Opinion ID: 2974556
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Felonious Assault

Text: Jaadan does not challenge the BIA’s conclusion in its decision remanding matters to the IJ that felonious assault under Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.82 is also a crime involving moral turpitude. Section 750.82 makes it a felony to assault someone with a weapon.3 As the BIA noted, assaults 3 The statute provides as follows: FELONIOUS ASSAULT—Any person who shall assault another with a gun, revolver, pistol, knife, iron bar, club, brass knuckles or other dangerous weapon, but without intending to commit the crime of murder, and without intending to inflict great bodily harm less than the crime of murder, shall be guilty of a felony. Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.82 (1970). - 10 - No. 05-4258 Jaadan v. Gonzales involving the use of a weapon are crimes of moral turpitude. (JA 109 (citing In re Medina, 15 I. & N. Dec. 611 (BIA 1976), aff’d sub nom. Medina-Luna v. INS, 547 F.2d 1171 (7th Cir. 1977)).) See also Sosa-Martinez, 420 F.3d at 1342 (citing various courts-of-appeals cases concluding that assault with a dangerous or deadly weapon is a crime involving moral turpitude). Jaadan contends, however, that “it is impossible to tell whether he was convicted of felonious assault” under Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.82 because the record contains documentation suggesting that his conviction for that crime had been vacated. But that documentation refers to vacating his sentence, not his conviction, by virtue of Michigan’s habitual-offender law. Jaadan does not contest that he was found to be a habitual offender under Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 769.10 and 769.13. Under that statute, once a person has been convicted of two felonies in the state, the court may sentence that person under the habitual-offender provisions and “shall vacate the previous sentence . . . .” Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.13 (1978) (emphasis added). See also People v. Miller, 394 N.W.2d 459, 461 (Mich. 1986) (“[Section] 769.13 clearly requires that the sentence for the underlying offense be vacated.”). In short, “the merits of the underlying judgment have not been called into question and adverse legal consequences continue to follow from it.” In re Marroquin-Garcia, 23 I. & N. Dec. 705, 714 (AG 2005). Jaadan also suggests that to the extent the habitual-offender law impacts him, it merely vacated his assault-and-battery sentence arising out of the same incident and did not affect his felonious-assault conviction or sentence. Under this theory, because there nonetheless is documentation that the felonious-assault conviction was “vacated,” it must have been vacated on other grounds and should not serve as a basis for deportation. But assault and battery under - 11 - No. 05-4258 Jaadan v. Gonzales Michigan law is a misdemeanor, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.81(a) (1970), and therefore cannot serve as the basis for finding a defendant to be a habitual offender. Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.10(1) (1978) (noting that a defendant must be convicted of a “subsequent felony” to be considered a habitual offender) (emphasis added). There is no valid basis to suggest that the references to “vacating” Jaadan’s felonious-assault conviction have to do with anything but the vacating of the sentence for that crime under Michigan’s habitual-offender law. Accordingly, the IJ properly determined that Jaadan was convicted of felonious assault under Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.82, a crime involving moral turpitude. 2. This Court Lacks Jurisdiction to Review Whether the IJ Properly Determined the Felonious Assault Was a “Particularly Serious” Crime, so Jaadan Is not Entitled to Asylum or Withholding of Deportation. Jaadan also argues that, even if deportable, he is entitled to asylum and withholding of deportation. Under 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(c)(2)(i)(A) and INA § 243(h)(2)(B), however, this relief is unavailable to aliens who, “having been convicted . . . of a particularly serious crime, constitute[] a danger to the community . . . .” The IJ concluded that Jaadan’s felonious-assault conviction for striking his sister and threatening her with a knife amounted to a “particularly serious crime.” (JA 20.) This Court lacks jurisdiction to review the IJ’s discretionary determination that the felonious assault involved a particularly serious crime. See INA § 242(a)(2)(B), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B); see also Almaghzar v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 915, 923 (9th Cir. 2006) (“We are without jurisdiction to review [petitioner’s] claim that the IJ erred in concluding that [petitioner’s] felony convictions constituted particularly serious crimes that bar him from withholding of removal.”); Afridi v. - 12 - No. 05-4258 Jaadan v. Gonzales Gonzales, 442 F.3d 1212, 1218 (9th Cir. 2006) (“While we cannot reweigh evidence to determine if the crime was indeed particularly serious, we can determine whether the BIA applied the correct legal standard in