Court Opinion

ID: 9497005
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 16:41:19.362969+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:57:56.946714
License: Public Domain

TASHIMA, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
The threshold issue we must decide is whether 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C),1 the jurisdiction-stripping provision of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), which deprives appellate courts of jurisdiction to review orders of removal where the alien is removable by reason of having “committed a criminal offense,” applies when the alien is found removable on the ground that an immigration official has “reason to believe” that the alien is an illicit drug trafficker. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(C).2 Because I disagree that the jurisdiction-stripping provision applies in this case, I respectfully dissent.
As a first principle, the Supreme Court has instructed that jurisdiction-stripping legislation is to be strictly construed. INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 298, 121 S.Ct. 2271, 150 L.Ed.2d 347 (2001) (noting the “strong presumption in favor of judicial review of administrative action”). As the majority recognizes, we have jurisdiction to determine whether the jurisdiction-stripping provision of § 1252(a)(2)(C) applies. Noriega-Lopez v. Ashcroft, 335 F.3d 874, 879 (9th Cir.2003). In most cases the inquiry is relatively simple. All but two of the statutes referenced in § 1252(a)(2)(C) require that the alien either be convicted of a criminal offense or admit to having committed acts that constitute the essential elements of a criminal offense. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a)(2)(A), (B), 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii), (A)(iii), (B), (C), and (D). Where the alien is ordered removed pursuant to any of those statutes, the court need only determine “whether an alien in fact committed acts sufficient to trigger” the jurisdiction-stripping provision. See Pazcoguin v. Raddiffe, 292 F.3d 1209, 1212 (9th Cir.2002).3
*1213In order to be removable under § 1182(a)(2)(C), however, the alien need not have committed, or be found to have committed, a criminal offense. See Hamid v. U.S. INS, 538 F.2d 1389, 1391 (9th Cir.1976) (“[T]he immigration officer need not know that an individual is or has been a trafficker in order to exclude that person [pursuant to former 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(23), the predecessor to § 1182(a)(2)(C) ]. The officer is justified in acting if he has ‘reason to believe’ that an individual is so engaged.”). In this case, the INS alleged that Lopez-Molina was removable pursuant to § 1227(a)(1)(A) because, at the time he applied for adjustment of status, he was inadmissible under § 1182(a)(2)(C) because he had “engaged in unlawful activities related to the sale and trafficking of ... marijuana.” The immigration judge ordered him removed because there was “sufficient evidence for the consular or immigration officer to formulate a reason to believe that he is a trafficker in controlled substances.”
In Alarcon-Serrano v. INS, 220 F.3d 1116 (9th Cir.2000), an alien was ordered removed under § 1182(a)(2)(C) on the ground that there was “reason to believe” that he was an illicit drug trafficker. Id. at 1118. In that case, we assumed that IIRIRA § 309(c)(4)(G),4 which deprived the court of appellate jurisdiction where the alien was “inadmissible or deportable by reason of having committed a criminal offense” covered in § 1182(a)(2), applied to aliens ordered deported pursuant to § 1182(a)(2)(C), so long as substantial evidence supported that there was “reason to believe” that the alien committed a criminal offense. See id. at 1119 (“The appropriate way of measuring whether the IJ and BIA had ‘reason to believe’ that Alar-con-Serrano knew he was participating in drug trafficking is to determine whether substantial evidence supports such a conclusion.”). Because the immigration officer had “ample reason” to suspect that the petitioner was a drug trafficker, we concluded that we lacked jurisdiction under IIRIRA § 309(c)(4)(G). Id. at 1120. In Alarcorir-Serrano, however, we did not confront or expressly address the issue created by the tension between the requirement under § 309(c)(4)(G) that the alien commit a criminal offense, and the more lenient requirement of § 1182(a)(2)(C) that there need only be reason to believe that the alien committed a criminal offense.
In Hernaez v. INS, 244 F.3d 752 (9th Cir.2001), however, we addressed a similar issue. In that case, an alien was found deportable on the ground that he was a drug addict. Id. at 754; see 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(ii) (“Any alien who is, or at any time after admission has been, a drug abuser or addict is deportable.”). Although IIRIRA § 309(c)(4)(G) specifically references deportation orders issued pursuant to § 1227(a)(2)(B), we held that it did not apply to such deportation orders because the conduct described in § 1227(a)(2)(B) — drug addiction — was not a “criminal offense.” Id. at 757. We reasoned that the language of the jurisdiction-stripping provision, rather than the list of deportation orders it purported to cover, dictated its scope. Id. (“The language of the transition rules that removes this court’s jurisdiction is different from the language of the sections of the INA establishing grounds for deportation. Under IIRIRA § 309(c)(4)(G), Petitioner must *1214have committed a ‘criminal offense’ to divest this court of jurisdiction.”).
Hemaez dictates the proper analysis in this case.5 Whereas Alarcom-Serrano assumed that we lacked jurisdiction simply because § 1182(a)(2) was referenced in the jurisdiction-stripping statute, Hemaez was faithful to the language of the jurisdiction-stripping statute itself. See INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 432 n. 12, 107 S.Ct. 1207, 94 L.Ed.2d 434 (1987) (noting a “strong presumption that Congress expresses its intent through the language it chooses”). Hemaez’s approach is also consistent with the principle that jurisdiction-stripping provisions should be narrowly construed, McNary v. Haitian Refugee Ctr., 498 U.S. 479, 494, 111 S.Ct. 888, 112 L.Ed.2d 1005 (1991), and, accordingly, that courts should not cede jurisdiction to review administrative decisions unless Congress specifically so instructs, Bowen v. Mich. Acad. of Family Physicians, 476 U.S. 667, 671, 106 S.Ct. 2133, 90 L.Ed.2d 623 (1986); St. Cyr, 533 U.S. at 298, 121 S.Ct. 2271.
Applying the reasoning of Hemaez, I conclude that § 1252(a)(2)(C), by its express terms, applies only to removal orders in which the alien is ordered removed “by reason of having committed a criminal offense.”6 Because § 1182(a)(2)(C) does not require that an alien commit a criminal offense in order to be found inadmissible or removable, § 1252(a)(2)(C) does not bar our review of orders finding aliens removable pursuant to that statute.
Because no finding has been made in this case that Lopez-Molina committed a criminal offense, I would conclude that we have jurisdiction and reach the merits of Lopez-Molina’s petition. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s holding that we lack jurisdiction to review this petition.

