Dilshad Sattani v. Eric Holder, Jr.
749 F.3d 368
5th Cir.2014Background
- Dilshad Sattani and Naseem Sattani challenge BIA denial of adjustment of status under INA § 245(i), cancellation of removal, and voluntary departure.
- They entered the U.S. in 1992 using passports/visas bearing false names and have a US citizen son Saif and a son Sameer born in India.
- DHS issued Notices to Appear in 2004; Dilshad allegedly entered with fraud and Nasheem with an attempted fraud; both admitted removability.
- IJ denied relief; BIA affirmed in March 2013; petition for review followed in the court.
- Court holds 245(i) does not override inadmissibility under 212(a)(6)(C)(i); discretionary relief challenges lack jurisdiction; petition denied in part and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does 245(i) overcome 212(a)(6)(C)(i) inadmissibility? | Sattani argues 245(i) creates an exception to inadmissibility. | BIA/agency argues 245(i) requires admissibility; fraud-based inadmissibility stands. | 245(i) does not override 212(a)(6)(C)(i) inadmissibility. |
| Is Naseem’s derivative adjustment properly denied? | Naseem contends derivative status should be allowed with Dilshad’s application. | BIA properly denied derivative adjustment due to Dilshad’s inadmissibility. | Derivative denial affirmed. |
| Can the court review cancellation of removal on hardship questions? | Challenge to whether hardship to a US citizen son was shown. | Discretionary relief determinations are not reviewable as a constitutional claim or question of law. | Court lacks jurisdiction to review cancellation of removal ruling. |
| Can the court review voluntary departure denial? | Challenge to BIA’s denial of voluntary departure based on equities. | No jurisdiction to review discretionary relief absent constitutional or legal questions. | Court lacks jurisdiction to review voluntary departure ruling. |
Key Cases Cited
- Said v. Gonzales, 488 F.3d 668 (5th Cir. 2007) (establishes limited jurisdiction over exhausted constitutional claims and questions of law)
- Balogun v. Ashcroft, 270 F.3d 274 (5th Cir. 2001) (concept of reviewing final BIA orders de novo for jurisdiction)
- Mai v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 162 (5th Cir. 2006) (jurisdictional standards for reviewing constitutional claims and questions of law)
- Manzano-Garcia v. Gonzales, 413 F.3d 462 (5th Cir. 2005) (no constitutionally protected right to discretionary relief)
- Assaad v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 471 (5th Cir. 2004) (no constitutional right to discretionary relief)
- Sung v. Keisler, 505 F.3d 372 (5th Cir. 2007) (insufficient hardship evidence does not show legal error with IJ’s factors)
- Ramos-Torres v. Holder, 637 F.3d 544 (5th Cir. 2011) (exhaustion requirement and lack of jurisdiction for certain issues)