making its determination.”). Jaadan contends that because his case arose before the IIRIRA and its jurisdiction-stripping provisions were enacted, they therefore do not apply here. But Jaadan admits that the IIRIRA’s “‘transitional rules’ of judicial review” apply to his case. (Pet’r Br. 1.) As discussed above, these rules expressly provide that the jurisdiction-stripping provisions apply here. See, e.g., Roman Robledo-Gonzalez v. Ashcroft, 342 F.3d 667, 675 n.7 (7th Cir. 2003) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (statutory notes)). Moreover, even if this Court had jurisdiction, the IJ, on remand, made an individualized determination that Jaadan’s felonious-assault conviction amounted to a particularly serious crime, noting that Jaadan inflicted physical injury and that the crime involved potentially life-threatening acts. (JA 20.) This determination is consistent with this Court’s prior decisions. See Hamama, 78 F.3d at 239-40 (affirming BIA decision that felonious-assault conviction under Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.82 was a particularly serious crime where petitioner “angrily waved a gun at another driver” and his conduct “involved ‘the substantial risk of violence towards another person’”). 3. Jaadan Had No Right To a Competency Hearing. Jaadan raises certain due-process challenges to his deportation proceedings that this Court may consider. See INA § 242(a)(2)(D), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) (noting that court of appeals can review alien’s “constitutional claims or questions of law”). An alien in deportation proceedings is entitled to due process in the form of a “full and fair” hearing. See, e.g., Ahmed v. Gonzales, 398 - 13 - No. 05-4258 Jaadan v. Gonzales F.3d 722, 725 (6th Cir. 2005). An alien must be given “a reasonable opportunity to examine the evidence against him, to present evidence on his own behalf, and to cross-examine witnesses presented by the Government.” Id. at 725 (citation omitted). To constitute fundamental unfairness, a defect in the deportation proceedings “must have been such as might have led to a denial of justice.” Vasha v. Gonzales, 410 F.3d 863, 872 (6th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). Thus, “proof of prejudice is necessary to establish a due process violation in an immigration hearing.” Id. (citation omitted). Jaadan’s first due-process argument is that his deportation proceedings were fundamentally unfair because the IJ failed to conduct a competency hearing even though Jaadan exhibited signs of mental illness. This argument fails because the Constitution forbids only criminal proceedings against one who is incompetent. See, e.g., Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389, 396 (1993) (“A criminal defendant may not be tried unless he is competent.”) (citing Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375, 378 (1966)). But “immigration and deportation proceedings are civil, and not criminal, in nature.” Csekinek v. INS, 391 F.3d 819, 824 (6th Cir. 2004). A deportation proceeding “is a purely civil action to determine eligibility to remain in this country, not to punish an unlawful entry . . . .” INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032, 1038 (1984). Accordingly, “various protections that apply in the context of a criminal trial do not apply in a deportation hearing.” Id.; see also United States v. Mandycz, 447 F.3d 951, 962 (6th Cir. 2006) (explaining that prohibition against trying incompetent criminal defendants does not apply to denaturalization proceeding). The only time a competency hearing may be required in the immigration context is to determine whether an unrepresented alien shows sufficient evidence of incompetency to require an - 14 - No. 05-4258 Jaadan v. Gonzales attorney or guardian to represent the alien’s interests at the proceedings. See Mohamed v. Tebrake, 371 F. Supp. 2d 1043 (D. Minn. 2005) (cited in Mandycz, 447 F.3d at 962) (holding that unrepresented alien had due-process right to competency hearing to determine whether representative should be appointed under 8 C.F.R § 1240.4, which provides that an attorney or other representative should be appointed “[w]hen it is impracticable for the respondent to be present at the hearing because of mental incompetency”). Here, Jaadan was represented by counsel in the deportation proceedings, and the IJ considered the applicability of immigration regulations regarding competency. (JA 23 (noting that 8 C.F.R. § 1240.43 (the precursor to § 1240.4) “addresses the impracticability for a respondent to be present due to issues of mental incompetency”).) In short, Jaadan’s due-process competency rights are limited to a determination of whether his incompetency requires that he have a representative at his deportation proceedings, not whether his incompetency precludes deportation altogether. Because Jaadan had counsel, he had all he was entitled to.4 Additionally, as the Government points out, the IJ—notwithstanding the lack of a constitutional obligation in this regard—considered Jaadan’s competency and concluded that Jaadan failed to establish that he could not understand or appreciate the nature of his deportation