Court Opinion

ID: 2963701
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:14:05.645455+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:37:21.963806
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          October 31, 1995
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                        

                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1728

                               GUARIONEX A. MARMOLEJOS,

                                     Petitioner,

                                          v.

                       IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,

                                     Respondent.

                                 ____________________

                        ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF FINAL ORDER
                         OF THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                          Boudin and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________

                                 ____________________

            Guarionex A.  Marmolejos  on Application  for  Review  of a  Final
            ________________________
        Order of Deportation and Memorandum in Support of Motion for Review of
        Final Order of Deportation, pro se.
            Vernon Benet Miles,  Attorney, Office  of Immigration  Litigation,
            __________________
        Civil  Division, U.S.  Department of  Justice,  on Motion  for Summary
        Dismissal  and  Motion  to  Dismiss  for  Lack  of  Jurisdiction,  for
        respondent.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                      Per Curiam.   Petitioner, Guarionex A.  Marmolejos,
                      __________

            petitions for review  of a  final order of  deportation.   He

            currently is incarcerated pursuant  to a state conviction for

            drug trafficking  offenses.   He  does not  dispute that  his

            conviction renders  him an  aggravated felon for  purposes of

            the  Immigration and  Nationality  Act  ("INA").   Petitioner

            raises essentially two issues on review.

                      1.  Petitioner  contends that  the Immigration  and

            Naturalization Service  ("INS") violated his  Fifth Amendment

            due process rights by delaying both the issuance of the order

            to  show cause and the scheduling of the deportation hearing.

            Specifically, by the  time of the hearing  -- when petitioner

            first  indicated his  intention  to  apply  for a  waiver  of

            deportation  under    212(c), 8  U.S.C.    1182(c) --  he was

            ineligible  for such  relief,  having served  more than  five

            years of  his  sentence.1   Although  the  show  cause  order

                                
            ____________________

            1.  Section 212(c), in relevant part, provides:

                        Aliens lawfully  admitted for permanent
                      resident [sic]  who temporarily proceeded
                      abroad voluntarily and not under an order
                      of deportation, and  who are returning to
                      a lawful unrelinquished domicile of seven
                      consecutive years, may be admitted in the
                      discretion   of   the  Attorney   General
                      without  regard  to  the   provisions  of
                      subsection  (a)  of  this section  (other
                      than paragraphs  (3) and (9)(C)) .  . . .
                      The  first  sentence  of this  subsection
                      _________________________________________
                      shall not apply to  an alien who has been
                      _________________________________________
                      convicted  of  one  or   more  aggravated
                      _________________________________________
                      felonies  and has served  for such felony
                      _________________________________________
                      or felonies a term  of imprisonment of at
                      _________________________________________

                                         -2-

            issued prior to  the five-year cut-off, petitioner  maintains
                   _____ __

            that had it been issued  earlier, he would have been  able to

            secure  legal   assistance  and   make  a  timely      212(c)

            application.   Also,  petitioner argues  that the  show cause

            order   was  constitutionally  deficient   because  it  never

            informed him that there was a time limit for applying for the

            waiver.

                      Before proceeding, we note what is not  at stake in
                                                         ___

            this  case.    Petitioner   does  not  contest  that  he   is

            deportable, nor does he dispute that  he was ordered deported

            only  after  a  hearing  which complied  with  statutory  and

            regulatory requirements.   Petitioner  also does not  contend

            that  he never received notice of his  right to apply for a  

            212(c) waiver.  Rather, he  complains about the timeliness of

            the  procedures used by the INS in initiating and hearing the

            matter of his deportability.  With  this in mind, we turn  to

            the merits.

                      A  review of  the statutes and  regulations reveals

            that  neither Congress nor the  INS has required  that a show

            cause order  should  issue in  sufficient  time to  allow  an

            aggravated felon to apply  for a   212(c) waiver  or that the

            order should include  notice of  the time limit  on    212(c)

            eligibility.  Although   242(i),  8 U.S.C.   1252(i), directs

                                
            ____________________

                      least 5 years.
                      _____________

            (Emphasis added).

