Seventh Circuit finds BIA summary affirmance procedure to benefit noncitizens and not just DHS

Ward v. Holder No. 10-2063 United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 1184 (January 21, 2011)

A petition for review, by natives and citizens of Philippines, a BIA's affirmance of an IJ's finding that petitioners are removable from the United States under 8 U.S.C. section 1227(a)(1) and ineligible for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. section 1154(a)(1)(A)(iii), is denied as, while it may be prudent to require that certain appeals to the BIA be adjudicated by a three-member panel instead of a single member acting alone, the BIA did not violate the review procedures set forth in section 1003.1(e) when a single member rendered a decision on petitioners' appeal in his discretion without referring it to a panel of three. 

Ms. Ward and her daughter entered the United States on a K visa march 2004. Ms. Ward married her U.S. citizen fiancé May 2004. The marriage dissolved shortly thereafter without a filing of an adjustment of status application. Ms. Ward was placed in removal proceedings November 2006. Ms. Ward submitted a VAWA self petition which was denied April 2007. In December 2008 an immigration judge denied her application for VAWA cancellation finding that Ms. Ward was by "clear and convincing evidence" ineligible for cancellation. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision on March 31, 2010; a single board member issued a three page decision.

Ms. Ward’s counsel appealed to the Seventh Circuit arguing that the lengthy opinion demonstrated that the board member went beyond the scope of his power to affirm, modify, or remand an immigration decision in a "brief order" pursuant to 8 CFR Sec. 1003.1(e)(5). In other words, if the case merited a decision of such length, then it merited a three-judge panel review.

The Seventh Circuit in Martinez-Camargo v. INS 282 F.3d 487 (7th Cir. 2002) established a two-pronged test to evaluate whether the failure to adhere to an immigration administrative guideline rendered the underlying action taken invalid. The first prong is to ask whether the regulation in question serves a "purpose of benefit to the alien." The government in the present case argued that Sec. 1003.1(e)(5) was a case management regulation to help the Board handle cases and therefore not intended to benefit the alien. The Seventh Circuit disagreed stating that "The fact that the presence of a ‘need to review a clearly erroneous factual determination’ is a basis for three-member panel review underscores that the regulations were designed in the interest of justice as well as efficiency."

The second Martinez-Camargo prong requires the court to determine whether the alleged violation of the regulation set forth therein prejudices the petitioner. The Circuit found that there was neither prejudice nor a violation. 8 CFR Sec. 1003.1(e)(5) has been found not to be prejudicial in general. As to the plaintiff’s contention that the fact that the BIA board member issued a longer than average decision was not conceivable under the regulatory scheme, the circuit countered that "To require referral to a three-member panel in each case that lends itself to more than a cookie-cutter order would be contrary to the plain language of Sec. 1003.1(e)."
______________________________
WARD v. HOLDER

Elizabeth P. WARD, individually and as parent and natural guardian to Estefanie Ebrada Cainto, a minor child, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.

No. 10-2063.

Argued Nov. 4, 2010. -- January 21, 2011
Before BAUER, MANION and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Daniel P. Cory, Plews, Shadley, Racher & Braun, South Bend, IN, for Petitioners.Timothy G. Hayes, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Petitioners seek review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (the “BIA”) upholding an immigration judge's finding that they are removable from the United States under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1) and ineligible for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1154(a)(1)(A)(iii). Petitioners contend that a single member of the BIA issued an improper written opinion that went beyond the scope of an individual BIA member's power to affirm, modify, or remand an immigration judge's decision in a “brief order” pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(5). This court's jurisdiction over final orders of removal is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. The written order issued by the BIA on March 31, 2010 constitutes a final order of removal under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(7); therefore the case is properly before this court.

I. BACKGROUND

Petitioner Ward and her daughter Cainto, natives and citizens of the Philippines, entered the United States in March 2004 on non-immigrant K visas. Ward entered on a K-1 visa as the fiancée of a United States citizen and Cainto entered on a K-2 visa as a minor child accompanying her mother to the United States.

