Case: 14-10069 Date Filed: 03/17/2015 Page: 1 of 10
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-10069
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
Agency No. A205-574-862
ARTHUR FRITZ-JOHN FRANCIS,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
________________________
(March 17, 2015)
Before TJOFLAT, WILSON, and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Petitioner Arthur Fritz-John Francis, a native of Jamaica and citizen of
Case: 14-10069 Date Filed: 03/17/2015 Page: 2 of 10
Bermuda, proceeding pro se, seeks review of the Department of Homeland
Security’s (“DHS”) Final Administrative Removal Order issued pursuant to the
Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1228(b). On appeal,
Petitioner argues that he was not removable because his New York conviction for
attempted third-degree sale of cocaine was not an aggravated felony. He also
argues that the expedited removal process violated his due process rights. After
careful review, we dismiss the petition in part, and deny in part.
I. Background
On December 3, 2013, the DHS issued Petitioner a Notice of Intent to Issue
a Final Administrative Removal Order, which alleged that Petitioner was subject to
expedited removal because he was not lawfully admitted for permanent residence
and he had been previously convicted of attempted third-degree sale of cocaine, in
violation of New York Penal Law §§ 110.00 (attempt) and 220.39(1) (criminal sale
of a controlled substance in the third degree). The notice of intent charged that
Petitioner was removable, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), because his
New York conviction was an aggravated felony as defined by 8 U.S.C.
§ 1101(a)(43)(U).
The notice of intent informed Petitioner of his right to be represented by
counsel “authorized to practice in this proceeding” and his right to contest his
2
Case: 14-10069 Date Filed: 03/17/2015 Page: 3 of 10
removability. It stated that Petitioner had ten calendar days to respond in writing
to the charges and “rebut the charges stated above (with supporting evidence).”
On that same day, Petitioner responded by checking a box on the notice
indicating that he was admitting the allegations and charges and that he was
deportable, acknowledging that he was not eligible for any relief from removal,
and waiving his right to rebut and contest the charges against him. Petitioner also
checked the box indicating that he was waiving his right to remain in the United
States for 14 days in order to seek judicial review. The next day, the DHS issued a
final removal order against Petitioner. This petition for review followed.
II. Discussion
On appeal, Petitioner first argues that his New York conviction for
attempted third-degree sale of cocaine is not an aggravated felony, and thus, he
was not removable as charged. Second, he argues that the expedited removal
process in general violated his due process rights. He also contends that the DHS
violated his due process rights by denying his request to speak with his attorneys
from his criminal case. In response, the government argues that we lack
jurisdiction to review Petitioner’s arguments because he failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies.
3
Case: 14-10069 Date Filed: 03/17/2015 Page: 4 of 10
A. Aggravated Felony
We review de novo our own subject matter jurisdiction. Gonzalez-Oropeza
v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 321 F.3d 1331, 1332 (11th Cir. 2003). A court may not review
a final order of removal unless “the alien has exhausted all administrative remedies
available to the alien as of right.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). We lack jurisdiction to
consider a claim raised in a petition for review unless the petitioner exhausted his
administrative remedies with respect to that issue. Amaya-Artunduaga v. U.S.
Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1247, 1250-51 (11th Cir. 2006). When an alien in expedited
removal proceedings fails to contest the classification of his conviction as an
aggravated felony in his response to the notice of intent, he has failed to exhaust
the argument that he is not an aggravated felon, and we lack jurisdiction to review
a claim based on that argument. Malu v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 764 F.3d 1282, 1287-89
(11th Cir. 2014).
The INA provides that “[a]ny alien who is convicted of an aggravated felony
at any time after admission is deportable.” 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). The INA
authorizes the Attorney General to institute expedited removal proceedings with
respect to aliens convicted of aggravated felonies. See id. § 1228(b). In such
proceedings, the DHS is required to serve the alien who was purportedly convicted
of an aggravated felony with a notice of intent that advises him of the legal and
factual basis of the charges, informs him of his right to request withholding of
4
Case: 14-10069 Date Filed: 03/17/2015 Page: 5 of 10
removal, and informs him of his opportunity to rebut the charges within ten
calendar days. 8 C.F.R. § 1238.1(b)(2)(i). The regulations further provide that, in
the alien’s response to the notice of intent, he may designate a country of removal,
rebut the notice’s allegations, request an opportunity to review the government’s
evidence, request withholding of removal, and/or request that an extension of time
be granted. Id. § 1238.1(c)(1). Alternatively, the alien can concede deportability.
Id. § 1238.1(d)(1). In the event that the alien concedes deportability (or if the alien
does not submit a timely response and the evidence establishes removability by
clear and convincing evidence), the DHS is required by the regulations to issue the
final administrative removal order. Id.
Here, we lack jurisdiction over Petitioner’s argument that his New York
conviction for attempted third-degree sale of cocaine was not an aggravated felony.
As the record shows, Petitioner did not properly challenge that determination
during his expedited removal proceedings. Despite receiving the notice of intent
that charged him as removable as an aggravated felon and informed him of his
right to respond by rebutting the charges, Petitioner immediately admitted the
allegations and charges, conceded that he was deportable, and waived his right to
rebut and contest the charges. Petitioner did not challenge the determination that
he was removable as an aggravated felon until after he had already responded by
conceding removability and the DHS had issued the final removal order. Because
5
Case: 14-10069 Date Filed: 03/17/2015 Page: 6 of 10
Petitioner did not argue that his conviction was not an aggravated felony in his
response to the notice of intent and before the DHS issued the final removal order,
he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as to this issue. Accordingly, we
lack jurisdiction to consider this argument, and we dismiss the petition for review
as to this issue. See Malu, 764 F.3d at 1287-89.
