Arias Minaya v. Holder
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 3092
| 1st Cir. | 2015Background
- Carlos Manuel Arias-Minaya, a Dominican national, overstayed a 2005 visitor visa and conceded removability in 2009 removal proceedings.
- He sought voluntary departure (discretionary relief); during proceedings he was arrested on state charges (assault with a weapon and threats) arising from a domestic disturbance.
- A police report recounting statements by the complaining witness and Arias-Minaya was admitted into evidence; the state charges were later dismissed when the witness failed to appear.
- The immigration judge (IJ) denied voluntary departure, finding the police report reliable and determinative of negative discretionary factors; the BIA affirmed after a remand.
- Arias-Minaya petitioned for review, arguing (1) abuse of discretion in weighing the police report, (2) legal error in relying on hearsay/arrest without conviction, and (3) (in reply) a due process violation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to review alleged abuse of discretion in denying voluntary departure | Arias-Minaya: IJ/BIA gave undue weight to police report; decision was an abuse of discretion | Government: Denial of discretionary relief is largely unreviewable under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B) | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction — abuse-of-discretion/factbound attack not reviewable |
| Whether agency committed legal error by considering a hearsay police report and an arrest that did not result in conviction | Arias-Minaya: Report was double-hearsay, untrustworthy, and should be excluded as a matter of law | Government: Agency may consider police reports if reliable and not fundamentally unfair; petitioner had chance to rebut | Court (assuming arguendo jurisdiction) held no legal error — police reports admissible for discretionary determinations when shown reliable and use is not fundamentally unfair |
| Procedural due process claim raised in reply | Arias-Minaya (reply brief): Procedural due process violated by reliance on police report | Government: Claim not exhausted before BIA and was raised too late | Court refused to consider — claim waived and unexhausted; no jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Dada v. Mukasey, 554 U.S. 1 (2008) (limits on judicial review of discretionary immigration decisions)
- Henry v. INS, 74 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1996) (police reports may be considered in discretionary relief determinations despite hearsay)
- Ayeni v. Holder, 617 F.3d 67 (1st Cir. 2010) (substance-over-form test for whether a claim raises reviewable legal or constitutional questions)
- Paredes-Urrestarazu v. INS, 36 F.3d 801 (9th Cir. 1994) (police reports permissible as evidence in discretionary determinations)
- Parcham v. INS, 769 F.2d 1001 (4th Cir. 1985) (similar support for considering nonconviction arrests in immigration assessments)
- Naeem v. Gonzales, 469 F.3d 33 (1st Cir. 2006) (discussion of voluntary departure as discretionary relief)
- Gonzalez v. Holder, 673 F.3d 35 (1st Cir. 2012) (de novo review of legal questions about admissibility/use of evidence in immigration context)