Ward married her citizen fiancé in May 2004. The marriage dissolved shortly thereafter and Ward never applied for permanent resident status based upon her marriage. In November 2006, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) ordered petitioners to appear before an immigration judge to explain why they should not be removed from the United States for having overstayed their visas. Prior to her removal hearing, Ward petitioned DHS for an immigrant visa under 8 U.S.C. § 1154(a)(1)(A)(iii), a statute which enables the former spouse of a United States citizen who was subjected to battery or extreme cruelty to remain in the United States. DHS denied Ward's petition for this special visa in April 2007. In December 2008, an immigration judge conducted a merits hearing to adjudicate whether petitioners were removable and, if so, whether their application for cancellation of removal was properly denied. The immigration judge found that removability had been established by evidence that was “clear and convincing” and that petitioners were ineligible for cancellation of removal. The BIA affirmed in a three-page decision issued by a single member on March 31, 2010.

II. DISCUSSION

Petitioners urge us to remand their case to the BIA with instructions to review their appeal in a three-member panel. In their view, the order issued by a single member pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(5) overstepped the BIA's own bounds for reviewing immigration appeals in such a manner. For the reasons described below, we decline to grant petitioners the relief they seek in this matter.

We begin with the question of jurisdiction. Only constitutional claims and questions of law properly raised in connection with an order of removal are reviewable. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). Legal questions include “challenges to the BIA's interpretation of a statute, regulation, or constitutional provision, claims that the BIA misread its own precedent or applied the wrong legal standard, or claims that the BIA failed to exercise discretion at all.” Patel v. Holder, 563 F.3d 565, 568 (7th Cir.2009). We find that the question raised by petitioners is a legal one, since it involves interpretation of the guidelines set for review of immigration appeals under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e).

In the immigration context, a two-pronged analysis governs whether failure to adhere to an administrative guideline renders the underlying action taken invalid. First, the regulation in question must serve a “purpose of benefit to the alien.” Martinez-Camargo v. INS, 282 F.3d 487, 491 (7th Cir.2002) (quoting Matter of Garcia-Flores, 17 I. & N. Dec. 325 (B.I.A.1980). If the regulation is found to serve a purpose of benefit to the alien, the action is then invalid only if the violation “prejudiced the interests of the alien protected by the regulation.” Id. As the BIA itself put it in Garcia-Flores, “where an entire procedural framework, designed to insure the fair processing of an action affecting an individual is created but then not followed by an agency, it can be deemed prejudicial.” Garcia-Flores, 17 I. & N. at 329. The analysis adopted in Martinez-Camargo endeavors to strike a balance between “recognizing the need for administrative agencies to follow their own rules” and acknowledging “the practical reality that not every agency violation impacts an alien's substantive rights.” Martinez-Camargo, 282 F.3d at 491. In order to assess whether the regulation serves a purpose of benefit to the alien, we must first look to the language of 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1.

Section 1003.1 of Title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations governs the organization, jurisdiction, and powers of the BIA. Under subsection (e)(3), a single board member is initially assigned to an appeal using the BIA's case management system. The member assigned to that appeal is then vested with the authority to determine how it should be handled by the BIA. The member may summarily dismiss the appeal once the record is complete or may elect to have the case decided on the merits. A decision on the merits is issued in one of three ways. In the most straightforward cases, a formulaic “affirmance without opinion” is issued by the member pursuant to subsection (e)(4). In cases requiring more in-depth analysis, the member may issue a brief order pursuant to subsection (e)(5) or designate the appeal for review by a three-member panel pursuant to subsection (e)(6). The default is single member review. (“[T]he Board member shall issue a brief order ․ unless the Board member designates the case for decision by a three-member panel under paragraph (e)(6)․” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(5) (emphasis added).

Various circumstances set forth in subsection (e)(6) provide a basis for referral of an appeal to a three-member panel. These circumstances include the need to settle inconsistencies among rulings of different judges, the need to establish precedent, the need to review a decision not in conformity with the law, and the need to review a clearly erroneous factual determination by a judge. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(6). While we agree with the respondent that a “designed effect” of the case management provisions set forth in § 1003.1(e) is to assist the BIA in managing its caseload, we find that the provisions nonetheless serve a purpose of benefit to the alien. Though settling inconsistencies and establishing precedent undoubtedly assists the BIA in managing its caseload, such action is also designed to rectify errors below that may have unfairly prejudiced an alien. The fact that the presence of a “need to review a clearly erroneous factual determination” is a basis for three-member panel review underscores that the regulations were designed in the interests of justice as well as efficiency.