B. Due Process Claims
Because Petitioner is removable based on his prior aggravated felony
conviction, we only retain jurisdiction to review constitutional claims or questions
of law. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) and (D). As previously discussed, we lack
jurisdiction to review unexhausted arguments raised for the first time in a petition
for review. However, some constitutional claims do not require exhaustion
because the agency does not have the authority to adjudicate those claims. See
Sundar v. INS, 328 F.3d 1320, 1325 (11th Cir. 2003). Nevertheless, where the
agency can provide a remedy to the constitutional claim, “the exhaustion
requirement applies with full force.” Id. Thus, “procedural due process claims, as
well as procedural errors argued in due process terms, must be raised before” the
agency. Amaya-Artunduaga, 463 F.3d at 1251 (holding that the petitioner’s due
process claim that he was denied a full and fair hearing because the Immigration
Judge was biased was the kind of procedural error that required exhaustion).
Assuming we have jurisdiction, “[w]e review constitutional challenges, including
6
Case: 14-10069 Date Filed: 03/17/2015 Page: 7 of 10
alleged due process violations, de novo.” Lapaix v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 605 F.3d
1138, 1143 (11th Cir. 2010).
Aliens are entitled to due process of law in deportation hearings, which is
satisfied only by a full and fair hearing. Ibrahim v. INS, 821 F.2d 1547, 1550 (11th
Cir. 1987). To establish due process violations in removal proceedings, an alien
must show that he was deprived of liberty without due process of law, and that the
asserted errors caused him substantial prejudice. Lonyem v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 352
F.3d 1338, 1341-42 (11th Cir. 2003). “To show substantial prejudice, an alien
must demonstrate that, in the absence of the alleged violations, the outcome of the
proceeding would have been different.” Lapaix, 605 F.3d at 1143.
As an initial matter, we lack jurisdiction to review Petitioner’s argument that
the DHS violated his due process rights by denying him access to his attorney.
The record reflects that Petitioner never raised this argument before the DHS in his
expedited removal proceedings, but instead is raising it for the first time on appeal.
As this is a procedural due process claim for which the DHS could provide a
remedy, the government correctly argues that we lack jurisdiction to review this
claim based on Petitioner’s failure to exhaust. See Amaya-Artunduaga, 463 F.3d at
1251. Accordingly, we dismiss Petitioner’s petition for review as to this issue.
Petitioner’s other argument is not that the DHS violated his due process
rights by failing to follow the applicable regulatory procedures. Instead, he argues
7
Case: 14-10069 Date Filed: 03/17/2015 Page: 8 of 10
that the expedited removal process in general constitutes a denial of due process
because (1) it does not involve a hearing before a neutral magistrate (expedited
removal proceedings are conducted by Immigration and Customs Enforcement
officials instead of an Immigration Judge), (2) the penalties are too severe because
expedited removal proceedings prevent aliens from applying for relief they are
otherwise eligible to apply for, and (3) such proceedings create a “substantial
social stigma.” The government is correct that Petitioner failed to exhaust this due
process argument by raising it in his expedited removal proceedings. However,
Petitioner’s failure to exhaust does not deprive this Court of jurisdiction to review
the constitutionality of the expedited removal process because the DHS would not
have the authority to adjudicate such a claim and provide a remedy by declaring
the expedited removal process to be unconstitutional. See Sundar, 328 F.3d at
1325. See also Matter of Salazar-Regino, 23 I. & N. Dec. 223, 231 (BIA 2002)
(“We have long declared that we lack the authority to rule on the constitutionality
of the statutes we administer.”).
Exercising our jurisdiction, we conclude that the expedited removal process
does not violate an alien’s due process rights. While expedited removal
proceedings do not involve a hearing before an Immigration Judge, the INA
provides that aliens in expedited removal proceedings must be allowed (1)
reasonable notice of the charges; (2) the privilege of being represented by counsel
8
Case: 14-10069 Date Filed: 03/17/2015 Page: 9 of 10
(at no expense to the government); (3) a reasonable opportunity to inspect the
evidence and rebut the charges; (4) a determination for the record that the
individual upon whom the notice is served is, in fact, the alien named in such
notice; (5) a record maintained for judicial review; and (6) a procedure designed to
ensure that the same person who issues the charges does not adjudicate the final
order of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1228(b)(4). Our fellow circuit courts of appeal that
have considered the constitutionality of such provisions have all concluded that
these procedures comport with due process. See United States v. Rangel de
Aguilar, 308 F.3d 1134, 1138 (10th Cir. 2002); United States v. Garcia-Martinez,
228 F.3d 956, 961 (9th Cir. 2000); United States v. Benitez-Villafuerte, 186 F.3d
651, 659 (5th Cir. 1999). We agree.
To the extent that Petitioner’s argument could be construed as a challenge to
him personally being placed in expedited removal proceedings because those
proceedings precluded him from applying for relief in the form of a waiver of
inadmissibility under either former § 1182(c) of Title 8 of the United States Code
or 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h), Petitioner has not alleged a colorable constitutional claim
because aliens do not “have a constitutionally protected interest in discretionary
forms of relief,” and both waivers are discretionary. See Guzman-Munoz v. U.S.
Att’y Gen., 733 F.3d 1311, 1314 (11th Cir. 2013) (citing Scheerer v. U.S. Att’y
Gen., 513 F.3d 1244, 1253 (11th Cir. 2008)). See also 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h) (“The
9
Case: 14-10069 Date Filed: 03/17/2015 Page: 10 of 10
Attorney General may, in his discretion, waive [certain grounds of
inadmissibility]”); 8 C.F.R. § 1212.3 (“[a]pplication for the exercise of discretion
under former section [1182(c)]”). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review as
to this issue.
PETITION DISMISSED IN PART, DENIED IN PART.
10