Gomez-Medina v. Holder, Jr.
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 15634
| 1st Cir. | 2012Background
- Gomez-Medina, a Colombian national, was stopped at a New Hampshire CBP checkpoint in 2006 for lacking valid immigration documents.
- She sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection in 2007, based on fear of FARC-related harm in Colombia after witnessing a bus attack in 2001.
- The IJ issued multiple deadlines directing submission of a declaration of entry details, a brief on the one-year asylum filing bar, and updated biometric data; failure to comply risked dismissal with prejudice.
- Over nearly two years, Gomez-Medina and counsel did not comply with these directives; biometric data was not updated and key submissions were not filed by the merits hearing in 2008.
- The IJ denied a last-minute continuance and dismissed the asylum, withholding, and CAT claims as abandoned or due to expired biometric data; the BIA affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the IJ properly deny the emergency continuance? | Gomez-Medina contends the motion should have been considered. | Holder argues the IJ acted within discretion and denied for good cause lacking. | No abuse of discretion; denial upheld. |
| Was dismissal of all relief as abandoned proper? | Gomez-Medina claims due process rights were violated by dismissal. | Holder contends noncompliance with orders warrants dismissal under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.31 and related rules. | Yes; dismissal for failure to comply with deadlines sustained. |
| Whether updated biometric data is a prerequisite for relief and its failure constitutes abandonment. | Gomez-Medina argues biometric issues were not properly considered or excused. | Holder asserts biometric data update is mandatory and failure constitutes abandonment absent good cause. | Abandonment found; no abuse of discretion. |
| Standard of review for continuance and abandonment decisions in this context. | Gomez-Medina asserts broader due process concerns. | Holder relies on established abuse-of-discretion standard for such denials. | Abuse-of-discretion standard applied; decision affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Alsamhouri v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 117 (1st Cir. 2007) (broad discretion to impose deadlines; denial of continuance proper when delay not justified)
- Kartevsky? (Note: correct citation provided below), 582 F.3d 96 (1st Cir. 2009) (reviewing IJ/Board decision; administrative deference)
- Caldero-Guzman v. Holder, 577 F.3d 345 (1st Cir. 2009) (public interest in timely compliance with deadlines)
- Umezurike v. Holder, 610 F.3d 997 (7th Cir. 2010) (abuse-of-discretion standard for biometric data failure under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.47(c))
- Juarez v. Holder, 599 F.3d 560 (7th Cir. 2010) (affirming denial of continuance where late to comply with biometrics)
- Morgan v. Holder, 634 F.3d 53 (1st Cir. 2011) (substantial evidence standard for factual findings; deference to agency determinations)