Jose Aristy-Rosa v. Attorney General United States ( 2021 )

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
______________
No. 20-2105
______________
JOSE ARCENIO ARISTY-ROSA,
Petitioner
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
______________
On Petition for Review of a Decision of
the Board of Immigration Appeals
(Agency No. A043-907-039)
Immigration Judge: John P. Ellington
______________
Submitted under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
March 15, 2021
______________
Before: SHWARTZ, PORTER, and MATEY, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: March 16, 2021)
______________
OPINION
______________

This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7
does not constitute binding precedent.
SHWARTZ, Circuit Judge.
Jose Arcenio Aristy-Rosa petitions for review of a decision of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the decision of the Immigration Judge (“IJ”)
denying his motion to sua sponte reopen and terminate removal proceedings. Aristy-
Rosa received a full and unconditional gubernatorial pardon, and he asserts that it
extinguished the basis for his removal. He is incorrect and we will therefore deny the
petition.
I
Aristy-Rosa, a native and citizen of the Dominican Republic, was admitted to the
United States in January 1993 as a lawful permanent resident. Several years later, he was
convicted of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance, cocaine, in violation of
New York state law. He was sentenced to five years’ probation and a six-month
suspension of his driver’s license.
Thereafter, Aristy-Rosa received a Notice to Appear (“NTA”) in the Immigration
Court. The NTA charged Aristy-Rosa with being subject to removal under Section 237
of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) for three reasons: (1) he had committed
a crime relating to a controlled substance, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i); (2)
his controlled substances conviction constituted an aggravated felony, in violation of 8
U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii); and (3) he was an alien who was inadmissible under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) at the time of his application for adjustment of status, in violation
of 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(A).
2
Aristy-Rosa conceded removability under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) and
(a)(2)(B)(i) and sought no relief from removal. An IJ ordered Aristy-Rosa removed on
these grounds, and Aristy-Rosa did not appeal that order. Aristy-Rosa later filed two
motions to reopen his removal proceedings to apply for adjustment of status and other
relief, both of which were denied.
In December 2017, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo fully and
unconditionally pardoned Aristy-Rosa for his controlled substance conviction. Aristy-
Rosa then moved to sua sponte reopen his removal proceedings,1 arguing that the pardon
eliminated the basis for his removal. The IJ denied the motion, reasoning that it was
time- and number-barred and that, under the plain text of the INA, a pardon fails to
extinguish the basis for removal where the underlying conviction was for a controlled
substance offense. Aristy-Rosa appealed this decision to the BIA.
The BIA dismissed the appeal. It concluded that Aristy-Rosa’s argument was
foreclosed by In re Suh, 23 I. & N. Dec. 626 (B.I.A. 2003), which held that certain
“removable offenses, such as controlled substance violations under section 237(a)(2)(B)
[of the INA] . . . are . . . not covered by the [INA’s] pardon waiver” provision. Id. at 627.
The BIA also determined that a Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel (“OLC”)
1
An immigrant generally may only file one motion to reopen, no later than ninety
days after the date that the IJ’s or the BIA’s decision became final. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(2). “[T]he Regulations, however, allow[] the BIA to reopen or reconsider a
case sua sponte at any time.” Calle-Vujiles v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 472, 474 (3d Cir.
2003). Sua sponte reopening is generally reserved for “exceptional situations.” Id.(quoting In re J-J-, 21 I. & N. Dec. 976, 984 (B.I.A. 1997)).
3
memorandum, which opined that Congress could not restrict the scope of a presidential
pardon, was not inconsistent with Suh because the memorandum “detail[ed] the extent of
a presidential pardon, rather than a gubernatorial pardon as is at issue here.” A.R. 4.
Aristy-Rosa petitions for review.
II2
To resolve this petition, we must interpret the INA provision governing pardons.
Our “starting point lies in a careful examination of the ordinary meaning and structure of
the law itself.” Food Mktg. Inst. v. Argus Leader Media, 139 S. Ct. 2356, 2364 (2019).
“[W]hen the statute’s language is plain, the sole function of the courts . . . is to enforce it
according to its terms.” Lamie v. U.S. Trustee, 540 U.S. 526, 534 (2004) (quoting
Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Union Planters Bank, N.A., 530 U.S. 1, 6 (2000)).
Section 1227 provides the grounds upon which an alien may be removed from the
United States, and § 1227(a)(2) specifically enumerates the various crimes that may
constitute a basis for removal. As relevant here, § 1227(a)(2)(A) and § 1227(a)(2)(B)
include “[g]eneral crimes” and “[c]ontrolled substances” offenses, respectively. General
2
The BIA had jurisdiction under 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.1(b)(3) and 1240.15, and we
have jurisdiction over final orders of the BIA under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). See Garcia v.
