Court Opinion

ID: 9495202
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 15:57:21.333989+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:56:53.331765
License: Public Domain

SOTOMAYOR, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
In vacating the removal order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) and remanding, the majority has, in my view, acted unwisely as a prudential matter. Moreover, it is far from clear to me that we have the power to remand without first determining our jurisdiction. I therefore respectfully dissent.
As the majority explains, the BIA determined that petitioner Gelman was deporta-ble as an aggravated felon under § 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). The BIA relied solely on our decision in Bell v. Reno, 218 F.3d 86 (2d Cir.2000), in which we held that the aggravated felony deportation ground of INA § 237 was applicable to any alien who had been convicted of a crime falling within the current definition of “aggravated felony,” regardless of whether the conviction pre-dated the first enactment of the ground in the Anti Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (“ADAA”). On appeal, the petitioner concedes that Bell is dispositive of his petition if it remains good law. He asserts, however, that Bell has been fatally undercut by *154the Supreme Court’s decision in INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 121 S.Ct. 2271, 150 L.Ed.2d 347 (2001), and that Congress has not clearly specified that the aggravated felony deportation ground should apply retrospectively to aliens, like the petitioner, whose convictions pre-dated the ADAA.1 The government, in turn, asserts that not only does Bell survive St. Cyr, but that we have held as much in Kuhali v. Reno, 266 F.3d 93, 100 (2d Cir.2001).
As the majority also correctly notes, and as both parties concede, we have no jurisdiction to review Gelman’s petition if he is “an alien who is removable by reason of having committed” an aggravated felony. INA § 242(a)(2)(C), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C). Thus, as we held in Bell, our jurisdictional inquiry is identical to our inquiry into petitioner’s substantive claim. Simply put, if we have no jurisdiction, we must dismiss the petition; if we do have jurisdiction, we have simultaneously answered the merits question and must vacate the removal order.2
The majority’s choice of a third option— vacating and remanding for determination of the retroactivity issue — stands, in my view, on shaky ground. We of course have the jurisdiction to determine our jurisdiction, including any factual or legal issues on which our jurisdiction turns; I thus agree with the majority’s opinion in this respect, as far as it goes. There is, therefore, no question that we have the power to proceed directly to the jurisdictional question (and, simultaneously, the merits). See Bell, 218 F.3d at 89-90. Where the majority and I part company is that I am not sure that our power to determine jurisdictional issues extends to vacating an otherwise valid removal order for the purpose of remanding to the BIA. While we may “conduct appropriate proceedings” in examining our jurisdiction, see In re United States Catholic Conference, 824 F.2d 156, 162 (2d Cir.1987), rev’d on other grounds sub nom. United States Catholic Conference v. Abortion Rights Mobilization, Inc., 487 U.S. 72, 108 S.Ct. 2268, 101 L.Ed.2d 69 (1988), I am inclined to think that a fair respect for the federal courts’ status as courts of limited jurisdiction requires that what is “appropriate” is only what is reasonably necessary — which remanding to the BIA certainly is not. Cf. United States v. Shipp, 203 U.S. 563, 573, 27 S.Ct. 165, 51 L.Ed. 319 (1906) (holding that court’s authority to issue orders pending a jurisdictional determination arise “from the necessity of the case”). The majority’s failure to cite a single case in which we have taken similar action in the face of questionable jurisdiction, while of course not dispositive, further strengthens my doubts as to the propriety of the majority’s disposition in this case.3
Faced with a choice between answering the question of our jurisdiction, which is clearly within our power, and remanding to the BIA, our power to do which is highly doubtful, only the strongest of prudential concerns would lead me to choose the latter over the former. It is with respect to these prudential concerns that I have the sharpest disagreement with the *155majority. Not only are there no strong reasons for remanding, the justification for doing so is practically nonexistent.
