Ennis v. Attorney General of the United States
617 F. App'x 161
3rd Cir.2015Background
- Shane Mario Ennis, born in Jamaica, entered the U.S. as a lawful permanent resident in 2001.
- In 2013 Ennis pleaded guilty under Pennsylvania law to manufacturing less than 30 grams of marijuana (35 Pa. Stat. § 780-113(a)(30)).
- The Government charged removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) as a controlled substance violation; Ennis conceded removability before the IJ.
- Ennis sought only cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a); the IJ denied relief holding Ennis failed to prove his conviction was not an aggravated felony and, alternatively, that cancellation was not warranted as a matter of discretion.
- Ennis appealed to the BIA claiming ineffective assistance re: immigration consequences of his plea; the BIA dismissed the appeal on the merits and noted collateral challenges do not render convictions non-final for immigration purposes.
- On petition for review Ennis raised, for the first time, (1) that his offense involved under 30 grams of marijuana and thus is not removable, (2) that the offense is not an aggravated felony, and (3) that he derived U.S. citizenship via a stepmother’s adoption; the court declined to reach these unexhausted or untimely arguments and denied the petition.
Issues
| Issue | Ennis's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether his conviction is a removable "controlled substance" violation under § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) given amount of marijuana | Conviction involved less than 30 grams and thus is not removable | Ennis failed to exhaust this issue before the BIA; IJ record shows he pleaded to manufacturing, not simple possession | Court lacks jurisdiction to review because Ennis did not exhaust before the BIA; issue not reached |
| Whether his conviction is an aggravated felony for eligibility for cancellation | Argues not an aggravated felony (first raised on appeal) | Gov't notes failure to exhaust; IJ found Ennis failed to prove conviction was not an aggravated felony | Court lacks jurisdiction to review unexhausted claim; in any event IJ’s alternative discretionary denial is dispositive |
| Whether IJ erred in denying cancellation of removal in the exercise of discretion | Sought review of discretionary denial | Gov't defends discretionary denial; discretionary determinations generally unreviewable under § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) | Court generally lacks jurisdiction to review discretionary denial; Ennis did not challenge IJ’s discretionary ruling so petition denied |
| Whether Ennis derived U.S. citizenship via stepmother’s adoption | Claims derivative citizenship through alleged adoption (raised intermittently) | Gov't notes claim was not pursued before IJ and no evidence was produced despite IJ assistance | Court declines to address claim raised first in reply and unsupported by evidence; denies review |
Key Cases Cited
- Paredes v. Attorney General, 528 F.3d 196 (3d Cir.) (pendency of collateral challenge does not render conviction non-final for immigration purposes)
- Syblis v. Attorney General, 763 F.3d 348 (3d Cir.) (burden allocation on whether offense is an aggravated felony for cancellation eligibility)
- Castro v. Attorney General, 671 F.3d 356 (3d Cir.) (exhaustion requirement for IJ/BIA issues)
- Johnson v. Attorney General, 602 F.3d 508 (3d Cir.) (limitations on judicial review of discretionary relief denials)
- Bagot v. Ashcroft, 398 F.3d 252 (3d Cir.) (alien bears burden to prove U.S. citizenship)
- United States v. Pelullo, 399 F.3d 197 (3d Cir.) (court policy to decline addressing issues raised first in reply)