Aponte v. Holder, Jr.
683 F.3d 6
| 1st Cir. | 2012Background
- Aponte, a Dominican Republic native, became a United States LPR in 1996 and had a 1999 controlled-substance conviction.
- In 2004 DHS served a Notice to Appear charging removability based on the 1999 conviction.
- An IJ lengthyly continued proceedings for three years while counsel attempted expungement; in 2007 the IJ ordered removal.
- Aponte appealed to the BIA, which in 2008 summarily dismissed due to a missing firm name in the briefing notice, leading to a motion to reopen.
- This court’s 2010 Aponte I remanded for a renewed motion to reopen and merited consideration, noting issues with notice and potential merits.
- In 2011 the BIA reopened and denied cancellation of removal, asylum/withholding/CAT, and ineffective-assistance claims, then this court reviewed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Aponte met seven years of continuous residency without imputing her father’s residence | Aponte contends father’s residency should be imputed. | BIA refused imputation, relying on its precedent | Martinez Gutierrez controls; no imputation; cancellation denied. |
| Whether the BIA’s prima facie determination for asylum, withholding, and CAT was adequately reasoned | BIA failed to provide reasoned analysis supporting denial of prima facie eligibility. | BIA’s finding that submissions did not demonstrate prima facie eligibility was sufficient. | BIA decision deemed inadequately reasoned; remand for clarification. |
| Whether ineffective assistance of counsel requires a prima facie relief determination to resolve prejudice | Ineffective assistance claims depend on relief eligibility; record insufficiently addressed. | Prejudice cannot be shown without prima facie relief eligibility. | Resolution depends on the prima facie determination; remand for proper consideration. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cuevas-Gaspar v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 1013 (9th Cir. 2005) (supports parental residency imputation for continuous residence)
- Larngar v. Holder, 562 F.3d 71 (1st Cir. 2009) (summary BIA determinations raise jurisdictional/merits concerns)
- Onwuamaegbu v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 405 (1st Cir. 2006) (adequacy of BIA reasoning; avoid cases with unclear rationale)
- Chedid v. Holder, 573 F.3d 33 (1st Cir. 2009) (abuse of discretion where BIA reasoning is lacking)
- Mariko v. Holder, 632 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2011) (treatment of motion to reopen and framework for review)
- Martinez Gutierrez v. Holder, 132 S. Ct. 2011 (Supreme Court, 2012) (holds BIA may not impute parent’s residence to meet cancellation criteria)