Anouar Darif v. Eric Holder, Jr.
739 F.3d 329
7th Cir.2014Background
- Darif, a Moroccan national, married US citizen Kirklin and entered as a conditional permanent resident in 2001.
- The marriage was later found to be a sham; Darif was convicted of marriage fraud and related offenses (2004–2005).
- DHS terminated his conditional residence and initiated removal; grounds included termination of conditional status, marriage fraud, and inadmissibility at entry.
- Darif sought an extreme-hardship waiver under 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(c)(4); IJ denied, BIA later denied after independent plenary review.
- The IJ allegedly biased at hearings; after remand, BIA reconsidered and denied relief; Darif divorced and moved to reopen; BIA ultimately denied keeping the appeal, and the Seventh Circuit denied the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction to review discretionary relief but reviewed due-process claims for potential legal error.
- The court concluded that discretionary extreme-hardship relief is not reviewable on the merits, and Darif had no protected liberty interest in such relief; any due-process claim failed; petition denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Darif’s due-process claim succeeds against discretionary relief | Darif argues IJ bias and denial of a fair hearing. | Discretionary relief is not a protected liberty interest; BIA independently reviewed and denied. | No due-process violation; petition denied. |
| Whether the BIA’s independent plenary review forecloses reversal for IJ conduct | BIA relied on IJ’s record without prejudice to Darif. | BIA’s independent review ensures proper consideration and forecloses prejudice claims. | Yes, BIA review forecloses prejudice; review denied. |
| Whether the court has jurisdiction to review the discretionary denial of an extreme-hardship waiver | Seeks review of BIA’s discretionary denial on the merits. | Discretionary relief is non-reviewable; court confines review to constitutional/legal questions. | Jurisdiction limited; discretionary denial affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292 (U.S. 1993) (immigration due process rights; not all proceedings provide entitlement to discretionary relief)
- Delgado v. Holder, 674 F.3d 759 (7th Cir. 2012) (due-process constraints in discretionary relief proceedings; need for notice and fair hearing)
- Khan v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 513 (7th Cir. 2008) (reasonableness of hearing; de novo review of statutory/regulatory compliance when reviewing legal sufficiency)
- Hamdan v. Gonzales, 425 F.3d 1051 (7th Cir. 2005) (due-process considerations in immigration proceedings; discretionary relief context)
- Alsagladi v. Gonzales, 450 F.3d 700 (7th Cir. 2006) (agency discretion in relief determinations; deference to agency decisions)