below.” Id. Here, the BIA did not acknowledge, much less rely on, the IJ’s finding that Mr. Contreras had failed to meet the permanent-residence requirement of § 1229b(a)(1). The BIA’s affirmance was based exclusively on application of the stop-time rule to the seven-year requirement of § 1229b(a)(2). See Admin. R. at 2–3 (referring to Mr. Contreras’s period of “continuous” -6- residence). Under these circumstances Uanreroro precludes us from denying relief on the permanent-residence ground. B. Seven-Year-Continuous-Residence Requirement
Before addressing the merits of Mr. Contreras’s challenge to the IJ’s decision regarding his seven-year continuous residence, we consider a potential impediment to our jurisdiction, which we may raise sua sponte. See Conrad v. Phone Directories Co., 585 F.3d 1376, 1380 (10th Cir. 2009). Our concern is Mr. Contreras’s failure to file a brief in his appeal to the BIA. As a general proposition, “neglecting to take an appeal to the BIA constitutes a failure to exhaust administrative remedies as to any issue that could have been raised, negating the jurisdiction necessary for subsequent judicial review.” Torres de la Cruz, 483 F.3d at 1017 (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted). Relevant here, we have held that “general statements in the notice of appeal to the BIA are insufficient to constitute exhaustion of administrative remedies.” Id. at 1018. But fortunately for Mr. Contreras, although he failed to brief his argument before the BIA, it nonetheless opted to resolve his appeal on the merits and rendered a substantive discussion of the seven-year-continuous-residence issue. We therefore conclude that he has exhausted his administrative remedies with respect to that issue. See Sidabutar v. Gonzales, 503 F.3d 1116, 1120–1122 -7- (10th Cir. 2007) (exhaustion requirement is satisfied if the petitioner raised the issue or if the BIA actually decided the issue). We also note that “[a]lthough we generally lack jurisdiction to review denials of discretionary relief, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B), . . . this court always retains jurisdiction to review constitutional claims and questions of law.” Garcia v. Holder, 584 F.3d 1288, 1289 n.2 (10th Cir. 2009). The denial of relief in this case turned on the BIA’s purely legal determination that the stop-time rule must be applied retroactively to a conviction obtained before the rule’s enactment. We have jurisdiction to review this legal determination.
Mr. Contreras’s petition contends that applying the stop-time rule to bar cancellation of removal is impermissibly retroactive in his case. This court has previously rejected a constitutional attack when the stop-time rule was applied to bar discretionary relief under § 1229b because of a prior conviction. See Torres de la Cruz, 483 F.3d at 1021–22 (upholding the rule against equal-protection and substantive-due-process challenges). The conviction in Torres de la Cruz did not predate the enactment of IIRIRA, however, and therefore retroactive application of the statute was not at issue. Nonetheless, Mr. Contreras apparently believes that Torres de la Cruz mandates a denial of relief in his case. See Aplt. Br. at 5 (“This Court has supported the BIA in finding the stop-time rule was not impermissibly retroactive.” (citing Torres de la Cruz)). But he urges us to -8- “revisit” Torres de la Cruz, id. at 5, 7, and instead adopt the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning in Sinotes-Cruz v. Gonzales, 468 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2006), in which the court held that it was impermissible to apply the stop-time rule retroactively in the circumstances of that case. As a general matter, we do not consider arguments that are inadequately briefed, see Bronson v. Swensen, 500 F.3d 1099, 1104–05 (10th Cir. 2007), as when a proposition stated in the table of contents or in a section heading is not followed by any supporting analysis. See id. at 1105 (“[C]ursory statements, without supporting analysis and case law, fail to constitute the kind of briefing that is necessary to avoid application of the forfeiture doctrine”). We could dispose of the retroactivity issue on that ground because Mr. Contreras’s brief on appeal contains almost no discussion of the issue. His argument of less than one page does little more than baldly state that we should overrule the BIA and categorically bar application of the stop-time rule to convictions obtained before IIRIRA’s passage. There is no supporting analysis, and his brief does not even attempt to explain why applying the stop-time rule is fundamentally unfair in this case. Nevertheless, the brief does cite Sinotes-Cruz, which thoughtfully presents arguments concerning retroactivity. We will exercise our discretion to consider whether we should follow that decision and grant relief to Mr. Contreras. Before discussing Sinotes-Cruz, we note that at least one circuit has held that § 1229b(d)(1)(B) unambiguously applies to convictions predating IIRIRA. -9- See Heaven v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 167 (5th Cir. 2006). Were we to follow that circuit, we would reject the holding in Sinotes-Cruz. We need not go so far, however, because, as we shall see, Sinotes-Cruz restricted its nonretroactivity holding to a limited set of circumstances, and Mr. Contreras has made no effort to show that his case comes within that set. Sinotes-Cruz pleaded guilty to two nondeportable offenses in 1993, only five years after being admitted into the United States. Upon IIRIRA’s effective date, the offenses became deportable, and in 2000 Sinotes-Cruz was placed in removal proceedings. The IJ denied his request for cancellation of removal, concluding that he was ineligible for relief because his 1993 convictions stopped him from accruing seven years of continuous residence, a finding affirmed by the BIA. The Ninth Circuit reversed, concluding that application of the stop-time rule to Mr. Sinotes-Cruz’s pre-IIRIRA conviction obtained through a guilty plea would produce an impermissible retroactive effect. See Sinotes-Cruz, 468 F.3d at 1197–1203. Because Sinotes-Cruz had pleaded guilty to an offense that did not render him deportable at the time, the court reasoned that he had entered the plea “in the justifiable expectation that [it] would have no effect on [his] immigration status.” Id. at 1202. It also observed that before IIRIRA’s effective date, Sinotes-Cruz had become eligible for discretionary relief. See id. at 1202. The petitioner’s detrimental reliance on the state of the law at the time he pleaded guilty, combined with IIRIRA’s elimination of any avenue for discretionary -10- relief, led the court to hold that it would be fundamentally unfair to apply the stop-time rule retroactively in his case. See id. at 1202-03. Even were we to agree with the reasoning of Sinotes-Cruz—a step we need not take—we could not grant Mr. Contreras relief because he has not attempted to show that he comes within its holding. Central to the Ninth Circuit’s decision was that the petitioner had pleaded guilty to a nondeportable offense, and therefore reasonably expected the conviction to have no effect on his immigration status. Yet Mr. Contreras has not argued that his conviction was for a nondeportable offense. Nor has he suggested that if it was a deportable offense, he was nevertheless eligible for discretionary relief when he pleaded guilty. Given Mr. Contreras’s failure to establish these critical facts, he has not shown that he would be entitled to relief under the reasoning of Sinotes-Cruz. See Martinez v. I.N.S., 523 F.3d 365, 373–74 (2d Cir. 2008) (applying the stop-time rule to a conviction obtained before IIRIRA’s enactment “would not have an impermissible retroactive effect” with respect to a petitioner who was not eligible for discretionary relief when he committed the crime. (emphasis added)). As far as we can tell, his right to stay in this country was no greater when he pleaded guilty than it is now, so retroactive application of the stop-time rule is not unfair. -11-