Roger Anthony Dennis v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES On

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 05-4457
________________
ROGER ANTHONY DENNIS,
Petitioner
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES
____________________________________
On Petition for Review of an Order
of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Agency No. A41 598 513
on February 23, 2004
Immigration Judge: Grace A. Sease
_______________________________________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
April 13, 2007
Before: FISHER, ALDISERT AND WEIS, Circuit Judges.
(Filed April 17, 2007)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
Roger Dennis petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration

-- 1 of 4 --

2
Appeals, finding him removable for having committed a crime that constitutes an
aggravated felony and a controlled substance violation. As this Court has already
dismissed Dennis’s petition for review of this same decision, and has already denied his
related appeal from a habeas petition, the appeal will be dismissed.
Dennis is a native and citizen of Guyana who was admitted to the United States as
a lawful permanent resident on June 21, 1987. On April 14, 2003, he was convicted of
Attempted Criminal Sale of a Controlled Substance in the Third Degree, in violation of
New York Penal Law § 110/220.39(1). A.R. 172. He was sentenced to one to three years
imprisonment. Dennis was placed in removal proceedings via a Notice to Appear, dated
July 22, 2003.
The Immigration Judge found that Dennis was removable as charged and that his
conviction was final. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) agreed in a decision
dated February 23, 2004, specifically noting that Dennis’s conviction constituted an
aggravated felony and a controlled substance offense. In February 2005, Dennis filed a
petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York challenging his removal order and his continued detention.
Following passage of the REAL ID Act of 2005, Pub.L. No. 109-13, div. B, 119 Stat. 231
(2005), the Court transferred the portion of the case challenging Dennis’s removal order
to this Court and the portion challenging his continued detention to the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

-- 2 of 4 --

Under section 242(a)(2)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) [8 U.S.C.1
1252(a)(2)(C)], we lack jurisdiction to review “any final order of removal against an alien
who is removable by reason of having committed,” inter alia, a controlled substance
violation covered in INA § 212(a)(2). We found that Dennis’s citizenship claim was
without merit, and he was thus an alien who had committed a controlled substance
violation. Although the REAL ID Act of 2005 restored direct review of constitutional
claims and questions of law presented in petitions for review of final removal orders, that
Act was not yet in effect when we decided Dennis’s prior appeals. See INA
§ 242(a)(2)(D) [8 U. S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D)]; Papageorgiou v. Gonzales, 413 F.3d 356, 358
(3d Cir. 2005). Nevertheless, as noted, we had already reviewed the merits of Dennis’s
claims through his habeas appeal. Xu Cheng Liang v. INS, 206 F.3d 308, 317 (3d Cir.
2000) (pre-REAL ID Act case holding that district courts retained habeas jurisdiction
over cases filed by criminal aliens).
3
However, previously, in March of 2004, Dennis had filed a habeas petition in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. That court denied
his habeas petition, including claims that he was not convicted of an aggravated felony
and that he was eligible for a deportation under former § 212(c) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act. The Court also transferred a claim of derivative citizenship to this Court
to be treated as a petition for review. On August 11, 2004, we affirmed the District
Court’s decision as to the habeas petition, holding that Dennis’ conviction was an
aggravated felony, that he was ineligible for § 212(c) relief, and that his detention was
permissible. See Dennis v. Ashcroft, C.A. No. 04-2046 (3d Cir., Aug. 11, 2004). On
November 4, 2004, this Court dismissed Dennis’ petition for review of the BIA’s
February 23, 2004 decision for lack of jurisdiction. See Dennis v. Ashcroft, C.A. No.1
04-1824 (3d Cir., Nov. 1, 2004).
As we have already found that Dennis’s removal order is valid, we must dismiss

-- 3 of 4 --

4
this petition for review. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(2).

-- 4 of 4 --