Having found that § 1003.1(e) serves a purpose of benefit to aliens, we are left to consider whether a violation of the regulations set forth therein prejudiced petitioners. Since we have held that a streamlined review process withstands constitutional challenges on due process grounds1 , absent a violation of the applicable streamlining procedures, petitioners cannot be entitled to relief.

The § 1003.1(e) streamlining procedures afford the single member initially assigned to any given appeal significant discretion. Prior to the enactment of subsection (e)(5) in 2002, a single member could only affirm without opinion. By adopting subsection (e)(5), the drafters intentionally expanded single member review. Subsection (e)(5) now gives BIA members the power to modify and remand the decisions of immigration judges in their sole discretion. It also confers upon them the right to explain their decisions if they don't feel a formulaic disposition of the appeal is appropriate. While subsection (e)(5) provides that a single member may refer an appeal to a three-member panel, this court has not interpreted the subsection to require such a referral. See Gutnik v. Gonzales, 469 F.3d 683, 691 (7th Cir.2006). The fact that petitioners' appeal may have been eligible for review by a three-member panel under the standards of the BIA's case management plan but was instead reviewed by a single member acting alone is irrelevant. In our view, it is apparent from the plain language of § 1003.1(e) that discretion in these matters is left to the panel member assigned to the case.

The heart of petitioners' argument is that the decision issued by a single BIA member in the case was not a “brief” order, as the language of subsection (e)(5) describes. Because the decision was perhaps lengthier than the average single-member decision, they argue the decision could only have appropriately been rendered by a three-member panel. This dogged focus on what is or is not “brief” provides no substantive evidence of abuse of discretion under the guidelines. To require referral to a three-member panel in each case that lends itself to more than a cookie-cutter order would be contrary to the plain language of § 1003.1(e). It would also “greatly weaken the designed effect [of the regulations] by encouraging BIA members to ignore the subsection (e)(5) procedure altogether and send anything requiring elaboration to a three-member panel.” Id. at 692. We find that the language of 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1 is sufficiently clear in allowing a single member of the BIA to issue an order such as the one rendered in petitioners' case. Ergo, we cannot find that the BIA violated the review procedures set forth in § 1003.1(e) when a single member rendered a decision on petitioners' appeal in his discretion without referring it to a panel of three. Having found no violation, we need not consider whether petitioners were prejudiced by the way the appeal was handled.

III. CONCLUSION

While it may be prudent to require that certain appeals to the BIA be adjudicated by a three-member panel instead of a single member acting alone, we leave it to the drafters of the regulations to enact such a change if they find it to be necessary. In so doing, we preserve the spirit of judicial restraint that has long guided appellate review of administrative agency rules. Petitioners' request to have their appeal remanded for further proceedings before a three-member panel of the BIA is Denied.

FOOTNOTES

1. See Gutnik v. Gonzales, 469 F.3d 683, 691 (7th Cir.2006) (citing Georgis v. Ashcroft, 328 F.3d 962 (7th Cir.2003)).

Approval of Petitions and Applications after the Death of the Qualifying Relative

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Office of the Director

December 16, 2010 PM-602-0017 Policy Memorandum
Approval of Petitions and Applications after the Death of the Qualifying Relative

The DHS had determined that if the petitioner died before a case was complete the beneficiary was not permitted to receive the benefit of the petition. The immigration law was changed to allow the beneficiary in such circumstance to obtain the benefit through a 'qualifying relative' of the deceased petitioner.

The change in the law permits a visa petition or a refugee/asylee and adjustment to be approved if the beneficiary:

• Resided in the United States when the qualifying relative died;
• Continues to reside in the United States on the date of the decision on the pending petition or application; and

is the beneficiary of at least one of the following:

• a pending or approved immediate relative visa petition;
• a pending or approved family-based visa petition, including both the principal beneficiary and any derivative beneficiaries;
• a pending or approved employment-based visa petition;
• a pending or approved Refugee/Asylee Relative Petition; or
• an alien admitted as a derivative "T" or "U" nonimmigrant; or
• a derivative asylee .