Att’y Gen., 665 F.3d 496, 502 n.4 (3d Cir. 2011). While we generally lack jurisdiction to
review a BIA decision declining to exercise its discretion to sua sponte reopen a removal
proceeding, see Calle-Vujiles, 320 F.3d at 475, we “may exercise jurisdiction to the
limited extent of recognizing when the BIA has relied on an incorrect legal premise,”
Pllumi v. Att’y Gen., 642 F.3d 155, 160 (3d Cir. 2011). “In such cases we can remand to
the BIA so it may exercise its authority against the correct legal background.” Id.(quotation marks omitted). We review legal questions concerning the interpretation of
the INA de novo. Roye v. Att’y Gen., 693 F.3d 333, 339 (3d Cir. 2012).
4
crimes include “crime[s] involving moral turpitude,” “aggravated felon[ies],” “high speed
flight from an immigration checkpoint,” and “[f]ailure to register as a sex offender.” 8
U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i)-(v). The general crimes provision also contains a pardon
waiver, which explains that convictions for crimes of moral turpitude, aggravated
felonies, and high speed flight cannot serve as the basis for removal “if the alien
subsequent to the criminal conviction has been granted a full and unconditional pardon
by the President of the United States or by the Governor of any of the several States.” 8
U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(vi). Section 1227(a)(2)(B), which provides for removal of an
alien “convicted of a violation of (or a conspiracy or attempt to violate) any law or
regulation of a State . . . relating to a controlled substance,” contains no pardon waiver.
That is, Congress did not explicitly provide that a full pardon for a controlled substance
conviction extinguishes the immigration consequences of that offense. Thus, under the
plain text of § 1227, Aristy-Rosa’s pardon eliminated the aggravated felony ground for
his removal but not the controlled substance ground. See Suh, 23 I. & N. Dec. at 628
(explaining that “[t]he plain language of the statute clearly states which grounds of
removal are waived if a pardon is granted,” and controlled substances offenses “are not
among those enumerated”); see also Aguilera-Montero v. Mukasey, 548 F.3d 1248, 1252
(9th Cir. 2008) (reviewing whether § 1227(a)(2)(A)(vi)’s pardon waiver provision
extends to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)3 and concluding that “basic tenets of statutory construction
3
Section 1182 deals with the inadmissibility of aliens, rather than their
removability. “[I]nadmissibility applies to those aliens who, for one reason or another,
5
preclude us from inferring a [pardon] waiver under the provisions of 8 U.S.C.
§ 1182(a)”); Balogun v. Att’y Gen., 425 F.3d 1356, 1362 (11th Cir. 2005) (“Section 1182
does not have a pardon provision like [§] 1227[(a)(2)(A)] does, and we believe that if
Congress had intended to extend the pardon waiver to inadmissible aliens, it would have
done so [explicitly].”).
Aristy-Rosa’s argument that Congress implied a pardon waiver for a controlled
substance offense fails. First, because “it is generally presumed that Congress acts
intentionally and purposely when it includes particular language in one section of a
statute but omits it in another,” we will not imply a pardon waiver in § 1227(a)(2)(B)
where none exists in the text. BFP v. Resolution Tr. Corp., 511 U.S. 531, 537 (1994)
(quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. Johnson, 529 U.S. 53, 58 (2000)
(“When Congress provides exceptions in a statute, it does not follow that courts have
authority to create others. The proper inference . . . is that Congress considered the issue
of exceptions and, in the end, limited the statute to the ones set forth.”); Zumel v. Lynch,
803 F.3d 463, 473 (9th Cir. 2015) (“Since Congress knows how to eliminate the
are ineligible to enter or re-enter the United States in the first place.” Balogun v. Att’y
Gen., 425 F.3d 1356, 1362 (11th Cir. 2005). A person with a controlled substance
conviction, for example, is ineligible to enter the United States. 8 U.S.C.
§ 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II). “This ineligibility to enter the country contrasts with the situation
of deportable aliens who are either (1) eligible to enter when they arrive and are admitted,
but become ineligible to remain because of some later event, or (2) those who were
admitted, but would not have been had their inadmissible status been known at the time
of admission.” Balogun, 425 F.3d at 1362.
6
immigration consequences of unlawful conduct when it wants to, we should not interpret
congressional silence as accomplishing the same end.”).4
Second, this plain-text interpretation of the INA does not produce absurd results.
