Champion v. Holder
626 F.3d 952
| 7th Cir. | 2010Background
- Champion, a Nigerian citizen, entered the U.S. in 1988; removal proceedings began in 2005.
- She sought cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1) based on hardship to her two US-born daughters; IJ denied relief, relying on other relatives' ability to support the children.
- BIA affirmed the IJ, adopting the hardship findings but not addressing the potential deportation of Champion’s husband, Yomi Adeyemi, who also faced removal.
- Champion’s son, Tobi, was an adult in the U.S. and under removal proceedings; the primary issue remained whether removal would cause exceptional or extremely unusual hardship to the children.
- We upheld the due process findings but remanded for the BIA to consider the impact of Yomi’s potential deportation on the hardship analysis.
- The court held that cancellation of removal is discretionary, and Champion’s due process claims fail; nonetheless, the BIA must reexamine the hardship showing in light of Yomi’s possible deportation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BIA/IJ failed to consider Yomi's deportation impact on hardship | Champion argues BIA ignored evidence showing Yomi could also be deported. | Champion's hardship analysis rests on supporting relatives, including Yomi; BIA properly considered available support. | Remand to address Yomi's potential deportation in hardship analysis. |
| Whether Champion had a protected due process liberty interest in cancellation of removal | Champion asserts a due process stake in discretionary relief. | Cancellation is discretionary; no protected liberty interest. | No protected interest; due process satisfied. |
| Whether the IJ's denial of closing argument violated due process | Champion claims closing argument was improperly denied. | IJ has broad discretion to regulate hearings; no due process violation. | No due process violation; closing argument was not required. |
| Whether the IJ's passing reference to visa-fraud allegations tainted the hardship decision | References to prior fraud allegations could improperly influence the decision. | Allegations mentioned only as background and not used in the hardship determination. | Passing references did not influence the hardship ruling. |
Key Cases Cited
- Juarez v. Holder, 599 F.3d 560 (7th Cir. 2010) (review of IJ’s decision as supplemented by BIA’s reasoning)
- Iglesias v. Mukasey, 540 F.3d 528 (7th Cir. 2008) (claim that BIA ignored evidence constitutes legal error)
- Kone v. Holder, 620 F.3d 760 (7th Cir. 2010) (remand for consideration of constructive deportation when both parents face removal)
- Yap v. INS, 318 F.2d 839 (7th Cir. 1963) (immigration judge discretion over evidentiary course of hearings)
- Ndonyi v. Mukasey, 541 F.3d 702 (7th Cir. 2008) (due process in immigration proceedings meeting statutory/regulatory standards)
- Zhang v. Gonzales, 434 F.3d 993 (7th Cir. 2006) (IJ reliance on withdrawn fraud charges in credibility analysis)