Delgado v. Holder, 674 F.3d 759

Delgado entered the United States illegally in 1989 and established residence in Chicago.
In 2000, INS initiated removal proceedings by filing a Notice to Appear; Delgado sought Cancellation of Removal under INA § 240A(b)(1).
The four statutory criteria for § 1229b(b)(1) include 10 years’ presence, good moral character, no disqualifying convictions, and exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to US citizen or LPR relatives.
An IJ in 2004 found Delgado met three criteria but did not show hardship to his children, and denied cancellation while granting voluntary departure and ordering removal.
The BIA remanded in 2005 for a proper record due to a defective tape; a new hearing was ordered, but the IJ initially declined to accept new evidence.
In 2010, Delgado introduced evidence about hardship and family circumstances; the IJ again denied cancellation and voluntary departure, which the BIA later partially affirmed in 2011, vacating the denial on voluntary departure.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court has jurisdiction to review hardship findings.	Delgado asserts BIA erred on hardship findings affecting eligibility.	Government contends §1252(a)(2)(B) bars review of discretionary relief on the merits.	Jurisdiction exists for constitutional claims but not for merits review of hardship findings.
Whether Delgado received due process in the cancellation proceedings.	Delgado claims IJ bias and exclusion of probative evidence violated due process.	Government contends hearings were fair; no denial of reasonable opportunity to be heard.	Delgado did receive a full and fair opportunity to be heard; no due process violation established.
Whether IJ bias affected Delgado's cancellation hearing.	Delgado argues aggressive questioning and hostile demeanor showed bias against him.	Government argues questioning was within permissible control to elicit truth and clarify issues.	IJ’s questioning did not amount to impermissible bias; not sufficient to render hearing unfair.
Whether the IJ improperly restricted evidence or testimony.	Delgado contends certain probative evidence was barred or limited, hindering his case.	Government asserts limits on evidence were permissible and the record still supported a fair hearing.	Even with some evidence restrictions, Delgado had a meaningful opportunity to present his case.

Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292 (1993) (due process in deportation; discretionary relief lacks substantive entitlement)
Khan v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 513 (7th Cir. 2008) (no due process right to discretionary relief; no liberty interest)
Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) (benefit not a protected entitlement when discretion governs)
Portillo-Rendon v. Holder, 662 F.3d 815 (7th Cir. 2011) (procedural entitlements in §1229a apply to cancellation applicants)
Apouviepseakoda v. Gonzales, 475 F.3d 881 (7th Cir. 2007) (procedural sufficiency; hearing fairness when some evidence excluded)
Castilho de Oliveira v. Holder, 564 F.3d 892 (7th Cir. 2009) (bias inferred from aggressive, irrelevant questions)
Barradas v. Holder, 582 F.3d 754 (7th Cir. 2009) (interjections allowed when aimed at clarification; not per se improper)
Zolotukhin v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2005) (witness exclusion can prejudice if heart of claim)
Rodriguez Galicia v. Gonzales, 422 F.3d 529 (7th Cir. 2005) (reasonable opportunity to be heard requires relevant testimony)
Iliev v. I.N.S., 127 F.3d 638 (7th Cir. 1997) (broad discretion to control interrogation to ascertain truth)
Kerciku v. INS, 314 F.3d 913 (7th Cir. 2003) (preservation of opportunity to present evidence is essential)
Apouviepseakoda v. Gonzales, 475 F.3d 881 (7th Cir. 2007) (defense of procedural sufficiency; adequate questions and control)