See Hanif v. Att’y Gen., 694 F.3d 479, 483 (3d Cir. 2012) (noting that we follow the
plain text unless “the literal meaning of a statute [could] lead to a patently absurd result
that no rational legislature could have intended” (alteration in original) (quoting Barrios
v. Att’y Gen., 399 F.3d 272, 277 n.11 (3d Cir. 2005)). Some controlled substance
offenses are also aggravated felonies, as is the case here, but not all aggravated felonies
involve controlled substances. Congress could have rationally decided that controlled
4
Aristy-Rosa’s pardon also does not alter the fact that he was “convicted.” Under
the INA, “conviction” means “a formal judgment of guilt of the alien entered by a court,”
including “where a judge or jury has found the alien guilty or the alien has entered a plea
of guilty or nolo contendere or has admitted sufficient facts to warrant a finding of guilt”
or where “the judge has ordered some form of punishment, penalty, or restraint on the
alien’s liberty to be imposed.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(48)(A). Aristy-Rosa argues that the
pardon “removed the formal adjudication of guilt” such that he is no longer “convicted”
under the INA and therefore should not have been ordered removed. “A cardinal rule of
statutory interpretation is that courts should avoid interpreting a statute in ways that
would render certain language superfluous.” United States v. Williams, 917 F.3d 195,
202 (3d Cir. 2019). Adopting Aristy-Rosa’s construction that a full pardon extinguishes
any “conviction” would render § 1227(a)(2)(A)(vi)’s pardon waiver provision
superfluous. See also Doe v. Nat’l Bd. of Med. Exam’rs, 199 F.3d 146, 155 (3d Cir.
1999) (explaining that a “commonplace” rule of statutory interpretation is that “the
specific governs the general,” particularly “when Congress has targeted specific problems
with specific solutions in the context of a general statute” (quotation marks omitted)).
Moreover, outside the immigration context, a pardon “does not eliminate . . . [the]
conviction and does not create any factual fiction that [the] conviction had not occurred.”
United States v. Noonan, 906 F.2d 952, 960 (3d Cir. 1990) (quotation marks omitted);
see also Burdick v. United States, 236 U.S. 79, 94 (1915) (noting that acceptance of a
pardon “carries an imputation of guilt”). Thus, Aristy-Rosa remains convicted of a
controlled substance offense.
7
substance offenses warrant removal because of the impact such crimes have on the entire
community. See Suh, 23 I. & N. Dec. at 627-28.
Finally, the OLC memorandum, Effects of a Presidential Pardon, 19 Op. O.L.C.
160 (1995), does not alter our analysis. There, the OLC considered, among other things,
whether “a full and unconditional presidential pardon precludes the exercise of the
authority to deport a convicted alien.” Id. It noted that the INA waives removal for
certain crimes under § 1227(a)(2)(A),5 but that “[t]he statute is silent . . . as to the effect
of such a pardon on . . . offenses involving controlled substances, firearms, and
miscellaneous crimes.” Id. The OLC nevertheless concluded that a full presidential
pardon would extinguish the immigration effects of any federal crime, including those
involving controlled substances, “because congressional legislation cannot define or limit
the effect of a presidential pardon” due to the scope of the President’s pardon power in
Article II of the Constitution. Id. at 161. These separation of powers concerns are absent
here, however, because Aristy-Rosa’s case concerns only a state pardon, and a state “does
not have the authority to make immigration-law determinations.” In re Thomas, 27 I. &
N. Dec. 674, 680 (A.G. 2019); see also Aguilera-Montero, 548 F.3d at 1255 n.9 (noting
the OLC’s analysis was not relevant where “[petitioner’s] case involve[d] a state
5
At the time, this provision of the immigration laws was codified at 8 U.S.C.
§ 1251. See 19 Op. O.L.C. at 160 & n.* (“[O]n September 30, 1996, that section was
redesignated as section 237 of the INA, and was thereafter recodified as 8 U.S.C.
§ 1227.” (citing Pub. L. No. 104-208, § 305(a)(2), 110 Stat. 3009, 3009-598 (1996)); see
also 8 U.S.C. § 1251 (1994).
8
pardon”); cf. Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387, 409-10 (2012) (collecting cases and
noting that “the removal process is entrusted to the [sole] discretion of the Federal
Government”); Galvan v. Press, 347 U.S. 522, 531 (1954) (“Policies pertaining to the
entry of aliens and their right to remain here are . . . entrusted exclusively to Congress.”).6
III
For these reasons, we will deny the petition for review.
6
Any argument that the BIA failed to give full faith and credit to Aristy-Rosa’s
state pardon is meritless because 28 U.S.C. § 1738 does not apply to administrative
agencies. See NLRB v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 930 F.2d 316, 320 (3d Cir. 1991)
(“[F]ederal administrative agencies are not bound by section 1738 because they are not
courts.” (quotation marks omitted)); Thomas, 27 I. & N. Dec. at 687.
9