Centurion v. Holder
755 F.3d 115
| 2d Cir. | 2014Background
- Centurion, a Peruvian national and lawful permanent resident since 1989, was indicted in Texas in 1990 for conspiracy to possess >400g cocaine, posted bail and fled; arrested in Puerto Rico in 2005 and returned to Dallas County.
- Prosecutors moved to reduce the charge to attempted possession under 1 gram; Centurion joined the motion and indicated he would plead guilty.
- On April 10, 2007, pursuant to a deferred prosecution agreement, Centurion pled nolo contendere to “conspiracy to possess a controlled substance, to wit: cocaine” (Texas Health & Safety Code § 481.115); deferred adjudication was later dismissed.
- DHS placed Centurion in removal proceedings in 2008, charging inadmissibility under INA § 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) as an alien convicted of a controlled-substance violation; the IJ found him removable and pretermitted his § 212(c) application; the BIA affirmed in 2011.
- Centurion challenged (1) sufficiency of the Government’s proof that his conviction related to a controlled substance (pointing to an internal record reference to a Class B misdemeanor), and (2) that application of post-enactment law (IIRIRA/AEDPA) to deny § 212(c) relief was impermissibly retroactive in light of Vartelas v. Holder.
- The Second Circuit reviewed de novo questions of law and applied the heightened clear-and-convincing evidentiary standard for proof of convictions; it dismissed the petition for review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Government proved Centurion was convicted of an offense "relating to a controlled substance" | Centurion: an inconsistency (record calls statute §481.115 but also a Class B misdemeanor) undermines clear-and-convincing proof of a controlled-substance conviction | Government: multiple official records (indictment, deferred adjudication, dismissal) consistently identify the offense as involving cocaine; the stray misdemeanor reference is immaterial | Held: Government met its burden; conviction related to controlled substance despite the single inconsistent reference |
| Whether the court has jurisdiction to review given categorical bar for controlled-substance convictions | Centurion: contests that his conviction falls within the statutory prohibition (thereby preserving reviewability) | Government: he was convicted of a controlled-substance offense so §1252(a)(2)(C) removes jurisdiction over the final removal order; but court may decide whether conviction falls within that bar | Held: Court lacks jurisdiction to review final removal order on merits because conviction qualifies; but retains jurisdiction to decide whether the conviction falls within the prohibition and it does |
| Whether applying IIRIRA/AEDPA to deny §212(c) relief is impermissibly retroactive under Landgraf/St. Cyr/Vartelas | Centurion: Vartelas shows that retroactivity analysis looks to pre-enactment conduct and thus Domond’s conviction-date rule is no longer sound; denying §212(c) is retroactive here because underlying conduct predated repeal | Government: controlling precedent (Domond, Khan) holds the operative date is conviction; because Centurion’s conviction occurred after IIRIRA, §212(c) is unavailable | Held: Vartelas did not overrule Domond; the relevant date for §212(c) eligibility is the conviction date, so Centurion—convicted post-IIRIRA—is ineligible for §212(c) relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Francis v. Gonzales, 442 F.3d 131 (2d Cir. 2006) (heightened clear-and-convincing evidentiary standard for proof of deportability for LPRs)
- Singh v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 526 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2008) (application of clear-and-convincing standard review articulation)
- Brissett v. Ashcroft, 363 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2004) (court may decide whether a conviction falls within §1252(a)(2)(C) jurisdictional bar)
- Durant v. INS, 393 F.3d 113 (2d Cir. 2004) (convictions for cocaine possession constitute controlled-substance violations)
- Domond v. INS, 244 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 2001) (operative date for §212(c) eligibility is conviction date)
- Khan v. Ashcroft, 352 F.3d 521 (2d Cir. 2003) (Domond remains good law post-St. Cyr)
- INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289 (2001) (Landgraf framework applied to §212(c) repeal; plea date relevant to retroactivity analysis)
- Vartelas v. Holder, 132 S. Ct. 1479 (2012) (IIRIRA provision impermissibly retroactive where it attached new disability to pre-enactment conviction/related events)