Filed: Jun. 26, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Opinions of the United 2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 6-26-2008 Hall v. Atty Gen USA Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 07-3443 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008 Recommended Citation "Hall v. Atty Gen USA" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 972. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/972 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the
Summary: Opinions of the United 2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 6-26-2008 Hall v. Atty Gen USA Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 07-3443 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008 Recommended Citation "Hall v. Atty Gen USA" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 972. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/972 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the ..
More
Opinions of the United
2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
6-26-2008
Hall v. Atty Gen USA
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 07-3443
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008
Recommended Citation
"Hall v. Atty Gen USA" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 972.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/972
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2008 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 07-3443
___________
STEPHEN HALL,
Petitioner
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,
Respondent
_____________________
Petition for Review of an Order of the
United States Department of Justice
Board of Immigration Appeals
(BIA No. A40-163-874)
Immigration Judge: Honorable Walter A. Durling
_____________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
June 25, 2008
Before: RENDELL, GREENBERG and VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges
(Filed: June 26, 2008)
___________
OPINION OF THE COURT
___________
PER CURIAM
Stephen Hall, a native and citizen of Barbados, petitions for review of a final order
of removal. We will deny the petition for review. Hall was granted legal permanent
resident (“LPR”) status in 1987. In 1991 he was convicted of cocaine possession in New
York, and in 1998 he was convicted of marijuana possession in Virginia. At some point
after his second conviction, Hall left the United States. He attempted to re-enter in
November 1999. The Immigration and Naturalization Service issued a notice to appear
(“NTA”) charging Hall as an inadmissible arriving alien. Hall appeared before an
immigration judge (“IJ”) and withdrew his application for admission. He was removed to
Barbados on March 22, 2000.
In June 2000, Hall returned to the United States using a fraudulent British
passport. In 2006, Hall again came to the attention of immigration authorities after he
was arrested for possession of a controlled substance, possession with intent to deliver a
controlled substance, criminal conspiracy, and criminal use of a communication facility.1
On November 15, 2006, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) issued an NTA
charging Hall as being present in the United States without admission or parole. The
NTA also charged Hall as inadmissible due to his drug-related convictions. Hall moved
to terminate the proceedings, arguing that he was an LPR and therefore should be charged
as removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227. Hall argued that if he were charged under § 1227 he
would be eligible for waivers of removability pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c). DHS
opposed the motion, contending that Hall abandoned his LPR status and was
inadmissible. The IJ determined that Hall, by entering the United States illegally,
1
These charges were later dismissed.
2
terminated his LPR status and was not eligible for waivers because he was subject to the
Visa Waiver Program. Hall appealed, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”)
dismissed the appeal. The BIA, declining to address whether Hall abandoned his LPR
status and also declining to review the IJ’s decision regarding the Visa Waiver Program,
found that the charges in the NTA were proper and that Hall was ineligible for waivers of
removability under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(c), (h), or (i).
We review the BIA’s decision and only review the IJ’s decision to the extent that
the BIA adopted the IJ’s reasoning. See Zubeda v. Ashcroft, 333 F.3d 463, 475 (3d Cir.
2003). We review legal questions under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) de
novo. See Augustin v. Att’y Gen.,
520 F.3d 264, 267 (3d Cir. 2008).
We note initially that, contrary to Hall’s argument, the BIA did not err in allowing
a single member to issue the order dismissing the appeal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(5);
Purveegiin v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 684, 693 (3d Cir. 2006) (a single board member may
issue an order affirming, modifying, or remanding a decision under review).
The BIA correctly determined that, illegal entry aside, Hall was properly charged
as inadmissible due to his drug convictions. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(13)(C)(v)2
(establishing that an individual lawfully admitted for permanent residence who has been
convicted of a controlled substance violation is deemed to be a person seeking admission
2
Hall argues that this section does not apply to him, see Appellant’s Brief 12, but the
BIA correctly cited the subsection covering persons who have committed a controlled
substance offense.
3
to the United States when reentering the country.); see also Cruz v. Att’y Gen., 452 F.3d
240, 245 (3d Cir. 2006). Hall does not contest that he was convicted of the crimes, but
rather argues that he would be eligible for relevant waivers if he were charged as
removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227. Therefore, he did not meet his burden under
§ 1229a(c)(2)(B) of demonstrating that he had been lawfully admitted and was not
inadmissible. See Altamirano v. Gonzales,
427 F.3d 586, 591 (9th Cir. 2005).3
In addition, Hall is not eligible for any waivers. Hall’s 1998 conviction for
cocaine possession is clearly past the April 1, 1997 deadline for a section 1182(c)
waiver.4 See 8 C.F.R. § 1212.3(h)(3). Further Hall is ineligible for a section 1182(h)
waiver because he has two drug convictions whereas 1182(h) only permits waiver if an
alien has a “single offense of simple possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana.” 8
U.S.C. § 1182(h). Hall argues that if he were to receive a section 1182(c) waiver for the
1991 conviction he would only have a single offense and thus he could be eligible for a
section 1182(h) waiver. Appellant’s Brief, 14. As we have previously stated, the “grant
of [section 1182(c)] relief merely waives the finding of deportability. [T]he crimes
3
After an alien demonstrates lawful presence, the burden of proof shifts to the
Government in the removal proceedings. See, e.g., Ibragimov v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 125,
131 (2d Cir. 2007). Hall appears to argue that he met his burden because he entered on a
false British passport. See Appellant’s Brief, 10. As the BIA held, however, such an
entry “would not be ‘lawful.’” BIA Order, 2 n.1.
4
The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 repealed
section 1182(c). When it was in effect, however, it permitted a lawful permanent resident
with seven years of consecutive residence in the United States to apply for a discretionary
waiver of deportation. See INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 295 (2001).
4
alleged to be grounds of deportability do not disappear from the alien’s record for
immigration purposes.” Rodriguez-Munoz v. Gonzales, 419 F.3d 245, 248 (3d Cir. 2005)
(quoting Matter of Balderas, 20 I. & N. Dec. 389, 391 (BIA 1991)). Finally, Hall was
charged as removable under sections 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) and 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) and
therefore he is ineligible for section 1182(i) relief. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(i)(1) (applying
only to aliens charged under section 1182(a)(6)(C)).
For the above-stated reasons, we will deny the petition for review.
5
