Adalberto Hernandez-Garcia v. Eric H. Holder, Jr.
765 F.3d 815
| 8th Cir. | 2014Background
- Hernandez-Garcia, a Mexican citizen, conceded removability and applied for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b) (discretionary relief requiring 10 years continuous presence, good moral character, no disqualifying convictions, and that removal would cause "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" to a qualifying relative).
- The Immigration Judge denied cancellation for failure to prove ten-year continuous presence and failure to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his two U.S. citizen minor children.
- The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed his appeal, relying solely on the hardship ground: that he did not show removal would cause the requisite exceptional hardship to either qualifying relative.
- Hernandez-Garcia petitioned for review, arguing (1) the BIA erred as a matter of law by failing to follow its precedent on hardship and (2) the BIA violated due process by inadequately considering the hardship factors presented.
- The Eighth Circuit analyzed jurisdictional limits created by IIRIRA and the REAL ID Act, distinguishing reviewable nondiscretionary determinations (e.g., ten-year presence) from unreviewable discretionary hardship determinations, and applied its precedent in denying the petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has jurisdiction to review the BIA's hardship determination (whether removal would cause "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship"). | Hernandez-Garcia argued the BIA misapplied its precedent and raised legal errors reviewable under the REAL ID Act. | Government argued hardship determination is discretionary and §1252(a)(2)(B) bars judicial review; REAL ID Act does not permit review of discretionary hardship findings. | Court held it lacks jurisdiction to review the discretionary hardship determination and denied review. |
| Whether the BIA violated due process by failing to adequately consider all hardship factors. | Hernandez-Garcia argued denial violated his due process rights because the BIA did not adequately examine presented hardship evidence. | Government argued there is no due process right to relief in cancellation proceedings and the claim is foreclosed by circuit precedent. | Court held the due process claim is meritless, citing prior decisions rejecting a due process right in cancellation proceedings. |
| Whether the ten-year continuous presence determination is judicially reviewable (raised as background precedent). | Hernandez-Garcia sought review of eligibility under the ten-year presence requirement. | Government maintained such statutory-eligibility determinations are reviewable only when nondiscretionary. | Court reiterated that ten-year continuous presence is a nondiscretionary issue subject to review, but that was not the basis of this petition’s disposition. |
Key Cases Cited
- Martinez Ortiz v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 480 (8th Cir. 2004) (BIA decision that deportation would not cause extreme hardship is discretionary and not reviewable)
- Reyes-Vasquez v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 903 (8th Cir. 2005) (ten-year continuous presence is a nondiscretionary determination subject to judicial review)
- Mireles-Valdez v. Ashcroft, 349 F.3d 213 (5th Cir. 2003) (distinguishing discretionary hardship from nondiscretionary presence determinations)
- Garcia-Torres v. Holder, 660 F.3d 333 (8th Cir. 2011) (court lacks jurisdiction to review discretionary hardship denials; attempts to recast as legal claims ineffective)
- Sanchez-Velasco v. Holder, 593 F.3d 733 (8th Cir. 2010) (no due process right to cancellation of removal relief)