Ballardo Castro v. Holder
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 17057
| 1st Cir. | 2013Background
- Castro, a Guatemalan native, sought NACARA special rule cancellation under §203 after entering the U.S. illegally in 2000.
- NACARA special rule cancellation requires showing eligibility and that discretion should be exercised to grant relief.
- VTVPA amended NACARA to include a category for those battered or subjected to extreme cruelty by a NACARA beneficiary parent.
- Castro alleged his mother Liliana Castro, a NACARA beneficiary, subjected him to extreme cruelty.
- An IJ found Castro not eligible for cancellation because he did not show extreme cruelty; the BIA affirmed.
- Courts lack jurisdiction to review discretionary NACARA determinations, except for legal or constitutional claims; Castro asserted no legal/constitutional issue beyond factual findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has jurisdiction to review NACARA §203 discretionary cancellation. | Castro contends the BIA/IJ misapplied law forming a new standard. | Castro's challenge is to discretionary factual determinations, not legal questions. | Lack of jurisdiction to review discretionary determinations; only legal questions reviewable. |
| Whether substantial evidence supports that Castro was subjected to extreme cruelty by his mother. | Castro argues psychological abuse can constitute extreme cruelty under the regulation. | Regulation requires discretionary, fact-intensive assessment; no nondiscretionary standard. | Even if reviewable, substantial evidence supports no extreme cruelty by mother. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ayeni v. Holder, 617 F.3d 67 (1st Cir. 2010) (contextualizes reviewability of questions of law in NACARA)
- Mehilli v. Gonzales, 433 F.3d 86 (1st Cir. 2005) (distinguishes discretionary/factual determinations from legal questions)
- Santana-Medina v. Holder, 616 F.3d 49 (1st Cir. 2010) (hardship determinations not reviewable as questions of law)
- Stepanovic v. Filip, 554 F.3d 673 (7th Cir. 2009) (limits review to pure questions of law)
- Rosario v. Holder, 627 F.3d 58 (2d Cir. 2010) (regulation permits discretionary assessment of extreme cruelty)
- Wilmore v. Gonzales, 455 F.3d 524 (5th Cir. 2006) (extreme cruelty is discretionary, not self-explanatory)
- Ramdane v. Mukasey, 296 F. App'x 440 (6th Cir. 2008) (discretionary review limitations on NACARA/extreme cruelty)
- Bedoya-Melendez v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 680 F.3d 1321 (11th Cir. 2012) (cells out lack of jurisdiction over NACARA discretionary determinations)
- Johnson v. Attorney Gen., 602 F.3d 508 (3d Cir. 2010) (implicit limits on reviewing NACARA discretionary relief)
- Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 345 F.3d 824 (9th Cir. 2003) (noting variation in circuit approaches to extreme cruelty)