Rita Yanovna Brikova v. Eric H. Holder, Jr.
699 F.3d 1005
| 8th Cir. | 2012Background
- Job, a Moldova-born naturalized citizen, entered the U.S. in 1993 at age 15 and became a lawful permanent resident in 1994.
- In 1997, Minnesota state court conditionally convicted Job of cocaine possession, imposing probation, community service, and a fine; the case was dismissed in 1999 without an adjudication of guilt.
- In 2006, a state-court order amended Job’s probation term to a maximum of one year, retroactively affecting her potential eligibility for federal relief.
- In 2003–2005, Immigration authorities charged Job with removal due to her cocaine conviction; IJ denied asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection, and the BIA agreed, treating the conviction as an aggravated felony.
- Job sought review challenging the BIA’s denial of asylum/removal requests and, separately, challenged the equal protection of the Federal First Offender Act (FFOA) expungement, arguing federal expungement would have saved her from removal.
- The Eighth Circuit dismissed the asylum/ CAT claims for lack of jurisdiction and rejected Job’s equal protection challenge, affirming removal based on her conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has jurisdiction to review the asylum/CAT denial. | Job seeks review of BIA denial. | 8 U.S.C. §1252(a)(2)(C)-(D) bars review of removal orders for these claims; only legal questions survive. | Court lacks jurisdiction to review asylum/CAT decisions on the merits. |
| Whether the equal protection challenge to the FFOA survives rational-basis review. | Job allegedly treated differently from federal expungement defendants, violating equal protection. | There are multiple rational bases for distinguishing state-expunged vs FFOA-expunged convictions. | Equal protection claim fails under rational-basis review. |
| Whether Job is removable due to her conviction and whether the equal-protection holding affects removability. | N/A ( Petitioner challenges protections around removal). | Conviction subjects Job to removal. | Job remains removable; the equal protection challenge does not alter removability. |
Key Cases Cited
- Vasquez-Velezmoro v. INS, 281 F.3d 693 (8th Cir. 2002) (equal protection challenges to the FFOA considered; discusses rational-basis distinctions between expungement types)
- Nunez-Reyes v. Holder, 646 F.3d 684 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc; discusses differential treatment of state vs federal expungement for immigration relief)
- Acosta v. Ashcroft, 341 F.3d 218 (3d Cir. 2003) (addresses legislative reform and treatment of convicted aliens; rationales for state/federal distinctions)
- Wellington v. Holder, 623 F.3d 115 (2d Cir. 2010) (notes uniformity concerns in expungement treatment for immigration purposes)
- Resendiz-Alcaraz v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 383 F.3d 1262 (11th Cir. 2004) (discusses expungement and immigration consequences)
- Madriz-Alvarado v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 321 (5th Cir. 2004) (implications of expungement and immigration relief)
- Costanza v. Holder, 647 F.3d 749 (8th Cir. 2011) (affects review scope and constitutional questions in removal cases)