Court Opinion

ID: 9495615
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 16:07:02.463236+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:57:07.140832
License: Public Domain

JOHN M. WALKER, JR., Chief Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the majority’s judgment reversing the district court’s decision and dismissing the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. I write separately, however, because Theodoropoulos raises a statutory interpretation claim, not a constitutional challenge, and therefore I believe that the majority’s analysis of the constitutional exception to exhaustion is unnecessary. As the majority opinion states, Theodoropoulos relies on Landgraf and St. Cyr to argue that the revocation of § 212(c) relief should not apply retroactively. See Maj. Op., supra, at 738; INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 121 S.Ct. 2271, 150 L.Ed.2d 347 (2001); Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244, 114 S.Ct. 1483, 128 L.Ed.2d 229 (1994). In Landgraf and St. Cyr, the Court applied a rule of statutory interpretation, namely that “congressional enactments ... will not be construed to have retroactive effect unless their language requires this result.” St. Cyr, 533 U.S. at 315-16, 121 S.Ct. 2271 (alteration in original); see also Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 268, 114 S.Ct. 1483. Thus, Theodoropou-los’s claim is that the Immigration Judge misapplied the Landgraf/St. Cyr clear statement rule when construing the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (“IIRIRA”), rather than that it is unconstitutional for Congress to retroactively revoke the possibility of § 212(c) relief. Because the exception to exhaustion for constitutional claims does not apply to statutory interpretation claims, which the BIA regularly considers, see, e.g., In re Perez, 22 I. & N. Dec. 689, 691 (BIA 1999) (interpreting statute in light of Landgraf s clear statement rule), Theodoropoulos was required to appeal to the BIA before raising this claim in the district court and thus the district court *741should have dismissed his claim for failure to exhaust.
Were it necessary to consider whether Theodoropoulos stated a substantial constitutional claim, I would agree with the majority’s analysis on the merits.