Court Opinion

ID: 9406120
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-29 21:02:16.327018+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:26.989254
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 20-14861   Document: 91-2      Date Filed: 06/29/2023    Page: 1 of 6

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                         ____________________

                                No. 20-14861
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

       DIMITAR PETLECHKOV,
                                                               Petitioner,
       versus
       U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

                                                              Respondent.

                         ____________________

                   Petition for Review of a Decision of the
                     Department of Homeland Security
                          Agency No. A216-634-377
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 20-14861      Document: 91-2     Date Filed: 06/29/2023     Page: 2 of 6

       2                       Order of the Court                  20-14861

       Before ROSENBAUM, JILL PRYOR, and GRANT, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
             Dimitar Petlechkov, proceeding pro se, seeks reconsidera-
       tion and clarification of our opinion issued on April 20, 2023.
       Among other things, Petlechkov points out that our prior opinion
       was abrogated in part by Santos-Zacaria v. Garland, 143 S. Ct. 1103,
       1110 (2023), which explains that the exhaustion requirement in 8
       U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) is not jurisdictional.
              We grant Petlechkov’s motion for clarification, vacate our
       prior opinion, and issue this order for a limited remand to the De-
       partment of Homeland Security in its place. We also grant his mo-
       tion to waive the requirements for filing paper copies of his mo-
       tions. We deny Petlechkov’s motions to take judicial notice and to
       supplement the record, and we deny his petition for rehearing as
       moot.
              Petlechkov seeks review of an order issued by the Depart-
       ment of Homeland Security for his expedited removal from the
       United States as an alien convicted of an aggravated felony. See 8
       U.S.C. §§ 1228; 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). He contends that the Depart-
       ment violated his Fifth Amendment due process rights by failing to
       provide notice of the charge of removability and an opportunity to
       respond. Specifically, he alleges that the Notice of Intent to Issue a
       Final Administrative Removal Order contained in the administra-
       tive record was never served on him, contrary to the (illegibly)
USCA11 Case: 20-14861     Document: 91-2     Date Filed: 06/29/2023    Page: 3 of 6

       20-14861                Order of the Court                        3

       signed but unsworn certificate of service on the document. He ar-
       gues that even if the Notice had been served on him, he would not
       have been able to respond because it did not provide a return ad-
       dress. And he argues that if he had been given the opportunity to
       respond, he would have shown (among other things) that the res-
       titution order relied on by the Department was “insufficient as a
       matter of law” to establish that his mail-fraud conviction involved
       the amount of loss necessary to qualify as an “aggravated felony”
       under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). Obasohan v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,
       479 F.3d 785, 791 (11th Cir. 2007), abrogated on other grounds by
       Nijhawan v. Holder, 557 U.S. 29 (2009). He asks this Court to va-
       cate the order of removal and direct the Department to compen-
       sate him in various ways for the time he spent in Department cus-
       tody before his removal.
               The Attorney General responds, in part, that a deportation
       officer “attempted to serve Petlechkov with a Notice of Intent,” but
       Petlechkov “refused to acknowledge receipt” of the Notice. Re-
       spondent’s Br. at 6. It also argues that we should dismiss the peti-
       tion because Petlechkov failed to administratively exhaust his chal-
       lenges to removal by raising them in response to the Notice. Id. at
       9 n.2.
               Our jurisdiction to review a final order of removal that is
       based on the noncitizen’s commission of an aggravated felony is
       strictly limited to colorable constitutional claims or questions of
       law. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C)–(D). In addition, under 8 U.S.C.
       § 1252(d)(1), we may review a final order of removal only if “the
USCA11 Case: 20-14861     Document: 91-2      Date Filed: 06/29/2023    Page: 4 of 6

       4                       Order of the Court                 20-14861

       alien has exhausted all administrative remedies available to the al-
       ien as of right.” The administrative exhaustion provision is not ju-
       risdictional, but it speaks in mandatory terms. Santos-Zacaria, 143
       S. Ct. at 1110; see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). Thus, because the Attorney
       General raised the statutory requirement of exhaustion in response
       to Petlechkov’s petition, we must enforce it. See Manrique v.
       United States, 581 U.S. 116, 121, 125 (2017) (if properly raised by a
       party, mandatory claim-processing rules are “unalterable”).
               Whether the mandatory claim-processing rule of exhaustion
       applies here turns on whether Petlechkov was, in fact, served with
       the Notice of Intent and given a reasonable opportunity to respond
       to it. If so, we will not review his challenges to the removal order
       because he failed to timely raise any of them before the agency dur-
       ing his expedited removal proceedings. See Malu v. U.S. Att’y
       Gen., 764 F.3d 1282, 1289 (11th Cir. 2014), abrogated in part by San-
       tos-Zacaria, 143 S. Ct. at 1110. If he was not served or given an
       opportunity to respond, agency review arguably was not an “avail-
       able” administrative remedy for Petlechkov, and his failure to re-
       spond to the Notice within the time provided would not bar our
       review of his legal challenges to the final order of removal.
              We decline to decide the question of service in the first in-
       stance. Petlechkov claims that he informed the Department in
       writing several times that he had not been served with notice of the
       Department’s intent to issue a final order of removal. Both parties
       refer to an affidavit filed by Petlechkov and apparently served on
       the Department in a related habeas proceeding. But none of those
USCA11 Case: 20-14861     Document: 91-2     Date Filed: 06/29/2023    Page: 5 of 6

       20-14861                Order of the Court                        5

       documents are contained in the administrative record, and they are
       thus outside the scope of our review. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A).
       Nor does the record contain any findings by the Department as to
       whether the issuing officer served the Notice of Intent in compli-
       ance with agency regulations. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.8, 238.1(b). As a
       court of review, we are not in a position to make such findings our-
       selves. See Gonzales v. Thomas, 547 U.S. 183, 185–86 (2006). “Ra-
       ther, ‘the proper course, except in rare circumstances, is to remand
       to the agency for additional investigation or explanation.’” Id. at
       186 (quoting INS v. Orlando Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16 (2002)).
              We therefore remand the case to the Department for the
       limited purpose of determining whether Petlechkov was properly
       served with the Notice of Intent and afforded a reasonable oppor-
       tunity to respond and supplementing the administrative record
       with documents and evidence relevant to its determination. If the
       Department concludes on remand that the better course would be
       to vacate the removal order and conduct additional proceedings
       under 8 U.S.C. § 1228 or to refer the matter to an immigration
       judge for proceedings under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a, it should so indicate
       in a written decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 238.1. In the meantime, we
       retain jurisdiction over the petition for review.
              We acknowledge Petlechkov’s report that the Department
       has not yet taken any action in response to our April 20, 2023 re-
       mand, despite his attempts to communicate with the Department.
       We request that the Department expedite the process of obtaining
       additional evidence (if necessary) and making its determination.
USCA11 Case: 20-14861     Document: 91-2      Date Filed: 06/29/2023   Page: 6 of 6

       6                         Order of the Court              20-14861

       The Respondent is instructed to submit a status report regarding
       the Department’s progress within 30 days of the date of this order.
       The parties are instructed to notify the Court within 14 days after
       the Department issues its decision on remand, and to file the ex-
       panded administrative record as soon as practicable thereafter.
              Petlechkov’s motion for clarification of the Court’s opinion
       is GRANTED. We VACATE the April 20, 2023 opinion of the
       Court and issue this order for a limited remand in its place. We
       DENY as moot Petlechkov’s motion for rehearing. We DENY
       (without prejudice to renewal) his motions to take judicial notice
       and to supplement the record. We GRANT his motion to waive
       the rules requiring paper copies of his motions.
             It is so ordered.