Baltazar Garcia v. Eric Holder, Jr.
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 20904
| 4th Cir. | 2013Background
- Garcia, a Mexican national, entered the U.S. unlawfully in 1995 and left in 2001 to attend his father’s funeral; on return he was stopped by INS, fingerprinted/photographed, told he could either sign voluntary departure or see an immigration judge, and he voluntarily returned to Mexico a few days later.
- He subsequently reentered the U.S. undetected and, in 2009, DHS initiated removal proceedings; Garcia conceded removability and applied for cancellation of removal.
- Cancellation of removal requires ten years of continuous physical presence under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A).
- The BIA has held that an alien’s continuous presence ends when he voluntarily departs under threat of removal, but not when merely turned away at the border; termination requires a ‘‘formal, documented process’’ (e.g., forms, affidavits, records).
- The IJ and BIA found Garcia ineligible because his 2001 departure constituted a formal, documented departure that severed continuous presence, relying on Garcia’s testimony and a US‑VISIT report showing fingerprinting/photographing.
- Garcia timely appealed to the Fourth Circuit, challenging (1) the BIA’s interpretation of § 1229b and (2) the sufficiency of the evidence that his 2001 departure was a formal, documented process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Garcia) | Defendant's Argument (DHS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BIA’s rule that voluntary departure under threat of removal terminates “continuous physical presence” conflicts with § 1229b | Statute’s § 1229b(d)(2) quantitative limits (90/180 days) exhaustively govern breaks in presence; BIA rule is inconsistent with text | § 1229b is silent on voluntary departures under threat; BIA’s interpretation is reasonable to prevent a loophole that would allow evasion of termination | Court applies Chevron: statute ambiguous; upholds BIA as reasonable and consistent with § 1229b (BIA interpretation permissible) |
| Whether Garcia’s 2001 departure was a ‘‘formal, documented process’’ severing continuous presence | Testimony and lack of signed departure form leave doubt; US‑VISIT fingerprinting alone insufficient to show formal documented departure | Garcia testified he was informed of exclusion proceedings and voluntary departure option; US‑VISIT report corroborates formal encounter and biometric recording | Substantial‑evidence review: court holds BIA reasonably concluded Garcia’s testimony plus US‑VISIT report showed a formal, documented departure; denies petition |
Key Cases Cited
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (agency deference framework)
- Salem v. Holder, 647 F.3d 111 (4th Cir.) (alien bears burden to prove eligibility for cancellation of removal)
- INS v. Elias‑Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (substantial‑evidence standard for administrative factfinding)
- Tapia v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 997 (9th Cir.) (biometric record alone may be insufficient to show formal departure)
- Ramos v. Holder, 660 F.3d 200 (4th Cir.) (substantial‑evidence review of BIA eligibility determinations)