Opinion ID: 216098
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Change of Law Exception to Res Judicata

Text: The government argues that if the basic requirements for issue preclusion are satisfied, Blake and Brieva constitute a change of law such that principles of res judicata do not 5952 PAULO v. HOLDER apply. The government cites Clifton v. Attorney General of the State of California, 997 F.2d 660 (9th Cir. 1993), for this exception. Paulo responds that Clifton created no exception to res judicata applicable to this case, and, further, that even if it did create such an exception, Blake and Brieva did not change the law. We agree with Paulo that Blake and Brieva did not change the law. Thus, even assuming change of law is an exception to res judicata, it is not applicable here. [7] In our recent en banc decision in Abebe, we strongly suggested, if not directly held, that Blake and Brieva do not constitute a change of law. One of the petitioner’s arguments in that case was that Blake and Brieva represented “new rules” and thus could not be applied retroactively. Abebe v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 1092, 1105 (9th Cir. 2007), vacated, 514 F.3d 909 (9th Cir. 2008). The three-judge panel rejected this argument “for the simple reason that Blake and Brieva do not represent a change in the law.” Id.; see also id. at 1102 (“[T]he BIA has not recently changed course but rather has maintained a consistent position for many years.”). The panel noted that the BIA’s approach has been settled “[s]ince at least the 1970s.” Id. at 1105. Although the en banc court did not address this argument in great detail, it did “reject petitioner’s due process retroactivity argument,” and cited to the panel’s analysis. Abebe, 554 F.3d at 1208 n.7. Thus the en banc court in Abebe appears to have concluded that Blake and Brieva did not change the law. The Second Circuit has reached the same conclusion. Blake, 489 F.3d at 98-99 (rejecting petitioner’s retroactivity argument and concluding that Blake “has not [changed the law]” and “does nothing more than crystallize the agency’s preexisting body of law”). [8] Even if this court’s en banc decision in Abebe did not resolve this question, it is clear to us that Blake and Brieva did not effect a change of law. The statutory counterpart rule has existed for at least thirty years. See, e.g., Matter of Wadud, 19 I. & N. Dec. 182, 184 (BIA 1984) (“[T]he Board has consistently held that section 212(c) can only be invoked in a deporPAULO v. HOLDER 5953 tation hearing where the ground of deportation charged is also a ground of inadmissibility.”). It has been applied in this court for at least twenty years. See Cabasug v. INS, 847 F.2d 1321, 1325-26 (9th Cir. 1988). [9] Although Blake and Brieva represent the BIA’s clearest statements on the issue, the BIA has regularly focused on the language of the excludability and removability provisions in applying the statutory counterpart rule rather than the overlap in coverage between excludability and removability provisions. For example, in In re Jimenez-Santillano the BIA “reject[ed] the respondent’s contention that excludability under section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the Act for fraud or willful misrepresentation of a material fact before an immigration official to procure an immigration benefit . . . is comparable to deportability under section 241(a)(3)(B)(iii) for criminal convictions for document fraud or misuse under 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a).” 21 I. & N. Dec. 567, 573 (BIA 1996). The Board stated that its “focus ‘is not whether the deportable alien’s particular offense . . . could form the basis for a ground of exclusion and therefore be waivable; rather, the focus is whether the ground of deportation against the alien has a comparable ground of exclusion.’ ” Id. (quoting Esposito, 21 I. & N. Dec. at 7) (emphasis added). We similarly held, ten years before Blake, that § 212(c) relief is only available if “a subsection of the exclusion statute is substantially identical to a subsection of the deportation statute.” Komarenko, 35 F.3d at 434 (emphasis added). Neither the BIA nor this court has ever held, or even suggested, that the relevant question is whether, irrespective of the language of the provisions, the conviction making the alien removable also makes the alien excludable. Blake and Brieva therefore did not change the law.