Alejandro Guzman v. Merrick Garland
19-72159
9th Cir.Oct 25, 2021Background
- Petitioner Alejandro Guzman appealed the denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal under INA § 241(b)(3), and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
- Guzman filed a Notice of Appeal but did not state any reasons on the Notice or file a separate brief explaining the grounds for appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).
- Guzman mailed a request for an extension to file a brief 26 days after the BIA’s deadline; the BIA denied the untimely extension.
- Guzman raised due-process and IJ-error claims: the IJ allegedly failed to obtain certified dispositions for criminal matters, failed to analyze whether convictions involved moral turpitude, admitted an I-213 with inaccuracies, and failed to adequately develop the record in a pro se case.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed the BIA’s summary dismissal for abuse of discretion and reviewed due-process claims de novo, concluded the BIA did not abuse its discretion, found no due-process violation or prejudice, and denied the petition for review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BIA abused discretion by summarily dismissing the appeal for failing to state reasons | Guzman argued dismissal was improper and deprived him of review | BIA argued petitioner did not comply with 8 C.F.R. §1003.1(d)(2)(i) and gave no reasons on notice or brief | No abuse of discretion; summary dismissal proper when no reasons were provided |
| Whether BIA abused discretion in denying untimely extension to file brief | Guzman sought an extension mailed 26 days late and argued denial was improper | BIA noted rule-making discretion to grant extensions and that there is no right to an extension | Denial was within BIA discretion; extension not required |
| Whether summary dismissal violated due process (fundamental unfairness/prejudice) | Guzman claimed he was prevented from reasonably presenting his case and suffered prejudice | Government: Guzman was warned and given reasonable time yet submitted no reasons; no resulting prejudice | No due-process violation; Guzman had opportunity to present reasons and did not do so |
| Whether IJ’s alleged procedural errors (certified dispositions, moral turpitude analysis, I-213 inaccuracies, failure to develop record) violated due process or prejudiced Guzman | Guzman argued IJ erred and those errors prejudiced relief determinations | Government: alternative grounds supported denial; inaccuracies were immaterial; IJ sufficiently developed record in pro se proceedings | Claims fail for lack of prejudice; IJ fulfilled duty to develop record; BIA did not review IJ merits so merits are not before this court |
Key Cases Cited
- Singh v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2005) (abuse-of-discretion standard for BIA summary dismissals)
- Casas-Chavez v. INS, 300 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 2002) (appellant must adequately inform BIA what aspects are alleged incorrect and why)
- Garcia-Cortez v. Ashcroft, 366 F.3d 749 (9th Cir. 2004) (BIA may summarily dismiss appeals lacking separate brief; jurisdictional limits on reviewing IJ merits)
- Martinez–Zelaya v. INS, 841 F.2d 294 (9th Cir. 1988) (supporting authority for summary dismissal where no brief is filed)
- Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2010) (due-process standard and review de novo)
- Ibarra–Flores v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 614 (9th Cir. 2006) (prejudice requirement for due-process claims)
- Agyeman v. I.N.S., 296 F.3d 871 (9th Cir. 2002) (IJ's heightened duty to develop the record in pro se cases)