CA1: Reading denied in Fontes -- but 1st raises suspension clause issue with REAL ID Act.

Fontes v. Gonzales, No. 05-1755.  Original opinion here, and our (long) coverage here.  He raised two arguments:

He argued that the even under the REAL ID Act, the Court must, as a constitutional matter have jurisdiction to “review the BIA's rejection of his res judicata argument.”  The First goes on to note that he before the panel he never made a suspension clause argument.  The First makes it clear that it will address the suspension clause argument again:

Still, we acknowledge that the Suspension Clause issue is not only of constitutional dimension but also is colorable. Consequently, we wish to make clear that our holding on the jurisdictional issue should not be read, under principles of stare decisis, as barring a future panel of this court, in a case in which the Suspension Clause issue is timely raised, directly presented, and fully briefed, from considering the import (if any) of the Suspension Clause with respect to the jurisdictional question. This panel intimates no view as to the outcome of such an inquiry.

The First continues with some arguments regarding this case and whether claim preclusion would apply, anyway.  His argument regarding entitlement waiver of deportability was summarily denied.