proceedings. (JA 22, 23.) Further, Jaadan cannot show that the IJ’s failure to conduct a competency hearing prejudiced him. Not only would Jaadan likely fail to establish incompetency (for the reasons just discussed), but, even if he did, he could still be deported. See Mohamed, 371 F. Supp. 2d at 4 Jaadan does not raise arguments regarding the IJ’s denial of his requests for relief under INA sections 212(c) or 212(h), other than implying that the IJ failed to properly account for his competency when making these determinations. (See, e.g., Pet’r Br. 25 (noting that Jaadan’s competency is at issue in light of his failure to testify regarding his section 212(c) application).) Because his competency argument is without merit, contentions depending on it also fail. - 15 - No. 05-4258 Jaadan v. Gonzales 1046 (“[T]he law specifically contemplates that removal proceedings may go forward against incompetent aliens and that incompetent aliens may be deported.”) (citing Nee Hao Wong v. INS, 550 F.2d 521, 523 (9th Cir. 1977)).5 4. The BIA’s Summary Decision Did Not Violate Jaadan’s Due-Process Rights Jaadan also argues that the BIA’s decision affirming the IJ decision without opinion amounts to a denial of due process. But we have determined that these summary BIA decisions do not violate due process. Denko v. INS, 351 F.3d 717, 729 (6th Cir. 2003) (Petitioner’s “argument that the summary affirmance without opinion permitted by § 1003.1(a)(7) violates the mandate that agencies must set forth reasons for their decisions . . . fails because the IJ’s opinion becomes the reasoned explanation needed for review.”) (citing Albathani v. INS, 318 F.3d 365, 378-79 (1st Cir. 2003)). 5. The U.N. Protocol Preventing Refoulement Provides Jaadan no Greater Rights than the INA. Jaadan’s last argument appears to be that deporting him to Iraq amounts to refoulement—the expulsion or return of a refugee from one state to another—in violation of the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. Jaadan notes that the United States is a party to this Protocol, which incorporates Articles 2 through 34 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, which in turn provides that “[n]o contracting state shall expel or return (refouler) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers or territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his . . . political opinion.” (Pet’r Br. 49 (citing Convention Relating to the 5 Jaadan also argues that his alleged incompetency invalidates his guilty pleas to the underlying criminal offenses that served as the basis of deportation. (Pet’r Br. 27.) Even if Jaadan provided sufficient evidence of incompetency here, he provides no authority under which this Court can question the validity of those pleas. - 16 - No. 05-4258 Jaadan v. Gonzales Status of Refugees, art. 33, ¶ 1, 198 U.N.T.S. 150, 176 (July 28, 1951)).) Jaadan states that “[t]he law involved in that concept is discussed in Haitian Refugee Center, Inc. v. Baker, 789 F. Supp. 1552 [(S.D. Fla. 1991)].” (Pet’r Br. 49.) Jaadan is not entitled to relief under the U.N. Protocol. The district court in Haitian Refugee Center did indeed grant a preliminary injunction to Haitian refugees based on a determination that the Protocol was self-executing and therefore needed no congressional action for the plaintiffs to avail themselves of it. 789 F. Supp. at 1559. But Jaadan fails to alert this Court that the Eleventh Circuit reversed that decision on that very point, holding that the Protocol is not self-executing and therefore provides no enforceable rights without legislation. See Haitian Refugee Ctr. v. Baker, 949 F.2d 1109, 1110 (11th Cir. 1991) (“The language of the Protocol and the history of the United States’ accession to it leads to the conclusion that Article 33 is not self-executing and thus provides no enforceable rights to the Haitian plaintiffs in this case.”) (citation omitted). This view has been consistently followed. See, e.g., Barapind v. Reno, 225 F.3d 1100, 1107 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[T]he Protocol was not intended to be self-executing, and serves only as a useful guide in determining congressional intent in enacting the Refugee Act.”). As explained in more detail by the district court in Barapind, Congress amended the immigration law in 1980 to reflect the Protocol’s directives. Barapind v. Reno, 72 F. Supp. 2d 1132, 1149 (E.D. Cal. 1999) (citing INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 331 (1992) (explaining that United States law was amended to conform to Article 33, so “the nondiscretionary duty imposed by 8 U.S.C. § 243(h) [withholding of deportation] parallels the United States’ mandatory non-refoulement obligations under Article 33.1”)). The court further explained that the Protocol does not “confer any - 17 - No. 05-4258 Jaadan v. Gonzales rights beyond those granted by implementing domestic legislation.” Id. (citing, among other cases, Haitian Refugee Ctr., 949 F.3d at 1110). Ultimately, the court concluded that the Protocol “affords petitioner no rights beyond the INA and its amendments.” Id. Likewise, because Jaadan has no right to relief under the INA, he has no right to relief under the Protocol.