Opinion ID: 167922
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: bac kgro u n d

Text: Ferry is a native of Northern Ireland and a citizen of both the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. In 1992, Ferry joined the Irish Republican Army (“IRA”). In M arch 1993, Ferry and two other IRA members drove to Dublin, Ireland allegedly to participate in an IRA training camp. During the trip, members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary (“RUC”), the police force in N orthern Ireland from 1922 to 2001, stopped the vehicle and recovered two assault rifles and several rounds of ammunition. Ferry was charged with conspiracy to commit murder, possession of w eapons with intent to endanger life or property, and possession of weapons. H e was tried at the Crow n Court in Belfast, Northern Ireland, a non-jury court system, and found guilty of the first two charges. The Crown Court imposed concurrent sentences of twenty-two years on the conspiracy charge, and sixteen years on the possession of weapons w ith intent to endanger life or property charge, to be served at Long Kesh prison outside of Belfast. On July 18, 2000, after seven years’ imprisonment, Ferry was released pursuant to the Good Friday Agreement, signed on April 10, 1998, which called for the release of IRA prisoners. On August 5, 2000, Ferry married Heaven Sheehan, a United States C itizen, at the B elfast C ity H all. Shortly thereafter, Ferry claimed that the RUC -5- informed him that his name was on the death list of loyalist paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland. On December 12, 2000, Ferry entered the United States under the VW P, obtaining authorization to remain in the country until M arch 11, 2001. In exchange for expedited entry under the VW P, Ferry executed a Nonimmigrant V isa W aiver A rrival/D eparture Form (“Form I-94W ”). Admin. R. at 826-27. O n the Form I-94W , Ferry waived his right “to contest, other than on the basis of an application for asylum, any action in deportation.” See 8 U.S.C. § 1187(b)(2). Ferry also marked “no” in response to the question of whether he had “ever been arrested or convicted for an offense or crime involving moral turpitude . . . or been arrested or convicted for two or more offenses for which the aggregate sentence to confinement was five years or more . . . . ” See id. § 1187(a)(6) (requiring an alien admitted under the VW P “not to represent a threat to the welfare, health, safety, or security of the U nited States”). On M arch 5, 2002, almost a year after his VW P visa expired, Ferry filed a Form I-485 application to adjust status and a Form I-765 request for employment authorization with the DHS district office in Denver, Colorado. That same day, Ferry’s w ife filed a Form I-130 immediate relative visa petition. The DHS granted Ferry a work permit, but the adjustment of status application and the immediate relative petition remained pending. -6- On January 30, 2003, the DHS scheduled an interview with Ferry and his wife in Denver, Colorado, regarding his adjustment of status application and her im mediate relative petition. When Ferry and his wife arrived for the interview, DHS officials arrested Ferry. 5 On January 31, the DHS district director issued an administrative order of removal, concluding that Ferry had overstayed under the terms of his VW P visa. 6 Admin. R. at 2503. The order informed Ferry that because he was admitted under the VW P, he could only contest the order of removal by applying for asylum. Id. On February 4, after Ferry expressed interest in applying for asylum, the DHS referred him to an immigration judge for asylum-only proceedings. 7 On February 19, 2003, the DHS approved Ferry’s wife’s Form I-130 immediate relative visa petition. Admin. R. at 2703. However, on M ay 23, 2003, the DHS district director denied Ferry’s Form I-485 adjustment of status 5 Ferry was immediately transferred to the Federal Corrections Institution in Englewood, Colorado. He remained in custody there until February 26, 2003, when he was transferred to the maximum security division of the Denver County Jail. Then on September 17, 2003, Ferry was moved to the Jefferson County Jail. 6 The responsibility for an administrative order of removal under the VW P is given to the “district director who has jurisdiction over the place where the alien is found.” 