Alva Tobias-Chaves v. Merrick Garland
999 F.3d 999
6th Cir.2021Background
- Petitioners Alva Tobias‑Chaves and her daughter Ana Ramos‑Tobias entered the U.S. in 2014 and sought asylum after alleged domestic abuse.
- DHS initially charged them in Houston; a clerical error caused Tobias‑Chaves to miss a 2014 NTA and she was ordered removed in absentia; the case was reopened in 2016 and an asylum application filed.
- The reopened proceeding was assigned to the Memphis Immigration Court, which handled a "Louisville, KY docket" via videoconference because no Louisville court then existed.
- In 2018 a Louisville Immigration Court opened and Memphis transferred its Louisville docket to Louisville sua sponte without issuing a formal transfer order or giving Tobias‑Chaves notice or an opportunity to respond.
- The Louisville IJ denied asylum (crediting fear/abuse but finding no persecution on account of a protected ground) and ordered removal; the BIA affirmed, holding the sua sponte venue change was at most harmless because Tobias‑Chaves was closer to Louisville and suffered no shown prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an improper change of venue divests the Immigration Court of jurisdiction | Venue was not properly changed, so Louisville lacked jurisdiction to hear the case | Venue error is procedural, not jurisdictional; proceedings valid unless petitioner shows prejudice | Venue is non‑jurisdictional; improper transfer is procedural and does not void proceedings absent prejudice |
| Whether the sua sponte transfer violated agency rules and required reversal | Sua sponte change violated EOIR policy and 8 C.F.R. §1003.20(b) (no motion/notice) and so was fatal | Agency procedural violation, but reversal requires showing prejudice to substantial rights | Agency violated venue procedure, but petitioner failed to show prejudice; error harmless and BIA affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Villages de la Paz v. Holder, 640 F.3d 650 (6th Cir. 2012) (standard of review for legal questions)
- Still v. Rossville Crushed Stone Co., 370 F.2d 324 (6th Cir. 1966) (distinguishes jurisdiction from venue; venue concerns convenience)
- Neirbo Co. v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp., 380 U.S. 165 (U.S. 1965) (venue is distinct from jurisdiction)
- Connor v. U.S. Civil Serv. Comm’n, 721 F.2d 1054 (6th Cir. 1983) (agency procedural violations require prejudice for reversal)