Darvin Daniel Perez-Sanchez v. U.S. Attorney General
935 F.3d 1148
| 11th Cir. | 2019Background
- Perez-Sanchez and his partner were extorted and beaten by Gulf Cartel members in Mexico because the cartel believed his father-in-law (Elias Martinez-Carasco) owed them drug-related debts; Perez-Sanchez paid extortion until he ran out of money and fled to the U.S. in May 2014.
- DHS served an NTA on Perez-Sanchez (June 9, 2014) that listed the hearing location but omitted the time and date; a later notice of hearing provided the missing details.
- An IJ denied asylum, withholding, and CAT relief, finding any harm tied to Perez-Sanchez’s familial relationship to the father-in-law was at most incidental; the BIA dismissed his appeal without a government brief.
- Perez-Sanchez invoked Pereira (138 S. Ct. 2105) to argue the defective NTA deprived the immigration court of jurisdiction and sought review of asylum/withholding denials and procedural due process concerns.
- The Eleventh Circuit held the statutory and regulatory NTA requirements are claim-processing rules (not jurisdictional), denied Perez-Sanchez’s Pereira jurisdictional claim, rejected his due-process claim about the absence of a DHS brief, but granted relief on nexus for asylum/withholding because the BIA’s conclusion was not supported by substantial evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Perez-Sanchez's Argument | DHS's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an NTA lacking time/date deprived the IJ of jurisdiction (Pereira issue) | NTA without time/date (as in §1229(a)) is defective and deprives court of jurisdiction | Regulation 8 C.F.R. §1003.14 vests jurisdiction on filing an NTA with the court; Perez’s NTA complied with regs, so jurisdiction is proper | NTA omission is deficient under Pereira statutorily, but both §1229(a) and §1003.14 are claim-processing not jurisdictional rules; IJ had jurisdiction — claim denied |
| Whether Court can review unexhausted Pereira claim | Perez argues Pereira claim challenges jurisdiction so exhaustion not required | DHS argues failure to exhaust before BIA bars review | Court may decide because jurisdictional question implicates Court’s own jurisdiction; but ultimately found proceedings valid and denied relief on the claim |
| Due process challenge to BIA deciding appeal without DHS brief | Perez contends lack of government response rendered BIA decision fundamentally unfair | DHS notes BIA may exercise independent judgment and is not required to await a government brief | BIA’s decision without DHS briefing did not violate due process — claim denied |
| Whether BIA’s nexus finding for asylum/withholding was supported by substantial evidence | Perez contends harm was at least one central reason because cartel targeted him due to father-in-law’s debt and familial tie | DHS/BIA viewed pecuniary motive as primary and familial nexus only incidental | Court held evidence compels finding family relationship was at least one central reason; BIA decision unsupported — grant and remand for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018) (statute requires NTA to specify time and place; omission makes NTA deficient)
- Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. Bhd. of Locomotive Eng’rs & Trainmen Gen. Comm. of Adjustment, 558 U.S. 67 (2009) (agency may not impose jurisdictional limits via procedural rules)
- Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (agency deference framework for ambiguous statutes)
- Henderson v. United States, 517 U.S. 654 (1996) (service and timing are generally nonjurisdictional procedural matters)
- City of Arlington v. F.C.C., 569 U.S. 290 (2013) (scope of agency authority is prescribed by Congress; deference to reasonable constructions)
- Pierre-Paul v. Barr, 930 F.3d 684 (5th Cir. 2019) (regulation 8 C.F.R. §1003.14 is a claim-processing rule)
- United States v. Cortez, 930 F.3d 350 (4th Cir. 2019) (treating §1003.14 as nonjurisdictional; procedural/docketing function)
- Ortiz-Santiago v. Barr, 924 F.3d 956 (7th Cir. 2019) (declining to defer to BIA’s Bermudez-Cota interpretation post-Pereira)
- Jeune v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 810 F.3d 792 (11th Cir. 2016) (exhaustion before the BIA generally required for judicial review)