It is not specified by the law as to who is the 'qualifying relative' but USCIS infers that is an individual who, immediately before death, was:

• petitioner or principal beneficiary in a family-based immigrant visa petition or
• principal beneficiary in an employment-based visa petition case; or
• petitioner in a refugee/asylee relative petition;
• principal alien admitted as a T or U nonimmigrant; or
• principal asylee, who was granted asylum.

To avoid having a public charge inadmissibility ground, most immediate relatives and family-based immigrants, and some employment-based immigrants, must file an affidavit of support on their behalf that meets the requirements. If, after the death of a qualifying relative, a visa petition is approved or not revoked, then another individual who qualifies as a "substitute sponsor" must submit an, Affidavit of Support. If the alien is not required to have a legally binding affidavit of support, then there is no need for a substitute sponsor to submit an affidavit of support.
Tweet

HB 2281 (you know, Arizona's other new racist law) Ethnic Chauvinism

Chicano Studies Teach “Ethnic Chauvinism,” Says AZ School Chief Tom Horne
HB 2281 (you know, Arizona's other new racist law), the one ostensibly meant to protect American students from anti-American curriculum in the state's public schools. The law forbids any public school course that does any of these things: encourages students to "resent or hate other races or classes of people; promote[s] the overthrow of the United States government; promote[s] resentment toward a race or class of people" or "is designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group" or "advocate[s] ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals."
Tweet

Its champion is Arizona's new attorney general, Tom Horne. As the state superintendent he set aside Tucson's ethnic studies courses for elimination and made it his mission to outlaw the program's Mexican-American studies courses, even though educators argued that students who took the classes graduated at higher rates than students who didn't. The history and English electives put special emphasis on Latino history in the U.S., one which happens to include racism, oppression, exploitation and exclusion. Horne has repeatedly said these classes teach kids "ethnic chauvinism."

HB 2281 is full of transparently coded language. Nonetheless it falls on the shoulders of whoever wants to challenge the underlying assumptions within it to unpack it all.

ALVARADO FONSECA v. HOLDER- Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, ex post facto clause 7th Circuit

A Mexican citizen's petition for review of the BIA's dismissal of his appeal of an IJ's deportation order on the ground that his 1984 state court conviction for armed robbery constituted an aggravated felony, is denied where: 1) because petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, his argument that Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, section 7344(b) bars his deportation, cannot be considered; and 2) In light of the Supreme Court's statement in Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S. Ct. 1473 (2010) that, deportation "is not, in a strict sense, a criminal sanction," Padilla does not provide sufficient guidance to deviate from the long line cases establishing that statutes retroactively setting criteria for deportation do not violate the ex post facto clause.
Tweet

Clemente ALVARADO-FONSECA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Respondent.

No. 10-1917.

Argued Dec. 3, 2010. -- January 06, 2011
Before FLAUM, ROVNER and EVANS, Circuit Judges.

An immigration judge ordered Clemente Alvarado-Fonseca, a Mexican citizen, removed to Mexico on the ground that his 1984 state court conviction for armed robbery constituted an aggravated felony, a deportable offense. On appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), Alvarado-Fonseca argued that he was not removable because the definition of aggravated felony in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (“IIRIRA”) could not be applied retroactively. The BIA dismissed the appeal. Alvarado-Fonseca now argues that a provision in the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (“ADAA”) precludes his deportation. Alvarado-Fonseca waived that argument by failing to raise it before the BIA. In light of that failure to exhaust, we must deny the petition.

I. Background

A. Factual Background

Alvarado-Fonseca, a citizen of Mexico, was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident alien on April 27, 1973, at the age of ten. In 1984, a twenty-one-year-old Alvarado-Fonseca was convicted of armed robbery in Illinois state court, and was sentenced to six-years in prison. Now 47 years old, Alvarado-Fonseca has since married a United States citizen, with whom he has two children.