                                         -3-

            the Attorney General to  "begin any deportation proceeding as

            expeditiously as possible after  the date of the conviction,"

            Congress has  clarified that    242(i)  does not  create "any

            substantive or  procedural right  or benefit that  is legally

            enforceable by any  party" against the INS.   See Immigration
                                                          ___

            and Nationality  Technical Corrections  Act of 1994,  Pub. L.

            No. 103-416,   225,  108 Stat. 4305,  4324 (1994).  See  also
                                                                ___  ____

            Campos v.  INS, 62 F.3d 311, 314 (9th Cir. 1995) (  225 makes
            ______     ___

            clear that    242(i) does  not place any  obligations on  the

            government).  See generally  INS v. Miranda, 459 U.S.  14, 18
                          ___ _________  ___    _______

            (1982); Pimental-Romero v.  INS, 954 F.2d 564, 564  (1st Cir.
                    _______________     ___

            1991).

                      2.   Petitioner's  second  contention  is that  his

            conviction  did not  become  final  for immigration  purposes

            until  the  Massachusetts Supreme  Judicial Court  denied his

            request  for  further  appellate  review  of his  conviction.

            Because the denial occurred  on September 8, 1993, petitioner

            argues that the five-year period in   212(c) did not begin to

            run until then.   Thus, he concludes, he still is eligible to

            apply for a   212(c) waiver.

                      Petitioner is  correct that his conviction  did not

            become final until September 8, 1993.  It is settled that "an

            alien is not deemed to have been `convicted' of a crime under

            the  [INA] until  his conviction  has attained  a substantial

            degree of  finality."  Marino v.  INS, 537 F.2d 686,  691 (2d
                                   ______     ___

                                         -4-

            Cir. 1976).  This occurs when "direct appellate review of the

            conviction  has either been  exhausted or waived."   White v.
                                                                 _____

            INS, 17 F.3d  475, 479 (1st Cir. 1994).   Here, as petitioner
            ___

            points out, his conviction could only be considered final  as

            of  September 8,  1993.   This,  however,  does not  end  the

            matter.

                      The last sentence  of   212(c) states that an alien

            is ineligible to apply for a waiver of deportability if he or

            she "has  been convicted of  one or more  aggravated felonies

            and  has served  for  such  felony  or  felonies  a  term  of
            ___

            imprisonment  of at  least  5 years."    8 U.S.C.     1182(c)

            (emphasis added).  Plainly,  two conditions must exist before

            an alien is barred from applying for a   212(c) waiver -- his

            or her felony conviction  must be final for INA  purposes and

            he or  she must have been imprisoned  for the felony for five

            years.

                      Thus, the five-year requirement applies to a  "term

            of imprisonment,"  not to a "conviction."  The ordinary usage

            of the phrase  "term of  imprisonment" refers,  we think,  to

            time  actually  spent in  prison  for  a particular  offense.

            Petitioner does not, nor would  he for ordinary purposes such

            as  parole,  contend that  his  "term  of imprisonment"  only

            commenced  on September  8,  1993, when  the  SJC denied  the

            appeal of his conviction.   In sum, the term  of imprisonment

                                         -5-

            can begin before  the conviction  is affirmed  on appeal  and

            that is what happened in this case.

                      It might be a closer question whether the five-year

            term should run from the date on which a petitioner  was held

            for  trial and from which he received credit against his term

            following conviction.   This is  not a  distinction urged  by

            petitioner  in this  case; no  plain error  is  involved; and

            given the apparent  purpose of  the statute, it  is at  least

            doubtful whether  petitioner could be granted  a waiver since

            he  has now served more than five  years from the date of his

            conviction, even if the pre-conviction period is discarded.

                      Based on  the foregoing the  motion of the  INS for

            summary  dismissal is  granted.   See Local  Rule 27.1.   The
                                   _______    ___

            motion of  petitioner for  in forma  pauperis status  and the

            motion of the  INS to  dismiss for lack  of jurisdiction  are

            denied as moot.
            ______

                                         -6-