Arana-Mejia v. Sessions
680 F. App'x 22
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Javier Augusto Arana-Mejia, a Guatemalan national, sought review of the BIA’s March 24, 2015 decision affirming an IJ’s November 4, 2013 denial of his motion for a continuance and denial of voluntary departure.
- Arana-Mejia had fired prior counsel about two months before the hearing and claimed (before this Court only) he had tried to contact other attorneys but could not retain one; he did not present those efforts to the agency.
- The IJ denied a continuance, noting the case had been pending over 2.5 years and petitioner had been given a list of free legal service providers early in proceedings.
- The IJ admitted Form I-213 (Record of Deportable/Inadmissible Alien) into evidence; IJ findings relied in part on petitioner’s testimony, which independently corroborated criminal history and false citizenship claim.
- Petitioner did not submit an I-589 asylum application to the BIA or this Court and did not articulate an asylum claim on appeal.
- The Second Circuit reviewed both the IJ and BIA decisions and denied the petition for review, vacating any stay of removal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether IJ abused discretion by denying continuance | Arana-Mejia argued he tried to contact many attorneys and therefore needed time to secure counsel | Government argued petitioner failed to show diligence or explain counsel absence; IJ has wide calendar-management discretion | Denial was not an abuse of discretion; petitioner failed to show diligent, good-faith efforts to be ready |
| Whether denial of continuance caused actual prejudice | Arana-Mejia contended he may have a viable asylum claim prejudiced by denial | Government argued petitioner submitted no I-589 and articulated no asylum claim, so no prejudice shown | No actual prejudice demonstrated; no prima facie showing of eligibility for relief |
| Whether admitting Form I-213 violated due process | Arana-Mejia claimed insufficient time to examine I-213 prejudiced him | Government argued Form I-213 duplicated matters established by petitioner’s own testimony | No due-process violation shown because petitioner suffered no cognizable prejudice; testimony independently established issues |
| Whether agency erred in related denial of voluntary departure | Arana-Mejia raised issues tied to evidence and continuance denial | Government defended underlying factual findings supporting denial of voluntary departure | Petitioner did not challenge voluntary departure denial on appeal; court did not disturb it |
Key Cases Cited
- Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233 (2d Cir. 2008) (standard for reviewing BIA and IJ decisions when both are considered)
- Morgan v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 549 (2d Cir. 2006) (abuse-of-discretion review for continuance/calendar-management)
- Rabiu v. INS, 41 F.3d 879 (2d Cir. 1994) (petitioners must make a prima facie showing of eligibility to prove actual prejudice from counsel’s failure)
- Garcia-Villeda v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d 141 (2d Cir. 2008) (prejudice requirement for due process challenges in immigration proceedings)