On April 2, 2007, the Department of Homeland Security commenced removal proceedings against Alvarado-Fonseca by filing a Notice to Appear (“NTA”) against him in the Immigration Court. The NTA charged that Alvarado-Fonseca was removable from the United States under three provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”): (1) section 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) for conviction of an aggravated felony relating to a theft or burglary offense as defined in § 101(a)(43)(G) of the INA (see 8 U.S.C. §§ 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), 1101(a)(43)(G)); (2) section 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) for conviction of an aggravated felony relating to a crime of violence as defined in § 101(a)(43)(F) of the INA (see 8 U.S.C. §§ 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), 1101(a)(43)(F)); and (3) section 237(a)(2)(C) for a conviction that involved the use or possession of a firearm (see 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(C)).

B. Statutory Background

The thrust of Alvarado-Fonseca's argument in this Court turns on the interplay of several amendments to the federal immigration laws. A short discussion of each of the relevant enactments is helpful.

1. The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988

Congress first made conviction for an “aggravated felony” a deportable offense in 1988, when it amended the INA through the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (“ADAA”). See ADAA § 7344(a). At that time, the statutory definition of “aggravated felony” did not include theft offenses or crimes of violence. Section 7344(b) of the ADAA provided that the amendments applied only “to any alien who has been convicted, on or after the date of the enactment of this Act, of an aggravated felony.” Therefore, under the ADAA, only aliens convicted of an aggravated felony on or after November 18, 1988 were deportable. In his petition, Alvarado-Fonseca relies on the temporal restriction set forth in ADAA § 7344(b) for his position that he cannot be deported for his 1984 conviction.

2. The Immigration Act of 1990

In 1990, Congress enacted the IMMAct, § 501(a) of which broadened the definition of “aggravated felony” to include any crime of violence for which a term of imprisonment of at least 5 years is imposed. The new definition applied only to crimes committed on or after November 29, 1990. See IMMAct § 501(b).

Section 602(c) of the IMMAct provided:

SAVINGS PROVISION.-Notwithstanding the amendments made by this section, any alien who was deportable because of a conviction (before the date of the enactment of this Act) of an offense referred to in paragraph (15), (16), (17), or (18) of section 241(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as in effect before the date of the enactment of this Act, shall be considered to remain so deportable. Except as otherwise specifically provided in such section and subsection (d), the provisions of such section, as amended by this section, shall apply to all aliens described in subsection (a) thereof notwithstanding that (1) any such alien entered the United States before the date of enactment of this Act, or (2) the facts, by reason of which an alien is described in such subsection, occurred before the date of the enactment of this Act.

See 104 Stat. 5081-82 (1990).

3. The Immigration Technical Corrections Act of 1994

On October 25, 1994, Congress again broadened the definition of “aggravated felony” to include theft offenses for which the term of imprisonment imposed is at least five years. See ITCA § 222(a). The ITCA provided that “[t]he amendments made by ․ section [222(a) ] shall apply to convictions entered on or after the date of enactment of this Act.” ITCA § 222(b).

4. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996

Congress revisited the definition of “aggravated felony” again in 1996 with the enactment of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (“IIRIRA”). See IIRIRA § 321(a). Section 321(b) of IIRIRA amended the INA to read: “Notwithstanding any other provision of law (including any effective date), [the amended definition of aggravated felony] applies regardless of whether the conviction was entered before, on, or after September 30, 1996.” Section 321(c) of IIRIRA states that “[t]he amendments made by this section shall apply to actions taken on or after the date of the enactment of this Act, regardless of when the conviction occurred.”

C. Procedural Background

In the proceedings before the Immigration Judge (“IJ”), Alvarado-Fonseca contended that he had previously appeared before an IJ and had been granted a waiver of deportation; however he could produce no evidence of such a waiver. Alvarado-Fonseca also applied for cancellation of removal. On April 14, 2009, the IJ concluded in a written opinion that Alvarado-Fonseca was removable on all three charges based on his conviction for armed robbery. Specifically, the IJ found that armed robbery “certainly is an offense relating to a theft offense, identified in § 101(a)(43)(G) of the INA.” Furthermore, the IJ determined that armed robbery constitutes a crime of violence as defined in INA § 101(a)(43)(F) because it involves a clear risk of harm to an individual. Finally, the IJ found that Alvarado-Fonseca was removable pursuant to § 237(a)(2)(C) because he had been convicted of a crime that involved the use or possession of a firearm. The IJ dismissed Alvarado-Fonseca's application for cancellation of removal, concluding that he was ineligible for cancellation because he had been convicted of an aggravated felony. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a)(3) (barring a permanent resident alien from eligibility for cancellation of removal if he has been convicted of an aggravated felony).

