Alvaro Adame v. Eric Holder, Jr., 762 F.3d 667

Background

Adame, a Mexican citizen, entered the United States without inspection and faced removal proceedings beginning in 2009.
He sought cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. §1229b, which requires ten years’ presence, good moral character, and exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a U.S. citizen or permanent resident relative.
The IJ denied cancellation in 2011, finding no ten-year presence, poor credibility of Adame’s testimony, and insufficient hardship evidence.
The Board affirmed, focusing on the continuous-residence issue and declining to consider new documentary evidence.
Adame challenged the Board’s decision in this court, arguing lack of jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. §1252(a)(2)(D) and, alternatively, due process and misapplication of the law.
The Seventh Circuit dismissed the petition to the extent of lacking jurisdiction, while addressing several alternative arguments.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court has jurisdiction under §1252(a)(2)(D) to review the discretionary cancellation denial	Adame argues the issue is a legal question reviewable under §1252(a)(2)(D).	The government argues §1252(a)(2)(B) bars review of discretionary relief, allowing only constitutional/legal questions under §1252(a)(2)(D).	Court has jurisdiction to review legal questions under §1252(a)(2)(D).
Whether due process was violated by the IJ/Board in handling credibility and evidence demands	Adame asserts Fifth Amendment due process violations in credibility determinations and demand for additional documentation.	Agency maintains discretionary relief limits due process protections against reviewing such decisions; no due process violation shown.	Due process claims regarding discretionary relief are without merit; no violation found.
Whether the IJ improperly required documentary evidence for ten years of continuous residence when not reasonably available	Adame contends the IJ erred by requesting documents not reasonably obtainable.	Agency contends the standard is whether the requirement was legally applied, not whether evidence was readily available.	Review limited to legal questions; challenge to evidentiary requirements falls outside jurisdiction.
Whether the IJ’s and Board’s handling of continuous residence constitutes reversible error independent of discretionary relief	Adame argues errors in residence determination could entitle relief.	Residence determination is a step in a discretionary framework; errors here do not mandate relief absent statutory criteria met.	No reversible error; continued discretion remains with the IJ if criteria are satisfied.

Key Cases Cited

Brock v. Roadway Express, Inc., 481 U.S. 252 (1987) (due process interest requires a protected liberty or property)
Cevilla v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 658 (7th Cir. 2006) (noncitizen has no due process right to a favorable discretionary decision)
Hamdan v. Gonzales, 425 F.3d 1051 (7th Cir. 2005) (due process limits on discretionary relief)
Sanchez-Velasco v. Holder, 593 F.3d 733 (8th Cir. 2010) (mixed questions of law and fact in review of statutory application)
Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646 (9th Cir. 2007) (jurisdiction over mixed questions of law and fact varies by circuit)
Morales-Flores v. Holder, 328 F. App’x 987 (6th Cir. 2009) (review of statute application in immigration cases)
Pinos-Gonzalez v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 436 (8th Cir. 2008) (jurisdiction for mixed questions of law and fact)
Mireles-Valdez v. Ashcroft, 349 F.3d 213 (5th Cir. 2003) (mixed questions of law and fact review; evidence applications)
Chen v. United States Department of Justice, 434 F.3d 144 (2d Cir. 2006) (later vacated; discussed outer limits of 'question of law')
Viracachá v. Mukasey, 518 F.3d 511 (7th Cir. 2008) (reaffirmed limited review to constitutional and statutory questions)
Cuellar Lopez v. Gonzales, 427 F.3d 492 (7th Cir. 2005) (statutory interpretation as a reviewable legal question)
Ward v. Holder, 632 F.3d 395 (7th Cir. 2011) (review of agency continuance decisions as a question of law)