Jesus Matehuala Garcia v. U.S. Attorney General , 309 F. App'x 306 ( 2009 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 08-13055 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JANUARY 28, 2009
Non-Argument Calendar
THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________
CLERK
Agency No. A91-426-881
JESUS MATHEHUALA GARCIA,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
_________________________
(January 28, 2009)
Before HULL, WILSON and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Jesus Matehuala Garcia (“Matehuala”), a native and citizen of Mexico,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming
the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his request for relief under former
Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) § 212(c), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c). This
appeal raises two issues: (1) whether we have jurisdiction to hear Matehuala’s
constitutional and legal claim, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D); and (2)
whether Matehuala’s right to equal protection was violated when he was denied
eligibility for waiver under former § 212(c) because he is removable, pursuant to 8
U.S.C. § 1227, on grounds that have no analogue in the INA’s inadmissability
grounds.
I.
The REAL ID Act amended 8 U.S.C. § 1252 to preclude judicial review of
the removal orders of aliens who have been convicted of an aggravated felony
offense. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C). However, we retain jurisdiction to review
“constitutional claims or questions of law.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). We have
addressed equal protection challenges to § 212 applying the REAL ID Act. See
Camacho-Salinas v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 460 F.3d 1343 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam)
(involving a §212(h) waiver).
2
Accordingly, our jurisdiction to consider Matehuala’s equal protection claim
is not in doubt. Moreover, our jurisdiction over Matehuala’s legal claim is not
barred by INA § 242(a)(2)(B)(ii) because Matehuala’s eligibility for a § 212(c)
waiver is a question of law.
II.
We review the BIA’s determinations on questions of law de novo, with
appropriate deference to the BIA’s reasonable interpretations of the INA.
Farquharson v. U.S. Att’y. Gen., 246 F.3d 1317, 1320 (11th Cir. 2001). See also
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842-43, 104
S. Ct. 2778, 2781 (1984). Additionally, “we review constitutional challenges de
novo.” Ali v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 443 F.3d 804, 808 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam).
Matehula argues that he is eligible for § 212(c) relief because the offense
rendering him removable, battery, qualifies as a crime of moral turpitude.
Matehuala acknowledges that, as a lawful permanent resident of the United States,
he was charged with removability on the basis of committing an aggravated felony
crime of violence. However, he maintains that if he had been charged upon
attempted reentry into the United States, he would have been charged with
inadmissibility on the basis of having committed a crime of moral turpitude, and
immigration officials would have discretion to readmit him. Matehuala
specifically challenges that the test for comparability established by In re Matter of
3
Blake, 23 I. & N. Dec. 722, 728 (BIA 2005), and contends that application of the
Blake test violates his constitutional right to equal protection because it treats
similarly situated people differently and fails to consider whether the facts create a
crime-of-moral-turpitude ground of inadmissibility in addition to the charged
ground of removability.
A. Eligibility for INA § 212(c) Relief
Former INA § 212(c), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c), provided that an alien lawfully
admitted for permanent residence who temporarily proceeds abroad voluntarily and
not under an order of deportation, and who is returning to a lawful unrelinquished
domicile of seven consecutive years, may be admitted to the United States at the
discretion of the Attorney General without regard to certain specified grounds of
exclusion enumerated in INA § 212(a), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a). See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c)
(repealed 1996). The availability of § 212(c) relief was later extended to lawful
permanent residents who never left the United States but who were subject to
deportation on grounds analogous to the grounds of exclusion specified in INA §
212(a), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a). See Rodriguez-Padron v. I.N.S., 13 F.3d 1455, 1460-
61 (11th Cir. 1994). While § 212(c) was repealed in the Illegal Immigration
Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (“IIRIRA”), Pub. L. No. 104-
208 § 304(b), 110 Stat. 3009-597 (1996), relief under § 212(c) remains available,
pursuant to INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 326, 121 S. Ct. 2271, 2293 (2001), for
4
aliens who have been found removable pursuant to guilty pleas entered prior to §
212(c)’s repeal, and “who, notwithstanding those convictions would have been
eligible for § 212(c) relief at the time of their plea under the law then in effect.”
The Third Circuit provides an instructive analysis of the relevant framework
of deportation law:
Section 237 of the INA, entitled “Deportable Aliens,” lists the
grounds upon which the Attorney General may order an alien
removed. It is in this context that courts look to an alien’s underlying
criminal conviction to determine whether it falls within one of § 237’s
statutory grounds for removal. . . .