On appeal of the IJ's decision to the BIA, Alvarado-Fonseca argued that he was not removable pursuant to § 237(a)(2)(C) because he had not been convicted of a firearm offense.1 Alvarado-Fonseca also maintained that, because he was not deportable at the time he was convicted, he cannot be removed today. Specifically, Alvarado-Fonseca argued that the IIRIRA's expanded the definition of “aggravated felony”-enacted in 1996-could not be applied to his 1984 conviction because (1) there is a presumption against retroactive application, and (2) retroactive application would violate his due process rights.

On March 17, 2010, the BIA dismissed Alvarado-Fonseca's appeal, rejecting Alvarado-Fonseca's argument that the IIRIRA's aggravated felony provision should not apply retroactively. For that conclusion the BIA relied in part on our decision in Flores-Leon v. INS, 272 F.3d 433 (7th Cir.2001), which we discuss further below. The BIA did not determine whether Alvarado-Fonseca was removable under § 237(a)(2)(C), noting that even if he was not, he had failed to establish that he was not otherwise removable under § 237(a)(2)(A)(iii).

II. Discussion

Generally, we lack jurisdiction to review an order removing an alien who has been convicted of committing an “aggravated felony.” See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C); Gaiskov v. Holder, 567 F.3d 832, 835 (7th Cir.2009). However, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), we have jurisdiction to review questions of law and constitutional claims. Here, Alvarado-Fonseca raises legal questions regarding the interpretation of the aggravated felony provisions of the INA and a constitutional claim founded on the ex post facto clause. Therefore, we have jurisdiction to consider the petition. While we review questions of law and constitutional claims de novo, we defer to the BIA's reasonable interpretation of the INA, “so long as it is ‘consistent with the language and purposes of the statute.’ “ Gattem v. Gonzales, 412 F.3d 758, 763 (7th Cir.2005).

A. Exhaustion

In the instant petition, Alvarado-Fonseca effectively concedes that he is removable under our decision in Flores-Leon v. INS, 272 F.3d 433 (7th Cir.2001), but argues that we instead should follow the Ninth Circuit's decision in Ledezma-Galicia v. Holder, 599 F.3d 1055 (9th Cir.2010). As the discussion below demonstrates, contrary to Alvarado-Fonseca's interpretation, the two cases are not necessarily in conflict. More importantly, Alvarado-Fonseca's failure to raise before the BIA the arguments addressed in Ledezma-Galicia, which he effectively adopts in his petition, precludes us from considering this line of reasoning.

In Flores-Leon, we squarely rejected the argument Alvarado-Fonseca advanced before the BIA-namely, that the IIRIRA's definition of aggravated felony cannot be applied retroactively. The petitioner in Flores-Leon had been convicted in 1994 of a crime that was not classified as an aggravated felony until 1996. We concluded that the amended definition could be applied to the earlier conviction, holding that “the amended definition of ‘aggravated felony’ [set forth in IIRIRA § 321(a) ] should be applied to any and all criminal violations committed by an alien after his or her entry into the United States, regardless of whether they were committed before or after the amended definition went into effect.” 272 F.3d at 439. We reasoned that Congress had “clearly manifested an intent to apply the amended definition of ‘aggravated felony’ retroactively” in IIRIRA § 321(b), which states that “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law (including any effective date), [the amended definition of aggravated felony] applies regardless of whether the conviction was entered before, on, or after September 30, 1996.” Id.

Ledezma-Galicia involved a petitioner who, like Alvarado-Fonseca and unlike Flores-Leon, was convicted before Congress enacted the ADAA in 1988, thereby making conviction for an “aggravated felony” a deportable offense for the first time. 599 F.3d at 1058. Ledezma-Galicia argued that the temporal limitation set forth in ADAA § 7344(b) remains in effect and prohibits his removal. Id. at 1061. The government responded that the ADAA's temporal limitation on the aggravated felony ground of deportation did not survive the later passage of the IMMAct in 1990 and the IIRIRA in 1996. Specifically, the government argued that IMMAct § 602(c) and IIRIRA § 321(b) override ADAA § 7344(b). Id. In a split decision, the Ninth Circuit rejected both of the government's arguments and found that the petitioner could not be deported.

