Opinion ID: 2997079
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: IIRIRA and Judicial Review

Text: Although the permanent provisions of IIRIRA did not take effect until April 1, 1997, IIRIRA nonetheless sets out certain rules that apply to proceedings commenced before 1 that date. See IIRIRA § 309(a), 110 Stat. at 3009-625. In other words, with few exceptions, aliens whose deportation proceedings commenced before April 1, 1997, continue to be governed by the law as it stood before IIRIRA’s passage. See id. One of these exceptions, IIRIRA § 309(c)(4), applies to a case commenced before April 1, 1997, and “in which a final order of exclusion or deportation is entered more than 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act [September 30, 2 1996].” Id. § 309(c)(4), 110 Stat. at 3009-626. For aliens who 1 IIRIRA § 309(a) reads in relevant part: (a) In General.—Except as provided in this section and sections 303(b)(2), 306(c), 308(d)(2)(D), or 308(d)(5) of this subdivision, this subtitle and the amendments made by this subtitle shall take effect on the first day of the first month beginning more than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act (in this title referred to as the “title III-A effective date”). IIRIRA § 309(a), 110 Stat. 3009-625. 2 IIRIRA § 309(c)(4) reads in relevant part: (c) Transition for Certain Aliens.— ... (4) Transitional Changes in Judicial Review.—In the case in which a final order of exclusion or deportation is entered more than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act [Sept. 30, 1996], notwithstanding any provision of section 106 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (as in effect as of the date of the enactment of this Act) to the contrary— ... (continued...) 6 No. 02-4264 have a final order of deportation entered against them after October 30, 1996, § 309(c)(4) dictates that “there shall be no appeal of any discretionary decision under section 212(c), 212(h), 212(i), 244, or 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (as in effect as of the date of enactment of this Act).” Id. § 309(c)(4)(E), 110 Stat. at 3009-626. Mr. Bronisz does not contest that his applications for suspension of deportation and voluntary departure were requests for relief under the 3 old (pre-IIRIRA) § 244 of the INA. See Useinovic v. INS, 313 F.3d 1025, 1033-35 (7th Cir. 2001) (discussing relationship between NACARA and INA § 244); see also Tamas-Mercea v. Reno, 222 F.3d 417, 427 (7th Cir. 2000) (considering voluntary departure); Pilch v. INS, 129 F.3d 969, 970-71 (7th Cir. 1997) (discussing suspension of deportation). Therefore, if the November 2002 order is a “final order of exclusion or deportation entered more than 30 days after” September 30, 1996, in a case commenced before April 1, 1997, we lack jurisdiction over Mr. Bronisz’s petition for review. See IIRIRA § 309(c)(4), 110 Stat. at 3009-626. In this case, the IJ ordered Mr. Bronisz deported pursuant to the original charge in his order to show cause. The parties do not dispute, and we agree, that this is a “final order of 2 (...continued) (E) there shall be no appeal of any discretionary decision under section 212(c), 212(h), 212(i), 244, or 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (as in effect as of the date of enactment of this Act). IIRIRA § 309(4), 110 Stat. 3009-625 (as amended by 110 Stat. 3657). 3 We are puzzled that Mr. Bronisz applied for voluntary departure after his proceedings were reopened. NACARA allows aliens to reopen proceedings to apply for suspension of deportation, not voluntary departure. See NACARA § 203(c), 111 Stat. at 2199 (amending IIRIRA § 309(g), 110 Stat. at 3009-627). No. 02-4264 7 deportation.” See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(47)(A) & (B) (“The term ‘order of deportation’ means the order . . . concluding that the alien is deportable or ordering deportation.”). What remains to be seen is whether the November 2002 order is an order entered in a case that commenced before April 1, 1997.