Chavarria-Reyes v. Lynch
845 F.3d 275
7th Cir.2016Background
- Jose Chavarria-Reyes, an undocumented Mexican national with multiple misdemeanor convictions, was ordered removed by an Immigration Judge (IJ) who found him ineligible for discretionary relief and denied voluntary departure after the merits of removal.
- Chavarria-Reyes contends the IJ failed to inform him at an early hearing about the option of voluntary departure under 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(a) (implemented at 8 C.F.R. § 1240.26(b)(1)(i)), as required by 8 C.F.R. § 1240.11(b) and the BIA’s decision in In re Cordova.
- He filed a petition for review of the BIA’s denial of his due-process claim; the BIA issued its decision Nov. 6, 2015, and the petition arrived at the Seventh Circuit clerk’s office after the 30-day deadline but Chavarria-Reyes asserts timely filing under the prison-mailbox rule.
- The Attorney General agreed the prison-mailbox rule (Fed. R. App. P. 25(a)(2)(C)) applies to detained immigration appellants; the majority of the panel held the rule applies and thus found the petition timely.
- The government argued the court lacked jurisdiction because voluntary departure is discretionary and Chavarria-Reyes had criminal convictions; the court held the legal question whether an IJ must notify about § 240B(a) is reviewable under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D).
- The majority found the IJ failed to advise Chavarria-Reyes about early voluntary departure (Cordova rule) but denied relief because Chavarria-Reyes failed to exhaust the specific administrative argument before the BIA; Judge Posner dissented, arguing the BIA was sufficiently notified and the case should be remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of prison-mailbox rule to detained immigration appeals | Chavarria-Reyes: handing petition to guard on last day is timely under Rule 25(a)(2)(C) | Govt initially conceded applicability; argued other jurisdictional bars remained | Court: Rule 25(a)(2)(C) applies to immigration detainees; petition was timely |
| Jurisdiction to review claim that IJ failed to advise of voluntary departure | Chavarria-Reyes: legal question about IJ duty is reviewable | Govt: convictions and discretionary nature of voluntary departure bar review under § 1252(a)(2)(B),(C) | Court: issue is a question of law reviewable under § 1252(a)(2)(D) |
| Whether IJ had duty to inform about voluntary departure at early hearing | Chavarria-Reyes: IJ had to raise voluntary departure early per Cordova/§ 1240.11(b) | Govt: no specific defense on merits beyond procedural posture | Court: IJ failed to inform and thus violated Cordova doctrine |
| Whether petition should be granted despite IJ error because Chavarria-Reyes did not raise the specific claim before the BIA | Chavarria-Reyes: pro se status and IJ’s failure to inform made exhaustion unfair; BIA had notice via due-process claim | Govt: exhaustion requirement in § 1252(d)(1) bars review; argument was not presented to BIA | Court: exhaustion is mandatory here; failure to raise the specific Cordova-based claim before the BIA forfeited review (petition denied) |
Key Cases Cited
- Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386 (Sup. Ct. 1995) (characterized predecessor filing deadline statute as jurisdictional)
- Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (Sup. Ct. 1988) (prison-mailbox rule for timely filing by inmates)
- Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (Sup. Ct. 2007) (strict treatment of filing deadlines)
- Arango-Aradondo v. INS, 13 F.3d 610 (2d Cir. 1994) (prison-mailbox rule applied in immigration context)
- Barrientos v. Lynch, 829 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2016) (prison-mailbox rule applies to detained immigration appellants)
- Sankarapillai v. Ashcroft, 330 F.3d 1004 (7th Cir. 2003) (treating filing deadline as jurisdictional in immigration appeals)
- Guirguis v. INS, 993 F.2d 508 (5th Cir. 1993) (earlier Fifth Circuit decision that predated Rule amendment and limited mailbox rule application)
- Smith v. Conner, 250 F.3d 277 (5th Cir. 2001) (post-amendment dictum recognizing mailbox filing by detainees)
- Navarro-Miranda v. Ashcroft, 330 F.3d 672 (5th Cir. 2003) (prison-mailbox rule inapplicable to represented detainees)
- United States v. Craig, 368 F.3d 738 (7th Cir. 2004) (prison-mailbox rule available to represented and pro se incarcerated filers)
- Zeqiri v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 364 (7th Cir. 2008) (exhaustion requires presenting the specific argument to the agency)