With respect to IIRIRA § 321 (the only provision at issue in Flores-Leon ), the Ninth Circuit stated that “it is settled law that the ․ definitional statute, IIRIRA § 321, which defines certain crimes as aggravated felonies, applies regardless of the date of the crime.” Id. at 1074 (quoting Lopez-Castellanos v. Gonzales, 437 F.3d 848, 852 (9th Cir.2006)) (emphasis in original). That is precisely what we said in Flores-Leon. The Ledezma-Galicia court went on to explain that, under Ninth Circuit precedent, “the IIRIRA's effective date provisions do not control ‘the substantive immigration consequences of IIRIRA’ (emphasis added)-even when those consequences turn on an aggravated felony conviction.” Id. (quoting Lopez-Castellanos, 437 F.3d at 852-54). In other words, the Ninth Circuit has held that while the definition of “aggravated felony” applies to all aliens, that does not necessarily mean that all aliens convicted of an aggravated felony can be deported as a result. We have never explicitly considered whether the consequences of being an aggravated felon, such as removability, should be considered separately from the definition. Flores-Leon may be read as implicitly holding that both the definition and consequences of being an aggravated felon apply retroactively. But even if that is the case, such that our case law is in conflict with the Ninth Circuit's, we cannot resolve that tension here, for the reasons below.

The Ledezma-Galicia court went on to conclude that nothing in the IIRIRA affected the temporal limitation set forth in ADAA § 7344(b). 599 F.3d at 1074-75. It also found that IMMAct § 602(c) does not override ADAA § 7344(b). In reaching that conclusion, the Ninth Circuit refused to defer to the BIA's contrary interpretation that the second sentence of IMMAct § 602(c) overrides ADAA § 7344(b)). Id. at 1062-73. Based on those determinations, the Ninth Circuit found that Ledezma-Galicia was not removable as an aggravated felon.

Thus, the decision on which Alvarado-Fonseca now relies turns on ADAA § 7344(b), and its relationship to IIRIRA § 321(b) and IMMAct § 602(c). By relying on Ledezma-Galicia, Alvarado-Fonseca is asking us to consider whether ADAA § 7344(b) remains in effect.2 But Alvarado-Fonseca did not raise the potential relevance of either ADAA § 7344(b) or IMMAct § 602(c) before the IJ or the BIA. Rather, in his administrative proceedings, Alvarado-Fonseca focused on the fact that he was convicted before the IIRIRA was enacted in 1996; now he bases his argument on the fact that he was convicted before the 1988 passage of the ADAA.

Consequently, as the government contends, Alvarado-Fonseca failed to exhaust the argument he now advances.3 “An alien ordered removed from this country is required to exhaust the administrative remedies available to him before seeking judicial review of the removal order.” Ghaffar v. Mukasey, 551 F.3d 651, 655 (7th Cir.2008); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (“A court may review a final order of removal only if ․ the alien has exhausted all administrative remedies available to the alien as of right”). Part of the duty to exhaust is the obligation to present all arguments to the BIA in the first instance that it has the power to address. Ghaffar, 551 F.3d at 655. Because Alvarado-Fonseca failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, we cannot consider his argument that ADAA § 7344(b) bars his deportation.

By requiring that the BIA be given the first opportunity to consider questions of law under the INA, the exhaustion requirement acknowledges and respects the BIA's role as the primary interpreter of immigration law, as well as its expertise in interpreting the INA. Zeqiri v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 364, 369-70 (7th Cir.2008). It would undermine the BIA's authority to ignore the exhaustion requirement here.4

B. Ex Post Facto Clause

Alvarado-Fonseca also contends that deporting him for the commission of an aggravated felony would violate the ex post facto clause, which prohibits the retroactive application of criminal laws that materially disadvantage the defendant. See U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 3; Flores-Leon, 272 F.3d at 440. Alvarado-Fonseca concedes that the ex post facto clause applies only to criminal laws, and that both this circuit and the Supreme Court have long held that removal under the immigration laws is a civil proceeding, not a criminal punishment. See Galvan v. Press, 347 U.S. 522, 531, 74 S.Ct. 737, 98 L.Ed. 911 (1954) (“And whatever might have been said at an earlier date for applying the ex post facto Clause, it has been the unbroken rule of this Court that it has no application to deportation.”); Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603, 616, 80 S.Ct. 1367, 4 L.Ed.2d 1435 (1960); Montenegro v. Ashcroft, 355 F.3d 1035 (7th Cir.2004); Flores-Leon, 272 F.3d at 440. However, he argues that we should revisit that conclusion in light of the Supreme Court's recent decision Padilla v. Kentucky, --- U.S. ----, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010).