The statutory counterpart requirement under § 212(c), on the other
hand, presents an entirely different question. In an application for §
212(c) relief . . . , the alien’s removability has already been
established – i.e., it has already been determined that the underlying
crime for which he has been convicted falls within one of INA § 237’s
grounds for removal. The relevant statutory counterpart inquiry then
looks not to the underlying criminal conviction – but rather to the
statutory ground for removal contained in INA § 237 and whether it
has a counterpart in the statutory ground for exclusion provisions of
INA § 212(a). Under this categorical analysis, [a comparison of] the
removal and exclusion provisions of the INA [is undertaken] to
determine whether they are substantially equivalent.
Caroleo v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 158, 164 (3d Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks
omitted).
The BIA has adopted the statutory counterpart analysis. In In re Matter of
Brieva-Perez, 23 I. & N. Dec. 766, 773 (BIA 2005), the BIA denied eligibility for
waiver under former § 212(c) upon concluding that an aggravated felony-crime-of-
5
violence ground for removal under INA § 237 is not substantially equivalent to
INA § 212(a)’s crime-involving-moral-turpitude ground for exclusion. The BIA
concluded that the two cannot be considered statutory counterparts. Id. In
reaching this conclusion, the BIA relied on its decision in Blake, in which it held
that the sexual-abuse-of-a-minor aggravated-felony ground for removal, INA §
101(a)(43)(A), is not a statutory counterpart of INA § 212(a)’s crime-involving-
moral-turpitude ground for exclusion. Blake, 23 I. & N. Dec. at 729. The Blake
court noted that, although some crimes constituting sexual abuse of a minor may
well constitute moral turpitude, the mere overlap between crimes of violence, such
as sexual abuse, and some crimes involving moral turpitude is insufficient to
render the two statutory counterparts. Id. at 728. Rather, the BIA required a close
textual link between a ground of deportation or removal and the provisions for
exclusion or inadmissibility. Id.
We have followed the BIA’s statutory counterpart analysis and focused the
§ 212(c) inquiry on whether the statutory ground for removal has a statutory
counterpart ground for exclusion in § 212(a). In Rodriguez-Padron, petitioners,
classified as deportable after having been convicted of firearms offenses, were
denied relief under § 212(c) because they were deportable on a ground for which
there was no statutory analogue for exclusion in § 212. Rodriguez-Padron, 13
F.3d at 1456-57. We declined to extend § 212(c) relief to all aliens facing
6
deportation, unless the ground was one specifically excluded in § 212(c). Id. at
1460. In doing so, we reasoned that the denial 212(c) relief to aliens removable on
a ground with no analogue for exclusion in § 212(a) had a rational basis and thus,
was not a violation of equal protection, and there was no indication of
congressional intent to extend the availability of § 212(c) relief beyond the
statutory language of § 212(c). Id. at 1459-60.
Here, Matehuala was convicted of an aggravated felony crime of violence
that has no statutory counterpart in § 212(a). Thus, he is ineligible for § 212(c)
relief, and his petition of review as to this issue is denied.
B. Equal Protection
We have rejected the argument that the distinction between a deportable and
an excludable aliens’ ability to obtain § 212(c) relief violates equal protection
guarantees. Chuang v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 382 F.3d 1299, 1304 (11th Cir. 2004) (per
curiam). Even if deportable and excludable aliens could be considered similarly
situated, there is a rational basis for distinguishing between the two.
A rational and indeed sensible reason can readily be assigned to
Congress’s more lenient treatment of excludable as distinct from
deportable aliens: it creates an incentive for deportable aliens to leave
the country-which is after all the goal of deportation-without their
having to be ordered to leave at the government’s expense. To induce
their voluntary departure, a little carrot is dangled before them,
consisting of the opportunity to seek a waiver should they seek to
return to the country and by doing so trigger exclusion proceedings.
7
Id. at 1303-04 (quotation omitted).
Because there is a rational basis behind the different treatment of excludable
and deportable aliens, we reject Matehuala’s equal protection challenge.
CONCLUSION
We defer to the BIA’s statutory counterpart analysis and find that denial of
§ 212(c) relief does not violate equal protection where an applicant is deportable
on grounds that have no comparable statutory grounds for inadmissibilty. Upon
review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we discern no reversible error.
Accordingly, the petitioner’s petition for review is denied.
PETITION DENIED.
8