986 F.3d 966
7th Cir.2021Background
- Cesar Martinez-Baez, born in Mexico (1980), alleges initial unlawful entry to the U.S. in summer 2000 (around June/July) and long-term residence in Lake Geneva, WI, using the name Waldemar Oquendo; DHS served a Notice to Appear on April 5, 2011.
- He fathered three U.S. citizen children; the youngest, Melanie (born 2012), has documented speech/language impairments and an Individualized Education Program (IEP) from Lake Geneva schools.
- Martinez-Baez conceded removability and sought discretionary cancellation of removal under INA §1229b(b), which requires 10 years continuous presence and that removal would cause exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying U.S. relative.
- The IJ denied cancellation for failure to prove continuous presence and hardship, criticizing lack of corroborating documents and viewing testimony as insufficient; the BIA affirmed as to hardship and dismissed the appeal without addressing continuous presence.
- The Seventh Circuit held the IJ erred procedurally by failing to make an express credibility finding about the critical date-of-entry testimony and found the IJ/BIA mischaracterized and overlooked key evidence about Melanie’s condition; the court granted the petition and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. §1252 | Martinez-Baez urged review of legal/procedural errors in IJ/BIA decision | Govt: §1252(a)(2)(B)(i) bars review of discretionary relief denials | Court proceeded to review legal/procedural questions (not resolving broader scope issue) and addressed the merits under established law |
| IJ’s failure to make an express credibility finding (continuous-presence) | IJ failed to state whether testimony about 2000 entry was credible and then faulted lack of corroboration | Govt: IJ considered testimony and lack of corroboration justified denial | Court held IJ committed procedural legal error by omitting an express credibility finding; remand required |
| Hardship to qualifying relative (Melanie) | IEP and speech-pathologist testimony show serious, prospectively significant impairment that could produce exceptional and extremely unusual hardship if father removed | Govt: Testimony/record insufficient to establish severity, prognosis, or impact | Court found IJ/BIA mischaracterized/ignored record evidence (IEP and testimony); remand required for proper consideration |
| Requirement to show treatment availability in Mexico | Martinez-Baez: proof of foreign treatment availability is required only if qualifying relative will accompany applicant | Govt: IJ required evidence about availability of similar treatment in Mexico | Court held IJ erred: proof of treatment abroad is only required if the relative will accompany the applicant; IJ improperly demanded it here |
Key Cases Cited
- Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1062 (2020) (interpreting scope of limited judicial review for legal questions embedded in discretionary decisions)
- Perez-Fuentes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 506 (7th Cir. 2016) (standards for cancellation of removal and reviewability)
- Rapheal v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 521 (7th Cir. 2008) (remand required where credibility finding was bypassed and corroboration demanded)
- Weiping Chen v. Holder, 744 F.3d 527 (7th Cir. 2014) (applicant’s duty to produce corroboration or explain inability)
- Boadi v. Holder, 706 F.3d 854 (7th Cir. 2013) (courts cannot make independent factual credibility determinations on review)
- Duron-Ortiz v. Holder, 698 F.3d 523 (7th Cir. 2012) (continuous-presence requirement for cancellation)
- Mendez v. Holder, 566 F.3d 316 (2d Cir. 2009) (mischaracterization or ignoring important evidence can constitute legal error)
- Iglesias v. Mukasey, 540 F.3d 528 (7th Cir. 2008) (claim that the Board ignored evidence is a legal error)