In Padilla, the Court held that counsel for an alien charged with a crime has a constitutional obligation to tell the client that a guilty plea carries a risk of deportation. Id. at 1486. In reaching that conclusion, the Court noted that “deportation is a particularly severe ‘penalty,’ “ and that removal proceedings, while “civil in nature,” are “intimately related to the criminal process.” Id. at 1481. However, the Court also reaffirmed that deportation “is not, in a strict sense, a criminal sanction.” Id. In light of that statement, we cannot agree that Padilla provides sufficient guidance to deviate from the long line cases establishing that statutes retroactively setting criteria for deportation do not violate the ex post facto clause.

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is Denied.

FOOTNOTES

1. Alvarado-Fonseca offered no explanation for his position that armed robbery should not be considered a conviction for “using, owning, possessing, or carrying, ․ any weapon ․ in violation of any law” under INS § 237(a)(2)(C), and we can think of none. See 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(C). However, contrary to the government's request, we cannot deny the petition on the ground that Alvarado-Fonseca is removable pursuant to INS § 237(a)(2)(C). While the BIA noted that the IJ found Alvarado-Fonseca to be removable under § 237(a)(2)(C), it did not rely on § 237(a)(2)(C) as a basis for its ruling. Nor did the BIA adopt the IJ's opinion. Therefore, the BIA's decision is “the exclusive focus of our review.” Moab v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 656, 659 (7th Cir.2007). Under SEC v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194 (1947), we cannot uphold the BIA's ruling on “a ground that is not articulated-or at least discernable-in the decision itself.” Atunnise v. Mukasey, 523 F.3d 830, 838 (7th Cir.2008). Because the BIA did not rely on § 237(a)(2)(C) in dismissing Alvarado-Fonseca's appeal, we cannot deny the petition on that basis.

2. We have not addressed that issue. Both the BIA and a number of our sister circuits have considered it, and have reached varying conclusions based on the interplay of the ADAA, the IMMAct, and the IIRIRA. See Lewis v. INS, 194 F.3d 539, 543 n. 5 (4th Cir.1999) (deferring to BIA's interpretation that the second sentence of IMMAct § 602(c) overrides ADAA § 7344(b)); Lettman v. Reno, 207 F.3d 1368 (11th Cir.2000) (same); Bell v. Reno, 218 F.3d 86 (2d Cir.2000) (rejecting BIA's interpretation that IMMAct § 602(c) overrides ADAA § 7344(b), but nevertheless concluding that petitioner convicted before 1988 is deportable under INA § 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) as an alien convicted of an aggravated felony after entry into the United States, because IMMAct § 602(d) overrides ADAA § 7344(b)); Ledezma-Galicia, 599 F.3d 1055 (concluding that neither IMMAct § 602 nor IIRIRA § 321(b) overrides ADAA § 7344(b)).

3. Alvarado-Fonseca did not file a reply brief to refute the government's exhaustion argument and argue that he properly preserved this issue.

4. As noted above, the BIA has concluded in other cases that IMMAct § 602(c) overrides ADAA § 7344(b). Presumably, the BIA would have dismissed Alvarado-Fonseca's appeal on that ground if he had presented the argument he now raises in his administrative appeal. Therefore, one might argue that Alvarado-Fonseca should be excused from administrative exhaustion on futility grounds. (Alvarado-Fonseca does not attempt to avoid the exhaustion requirement by advancing this argument, or any other for that matter). However, we rejected a similar argument in United States v. Roque-Espinoza, 338 F.3d 724, 729 (7th Cir.2003), noting that “the law would never change if litigants did not request the responsible tribunals to reconsider earlier rulings.”