Rogelio Figuereo-Sanchez v. Atty Gen USA
Filing
MANDATE ISSUED, filed.
Rogelio Figuereo-Sanchez v. Atty Gen USA
Doc. 0 Att. 1
Case: 09-2137
Document: 003110220132
Page: 1
Date Filed: 07/19/2010
NOT PRECEDENTIAL U N IT E D STATES COURT OF APPEALS F O R THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 09-2137
ROGELIO FIGUEREO-SANCHEZ, Petitioner v. A T T O R N E Y GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, Respondent
On Petition for Review of an Order of the B o a rd of Immigration Appeals (A g e n c y No. A030-851-202) Im m ig ra tio n Judge: Jeffrey L. Romig
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) M a y 27, 2010 B e f o re : BARRY, AMBRO and COWEN, Circuit Judges (O p in io n filed: May 28, 2010)
OPINION
PER CURIAM R o g e lio Figuereo-Sanchez petitions for review of a final order of the Board of Im m igratio n Appeals ("BIA") dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge's
Dockets.Justia.com
Case: 09-2137
Document: 003110220132
Page: 2
Date Filed: 07/19/2010
(" IJ 's " ) decision ordering his removal. We will deny the petition for review. I. F ig u e re o -S a n c h e z, a native and citizen of the Dominican Republic, entered the U n ite d States in 1972 as a young child. More than thirty years later, in 2003, he pleaded g u ilty in federal court to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and was s e n te n c ed to ninety-six months of imprisonment. The government then sought to have h im removed on the basis of that conviction.1 F ig u e re o -S a n c h e z chose to represent himself at the hearing and did not apply for a n y form of relief. He admitted to the allegations and essentially conceded removability. After ordering Figuereo-Sanchez's removal to the Dominican Republic, the IJ advised h im that he had the right to appeal to the BIA. The IJ then stated: "You can also accept th e order of deportation as final. So, the question to you is do you want to file an appeal o r do you accept a deportation order as a final one?" Administrative Record ("AR") at 4 5 . Figuereo-Sanchez replied "I want to accept it as final." Id. Nonetheless, about two m o n th s after the hearing, Figuereo-Sanchez wrote to the "Immigration Court," stating th a t he had not waived his right to appeal and seeking his "appeal paper." AR at 33. He f ile d an appeal a few months later, claiming that the statutory provisions mandating the
The government charged Figuereo-Sanchez as removable on three grounds: (1) for b e in g convicted of an aggravated felony, (2) for being convicted of conspiracy to commit a n aggravated felony, and (3) for being convicted of violating a law related to a controlled su b stan ce . See 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii); (a)(2)(B)(i). 2
1
Case: 09-2137
Document: 003110220132
Page: 3
Date Filed: 07/19/2010
re m o v a l of aliens who are convicted of certain crimes are unconstitutional because they c o n tain no exception for an individual like him, who became completely immersed in A m e ric a n culture as a ward of the state in his youth and who has no connection to his h o m e country. T h e BIA dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction after concluding that F ig u e re o -S a n c h e z had knowingly and intelligently waived his right to appeal. See 8 C .F .R . § 1003.3(a) (a "notice of appeal may not be filed by any party who has waived a p p e al pursuant to § 1003.39"). The BIA also ruled in the alternative that, if it had ju ris d ic tio n , it would dismiss the appeal on the merits because Figuereo-Sanchez had not raised any issues that the BIA had jurisdiction to decide and had not identified any form o f relief for which he is eligible. Figuereo-Sanchez then filed this petition for review. II. W e lack jurisdiction to review "any final order of removal against an alien who is re m o v a b le by reason of having committed" certain criminal offenses, including an a g g ra v a te d felony and a controlled substance violation. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C). However, the REAL ID Act of 2005 restored direct review of constitutional claims and q u e s tio n s of law presented by criminal aliens in petitions for review. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D); Papageorgiou v. Gonzales, 413 F.3d 356, 358 (3d Cir. 2005). Because F ig u e re o -S a n c h e z has been convicted of an aggravated felony and a controlled substance v io la tio n , we may consider only constitutional issues, pure questions of law, and issues of 3
Case: 09-2137
Document: 003110220132
Page: 4
Date Filed: 07/19/2010
th e application of law to uncontested facts. See Kamara v. Att'y Gen., 420 F.3d 202, 211 (3 d Cir. 2005). We review constitutional issues and questions of law de novo. Id. The government asserts that "Figuereo-Sanchez does not raise any constitutional iss u e s or legal questions in his opening brief" and that we must therefore dismiss his p e titio n for review for lack of jurisdiction. Respondent's Brief at 12. But FiguereoS a n c h e z asks this Court to "conduct a constitutional inquiry" into the statutes governing h is removal, arguing that "the statutes are impermissibly unconstitutional when they ren d er any alien removable without consideration of cases such as the instant one, where th e petitioner was a ward of the state f[ro]m minor age into adulthood." Petitioner's Brief a t 4-5. He also argues that deportation "would result in double punishment" for his c rim e . Id. at 4. P lea d in g s from pro se litigants, such as Figuereo-Sanchez, must be liberally c o n stru e d . See, e.g., Dluhos v. Strasberg, 321 F.3d 365, 369 (3d Cir. 2003). Although h is brief is not artfully drafted, it is plain that Figuereo-Sanchez is attempting to present a c o n stitu tio n a l claim regarding his order of removal. To the extent that he is claiming that h is right to equal protection has been violated because the statute governing his removal d o e s not recognize an exception for individuals in his circumstances, his claim is without m e rit. To prove an equal protection violation, one must first demonstrate "disparate tre a tm e n t of different groups." DeSousa v. Reno, 190 F.3d 175, 184 (3d Cir. 1999). Figuereo-Sanchez has not identified any groups being treated differently under the statute. 4
Case: 09-2137
Document: 003110220132
Page: 5
Date Filed: 07/19/2010
O n the contrary, his argument is that the uniform treatment of criminal aliens under the s ta tu te is unconstitutional insofar as individuals with histories like his own should be e x c e p te d from deportation. Accordingly, we perceive no violation of equal protection. To the extent that Figuereo-Sanchez is claiming a violation of double jeopardy by arguing th a t he is being punished twice for his criminal offense, his claim lacks merit because a d e p o rta tio n proceeding is a purely civil action and the "purpose of deportation is not to p u n ish past transgressions." See INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032, 1038-39 (1984). F ig u e re o -S a n c h e z also claims that he did not knowingly waive his right to appeal f ro m the IJ's decision. Under the circumstances, we need not decide whether that p re se n ts a question of law; there is no meaningful relief available to Figuereo-Sanchez even if his waiver were invalid. If we were to determine that the BIA erred in holding th a t the waiver was knowing and intelligent, the relief we would order would be a remand to the BIA to consider the appeal. But Figuereo-Sanchez did not apply for any form of re lief during his immigration proceedings and, as the BIA correctly noted in its alternate h o ld in g on the merits, he did not establish his eligibility for any relief. A c c o rd in g ly, we will deny the petition for review.
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?