Celaya-Martinez v. Holder
493 F. App'x 934
| 10th Cir. | 2012Background
- Celaya-Martinez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of a BIA order denying TPS; jurisdiction rests with 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
- Petitioner illegally entered the United States in January 2006 and conceded removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i).
- He applied for TPS three times (Aug 2006, Nov 2007, Dec 2008) but was denied for failure to meet eligibility requirements.
- TPS requires continuous presence since the designated date and continuous residency since the designation; petitioner began present in 2006.
- Petitioner argued derivative continuous presence and residency through his mother, who was TPS-eligible and granted TPS; USCIS rejected this argument.
- The BIA affirmed the IJ’s removal order; petitioner appeals challenging TPS eligibility, derivative presence, and related due process issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| TPS eligibility requires independent presence since designation | Celaya-Martinez seeks derivative presence via mother. | TPS requires each applicant to meet requirements on own merits. | Derivative presence not allowed; independent eligibility required. |
| Late registration provision allows derivative eligibility | Or in §1244.2(f)(2)(iv) could permit derivative registration. | Or clause does not waive other TPS requirements. | Late registration does not override mandatory requirements; no derivative status. |
| Family unity argument within TPS statutory construction | Statute should be read liberally to promote family unity. | Statutory text is unambiguous; no imputation. | Statute unambiguously requires independent eligibility; no derivative residency. |
| Equal protection challenge to TPS eligibility | No rational basis; treats children of refugees differently. | TPS is rationally tailored to protect those already in the U.S.; not an admissions program. | TPS provision has rational basis; no equal protection violation. |
| Due process rights related to A-file access | Petitioner denied access to A-file; potential prejudice. | Prejudice not shown; TPS ineligibility independently controls outcome. | Petitioner failed to show prejudice; no due process violation. |
Key Cases Cited
- De Leon-Ochoa v. Att'y Gen. of United States, 622 F.3d 341 (3d Cir. 2010) (TPS requires independent residence and presence)
- Cervantes v. Holder, 597 F.3d 229 (4th Cir. 2010) (derivative residency not permitted in TPS context)
- Echeverria, In re, 25 I. & N. Dec. 512 (BIA 2011) (BIA rejected derivative presence for TPS)
- Holder v. Martinez Gutierrez, 132 S. Ct. 2011 (2012) (derivative residency not counted; policy considerations limited)
- United States v. Aguirre-Tello, 353 F.3d 1199 (10th Cir. 2004) (due process prejudice standard in immigration cases)
- Hill v. Whitlock Oil Servs., Inc., 450 F.2d 170 (10th Cir. 1971) (mandatory-conjunctive interpretation of statutes)
- Jurado-Gutierrez v. Greene, 190 F.3d 1135 (10th Cir. 1999) (rational-basis review in immigration statutes)
- Latu v. Ashcroft, 375 F.3d 1012 (10th Cir. 2004) (rational-basis scrutiny applied to classifications in immigration law)