Balbuena v. Sessions
700 F. App'x 85
2d Cir.2017Background
- Petitioner Eduardo Balbuena, a Mexican national, was ordered removed based on criminal convictions and prior unlawful entry.
- Balbuena sought adjustment of status contingent on waivers of inadmissibility and asked the agency to continue or administratively close proceedings while he pursued those waivers.
- The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied a continuance and administrative closure; the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed on August 29, 2016.
- Balbuena petitioned for review in the Second Circuit, arguing the agency should have adjudicated his waiver requests and paused proceedings to allow him to become eligible for adjustment.
- The Court limited review to constitutional claims and questions of law because removal was based on criminal convictions.
- The Second Circuit assumed the agency could have granted the waivers but reviewed the denials of continuance and administrative closure for abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of continuance | Balbuena argued the IJ should have continued proceedings to allow pursuit of waivers and adjustment eligibility | Government argued continuance was unwarranted given statutory ineligibility, government opposition, and uncertainty of success/timing | Court held denial was not an abuse of discretion; IJ considered Hashmi factors and procedural uncertainties |
| Denial of administrative closure | Balbuena argued closure was appropriate to permit him to pursue relief outside proceedings | Government argued closure was improper because Balbuena was currently ineligible and success was speculative | Court held denial was not an abuse of discretion; BIA reasonably weighed Avetisyan factors and uncertainty of eventual eligibility |
| Alleged incorrect legal standard re waivers | Balbuena contended agency needed to adjudicate waiver requests before denying continuance/closure | Government maintained BIA/IJ applied correct standards in assessing continuance/closure and could deny based on ineligibility and speculative relief | Court assumed authority to grant waivers but found no legal error in denials of continuance/closure and thus no remand warranted |
| Due process / concurrent filing arguments | Balbuena argued procedural/due process infirmities and sought consideration of concurrent filing rules | Government disputed any due process violation and the propriety of concurrent filing argument | Court found no basis for remand on these grounds; dispositive issue was current ineligibility for relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315 (2d Cir. 2006) (courts may review questions of law and constitutional claims where statutory limits apply)
- Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520 (2d Cir. 2005) (review of IJ decisions as modified by the BIA)
- Sanusi v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 193 (2d Cir. 2006) (abuse of discretion standard for continuance/related procedural rulings)
- Vahora v. Holder, 626 F.3d 907 (7th Cir. 2010) (review standard and deference for administrative-closure decisions)
- Ke Zhen Zhao v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 265 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2001) (agency abuse of discretion occurs where decision lacks rational explanation or is arbitrary)