. [N]o court shall have jurisdiction to review any final order of removal against an alien who is removable by reason of having committed a criminal offense covered in [8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)],
8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) (emphasis added).

. Any alien who the consular officer or the Attorney General knows or has reason to believe — is or has been an illicit trafficker in any controlled substance or in any listed chemical ... or is or has been a knowing aider, abettor, assister, conspirator, or colluder with others in the illicit trafficking in any such controlled or listed substance or chemical, or endeavored to do so ... is inadmissible.
8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(C) (emphasis added).

.The other two statutes identified in § 1252(a)(2)(C) are 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(C) (the statute under which Lopez-Molina was found inadmissible), and § 1227(a)(2)(B)(ii) ("Any alien who is, or at any time after admis*1213sion has been, a drug abuser or addict is deportable.'').

. IIRIRA § 309(c)(4)(G), the jurisdiction-stripping provision of IIRIRA’s transitional rules, is essentially identical to § 1252(a)(2)(C).

. The majority's assertion, Maj. op. at 1211, that Hemaez “cited Alarcon-Serrano with approval " is something of an overstatement. In fact, all that Hemaez did was to observe that "[a ]s the INS argues, under Alarcon-Serrano, such a criminal offense could be proven without a conviction.” Hemaez, 244 F.3d at 757 (emphasis added). Stating the government’s position is hardly an approval of the same.

. Neither party has argued that the word "committed,” as used in § 1252(a)(2)(C), is ambiguous. See Coronado-Durazo v. INS, 123 F.3d 1322, 1324 (9th Cir.1997) ("Where the plain meaning of a provision is unambiguous that meaning is controlling.” (quoting United States v. Ron Pair Enter., Inc., 489 U.S. 235, 241, 109 S.Ct. 1026, 103 L.Ed.2d 290 (1989))).