First, the question on which our jurisdiction turns is whether the aggravated felony deportation ground of § 237 should apply retroactively to convictions pre-dating the ADAA. The Supreme Court stated clearly in St Cyr that we owe no Chevron deference to the BIA’s rulings on questions of retroactivity, because we owe such deference only where a statute is ambiguous, and, under Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 264, 114 S.Ct. 1483, 128 L.Ed.2d 229 (1994), a statute ambiguous as to retroactivity must be construed as “unambiguously prospective.” See St Cyr, 533 U.S. at 320 n. 45, 121 S.Ct. 2271 (“We only defer ... to agency interpretations of statutes that, applying the normal tools of statutory construction, are ambiguous. Because a statute that is ambiguous with respect to retroactive application is construed under our precedent to be unambiguously prospective, there is, for Chevron purposes, no ambiguity in such a statute for an agency to resolve.” (internal quotations and citations omitted)).
Second, the BIA initially will not even address the retroactivity question as a matter of first impression. Rather, because the BIA, like this Court, is required to follow Bell if it remains good law (and, as the BIA previously found, Bell is dis-positive of petitioner’s claim), the question the BIA will first have to answer is whether Bell remains good law or whether it has been overruled by St Cyr (and whether we already answered this question in Kuhali). Remanding to the BIA to tell us the meaning and vitality of our own precedent is, to put it mildly, odd. Moreover, I cannot fail to note the irony in our asking the BIA its opinion of Bell given that in that case we rejected the BIA’s reasoning and rested our decision on a ground never considered by the BIA. See Bell, 218- F.3d at 93-94 (rejecting BIA’s interpretation of § 602(c) of the Immigration Act of 1990 and deciding on the basis of § 602(d) instead).
Thus, not only is the BIA’s opinion not necessary for our jurisdictional determination, it is, with all due respect to the BIA, legally irrelevant. Nor is there any factual record which needs developing on this purely legal issue. Thus, any suggestion that remanding will “afford[ ] the parties and courts the benefit of the agency’s expertise” or “[permit a] compilation of the] record which is adequate for judicial review,” ante at 154, is simply unsupportable.
This leaves, as the sole possible justification for remand, the avoidance of “any premature interference with the agency’s processes....” Id. I would think that the agency, as represented before this Court by the United States Attorney, would be the proper party to concern itself with such “interference.” The government, however, did not request that we remand so that the BIA could consider the effect of St. Cyr, and when asked at oral argument, counsel for the government specifically denied any desire for us to do so (as did counsel for petitioner). Cf Esposito v. INS, 987 F.2d 108, 112 (2d Cir.1993) (noting the government’s suggestion of a remand to allow BIA to consider issues of statutory interpretation on which it had not previously ruled). Moreover, the agency has, in its position in this case, already told us precisely what it thinks the effect of St. Cyr on Bell is, i.e., none whatsoever.4 Thus, the possibility that the BIA will not adhere to its former ruling, *156and that this petition will not return to us in precisely the same posture, seems to me remote in the extreme, thus unnecessarily delaying the resolution of an important, and purely legal, issue (and likely delaying the deportation proceedings of other similarly situated aggravated felons).
Because this slim reed does not, to my mind, warrant choosing a course of doubtful propriety, I would choose to decide the jurisdictional question now. Because the majority has decided to vacate and remand instead of addressing the question of our jurisdiction directly, I respectfully dissent.

. Petitioner does not contest the BIA's holding that the crime for which he was convicted, arson in the first degree, qualifies as an "aggravated felony” under INA § 101(a)(43)(F), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F).

. The aggravated felony ground was the only one charged by the INS as the basis for petitioner’s removal.

.In both cases cited by the majority as instances of remand to the BIA, see ante at 152, we specifically considered and satisfied ourselves of our jurisdiction over the petition for review. See Arango-Aradondo v. INS, 13 F.3d 610, 612 (2d Cir.1994); Esposito v. INS, 987 F.2d 108, 110-11 (2d Cir.1993).

. While the BIA exercises its independent judgment in a quasi-judicial capacity, its decisions are subject to plenary review and overruling by the Attorney General. See 8 C.F.R. § 3.1(h).