123 F.4th 709
4th Cir.2024Background
- Felix Jacobo Salomon-Guillen, a native of El Salvador, was admitted to the U.S. as an O-3 visa holder and later became a permanent resident.
- He was convicted of wire fraud for fraudulent dealings as a marketing director, costing his employer $1.4 million.
- Following his conviction (an aggravated felony), the government initiated removal proceedings under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
- Salomon-Guillen applied for adjustment of status and an inadmissibility waiver, citing hardship to his U.S. citizen wife and mother.
- The immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denied his applications, finding no extreme hardship and exercising discretion against waiver.
- Salomon-Guillen challenged the validity of a temporary Board member's multiple-term appointment and the BIA's denial of his relief applications in his petition for review to the Fourth Circuit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can temporary Board members serve more than one six-month term? | Regulation limits service to a single six-month term; Judge Brown's reappointments were improper. | Regulation allows renewable six-month terms; authority stems from Attorney General's statutory delegation. | Multiple terms allowed; regulation doesn't restrict renewal, and AG's authority permits reappointment. |
| Does Salomon-Guillen have standing to contest the Board member's appointment? | Rules affect individual rights in removal; can challenge procedural defect. | Regulation is internal/organizational, no enforceable individual rights. | Salomon-Guillen may challenge the appointment due to impact on removal rights. |
| Is the Board's denial of an inadmissibility waiver reviewable? | Extreme hardship is a statutory eligibility question, thus reviewable. | Denial was discretionary, not reviewable under INA bar except for legal/constitutional questions. | Not reviewable; denial is discretionary, no legal/constitutional claim presented. |
| Must the Board make express findings on extreme hardship before denying as a matter of discretion? | Express finding is necessary as it may affect discretionary analysis. | No such requirement; Board may deny on discretion alone. | Board not required to make express extreme hardship finding if denying in discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281 (1979) (distinguishes between substantive and procedural regulations under the APA)
- Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U.S. 135 (1945) (agency must follow its own procedural rules in removal proceedings)
- Kisor v. Wilkie, 588 U.S. 558 (2019) (agency regulation interpretation tools: text, structure, history, purpose)
- Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328 (2022) (discretionary immigration decisions are not reviewable as questions of law)
- Wilkinson v. Garland, 601 U.S. 209 (2024) (ultimate decision on cancellation of removal as discretion, not reviewable as a question of law)