8 C.F.R. § 217.4(b)(1). The regulation further states that such removal “shall be effected w ithout referral of the alien to an immigration judge for a determination of deportability, except . . . [for] an alien . . . who applies for asylum in the United States . . . .” Id. 7 Ferry did not actually file his asylum application until A pril 4, 2003. Admin. R. at 2698. -7- application. Id. at 822-25. The director reasoned that although Ferry was the beneficiary of an approved Form I-130 petition filed by his spouse, the record demonstrated that Ferry was inadmissible on two grounds. 8 First, the director stated that Ferry remained convicted of conspiracy to comm it murder and of possession of firearms with intent to endanger life. The director determined that these crimes involved moral turpitude and were not purely political offenses. A s a result, the director concluded that Ferry was inadmissible pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I). 9 Second, the director stated that Ferry was inadmissible because when he entered the U nited States under the V W P, he failed to disclose his criminal record on his Form I-94W . The director concluded that this failure amounted to a willful misrepresentation of a material fact pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C )(i). 10 Lastly, the director ruled that notwithstanding these two 8 The applicable regulations provide that an applicant for adjustment of status “shall be notified of the decision of the director, and, if the application is denied, the reasons for the denial.” 8 C.F.R. § 245.2(a)(5)(i). 9 That section provides that, except as otherwise provided, an alien who is convicted of “a crime involving moral turpitude (other than a purely political offense) or an attempt or conspiracy to commit such a crime” is ineligible to receive visas and ineligible to be admitted to the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I). Further, the regulations provide that no waiver of inadmissibility shall be granted “in the case of an alien who has been convicted of (or w ho has admitted committing acts that constitute) murder or criminal acts involving torture, or an attempt or conspiracy to comm it murder or a criminal act involving torture.” Id. § 1182(h)(2). 10 That section provides that an “alien, who by fraud or w illfully misrepresenting a material fact, seeks to procure (or has sought to procure or has (continued...) -8- grounds, Ferry’s application was denied based on an exercise of discretion. The director stated that Ferry’s w ife and new child were the only factors w eighing in favor of his application, and that those factors were significantly outweighed by Ferry’s prior criminal record and his misrepresentation about that record at the time he entered the United States. The director informed Ferry that no appeal was available from the decision. 11 Notwithstanding the DHS’s denial of Ferry’s application for adjustment of status, Ferry continued to assert his right to adjust his status, and thereby obtain relief from the D H S’s administrative order of removal and release from DHS custody. Relevant to these consolidated appeals, Ferry was referred to the immigration court for asylum-only proceedings, Case No. 04-9555; Ferry filed a petition for habeas corpus in federal district court, Case No. 05-1014; and Ferry filed a petition for review in this court of the D HS district director’s 10 (...continued) procured) a visa, other documentation, or admission into the United States or other benefit provided under this Act is inadmissible.” 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i). 11 Although Ferry argues otherwise, he has not filed a judicial action seeking review of the DHS’s denial of his application for adjustment of status. At most, he filed challenges to the DHS’s refusal to adjudicate and render a decision upon his adjustment of status application. Thus, we have no opportunity to consider, as a threshold matter, whether jurisdiction exists to review Ferry’s argument that the DHS’s denial of his application for adjustment of status was arbitrary and capricious. See 8 C.F.R. § 1245.2(a)(5)(ii) (providing that “[n]o appeal lies from the denial of an application [for adjustment of status] by the director,” but that the applicant may renew the application in removal proceedings). -9- administrative order of removal, Case No. 03-9526.
On November 4, 2003, an IJ denied Ferry’s applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under CAT. Admin. R. at 187-200. At the outset, the IJ observed that Ferry was referred to the Immigration Court in February 2003 for asylum-only proceedings, and that asylum-only hearings were not removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a. Id. 12 Further, the IJ explained that under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.2(c)(1)(iv), 13 an alien such as Ferry who was admitted to the United States pursuant to the VW P and has remained longer than authorized is not entitled to removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a. Id. As a result, the IJ concluded that he did not have authority to review Ferry’s application for adjustment of status: Respondent has . . . applied for adjustment of status under section 245 [8 U.S.C. § 1255] of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The record shows this application was denied by the Department on M ay 21, 2003. Although immigration judges may consider such applications, it is only in the context of removal proceedings under section 240 of the Act [8 U.S.C. § 1229a]. Respondent is not in removal proceedings. Accordingly, I do not have the authority to review this application. . . . There is no provision which allows for 12 Section 1229a, entitled “Removal proceedings,” sets forth the procedures an immigration judge must follow in adjudicating an alien’s removability. 13 That regulation classifies an alien who was admitted under the VW P and has remained longer than authorized as an alien “not entitled to [removal] proceedings under section 240 of the Act [8 U.S.C. § 1229a].” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.2(c)(1)(iv). -10- consideration of an application for adjustment of status in asylumonly proceedings. Id. at A10. Next, the IJ concluded that Ferry was statutorily barred from asylum and withholding of removal because of his prior conviction for a particularly serious crime in Northern Ireland and his prior engagement in terrorist activity through his membership in the IRA. Id. at A21-22. Additionally, the IJ concluded that Ferry’s asylum application was barred because it was untimely, and Ferry had failed to demonstrate any changed or extraordinary circumstances justifying the delay. Id. The IJ stated that Ferry’s proffered excuse for his delay–that he relied on his pending application for adjustment of status–was not recognized by law. Id. Lastly, the IJ denied Ferry relief under CAT. The IJ found that Ferry was treated humanely at Long K esh and cited Ferry’s admission that Long Kesh provided more privileges and better conditions than the Denver County Jail. The IJ also determined that Ferry could avoid any problems he might face in N orthern Ireland by relocating to another country, citing Ferry’s citizenship to both the Republic of Ireland and the U nited Kingdom. Id. Ferry appealed the IJ’s decision to the BIA . -11- On M ay 6, 2004, the BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision. Id. at 2-5. First, the BIA agreed that the IJ lacked jurisdiction over Ferry’s application for adjustment of status: The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 1208.2(c)(3)(i) specifically provides that in asylum only proceedings, the Immigration Judge may only consider whether the alien is eligible for asylum, withholding or deferral of removal, and whether the alien merits asylum in the exercise of discretion. The regulation further prohibits parties to asylum only proceedings from raising or considering any other issues, including but not limited to issues of admissibility, deportability, eligibility for waivers, and eligibility for any form of relief. App. at A34. Second, the BIA affirmed the IJ’s denial of Ferry’s application for asylum and withholding of removal. The BIA agreed that Ferry untimely submitted his asylum application. In particular, the BIA ruled that Ferry’s allegations of wrongdoing concerning the DHS’s adjudication and denial of his adjustment of status application failed to establish changed or exceptional circumstances to excuse his delay in filing for asylum. The BIA also concluded that Ferry was statutorily ineligible for withholding of removal because of his prior conviction for a serious crime. Finally, the BIA determined that Ferry was not entitled to relief under CAT. The BIA reasoned that Ferry had failed to establish that the harm that he feared–torture or death resulting from his placement on a death list–would be -12- instigated by or with the consent or acquiescence of the United Kingdom. Id. at 35-36. The BIA explained that the United Kingdom’s conduct had demonstrated its efforts to protect individuals placed on death lists. Id. at 36.
On April 7, 2003, Ferry filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States D istrict Court for the D istrict of Colorado, challenging the D HS’s issuance of an administrative order of removal and his continued detention by federal immigration authorities. App. at A46-A60. He also filed a writ of mandamus and a motion for an emergency temporary restraining order. That same day, the district court denied Ferry’s motion for an emergency temporary restraining order. On November 8, 2004, the district court denied Ferry’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus and petition for a w rit of mandamus. First, the district court ruled on Ferry’s argument that his statutory rights were denied because immigration officials had failed to adjudicate his adjustment of status application. The district court ruled that this claim was moot because the DHS denied his application for adjustment of status on M ay 21, 2003. The district court also concluded that Ferry’s request for adjustment of status did not preclude his removal under the VW P. Next, the district court addressed Ferry’s claims that -13- immigration officials violated his due process rights by failing to adjudicate his adjustment of status application and by denying him a right to release on bond or to have a bond hearing. The district court concluded that because Ferry was admitted under the VW P, he had waived any constitutional challenge to his detention and removal. The district court also stated that because Ferry waived his rights under the VW P, he had no right to be released on bond or to have a bond hearing.
On M arch 3, 2003, Ferry filed a petition for review of the DHS district director’s January 31, 2003, administrative order of removal. Admin. R. at 246385. In addition to challenging the D HS district director’s removal order, Ferry raised arguments contesting the DHS’s refusal to adjudicate his adjustment of status application, the IJ’s refusal to consider his application for adjustment of status based on jurisdictional grounds, and the IJ’s refusal to consider his request to be released without bond.