GONZALEZ-RUANO v. Holder
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 22027
| 1st Cir. | 2011Background
- Gonzalez-Ruano, a Guatemala native, entered the U.S. unlawfully in 1989 and has resided here since.
- NACARA §203 allows eligible aliens to seek special rule cancellation of removal or suspension of deportation; applicability depends on the date removal proceedings commenced.
- DHS served Gonzalez-Ruano with an NTA in 2007 and he applied for NACARA special rule cancellation.
- Five days before the hearing, DHS amended the NTA with Form I-261 charging crimes involving moral turpitude based on 1997 Massachusetts convictions.
- IJ applied the more stringent NACARA standard (moral turpitude conviction) and denied relief; BIA affirmed, adopting IJ’s reasoning.
- Gonzalez-Ruano challenged the decision, asserting legal errors and due process issues; the court dismissed parts for lack of jurisdiction and denied relief on discretionary review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has jurisdiction to review discretionary NACARA relief | Gonzalez-Ruano seeks merits review of the discretionary denial. | Court lacks jurisdiction over discretionary NACARA relief; only legal errors are reviewable. | Court lacks jurisdiction to review discretionary denial; only legal questions reviewed. |
| Whether the timing of Form I-261 violated due process | Eleventh-hour charges deprived him of notice and opportunity to defend. | Notice mirrored information already in the record; hearing could have been continued but was not. | No due process violation; sufficient notice and opportunity to respond. |
| Whether the Massachusetts conviction for malicious destruction of property qualifies as a crime involving moral turpitude | The offense did not constitute a conviction for moral turpitude under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(48)(A). | Conviction satisfied the moral turpitude criterion; proper to apply the stricter NACARA standard. | Conviction qualifies as a crime involving moral turpitude; stricter NACARA standard applies. |
| Whether the BIA properly addressed preservation and related arguments concerning state court convictions | Challenges to state convictions were preserved and merits should be considered. | Arguments were not preserved for review; merits either waived or meritless. | Governing review limited; preservation issues not remedied; no reversible error found. |
Key Cases Cited
- De Vega v. Gonzales, 503 F.3d 45 (1st Cir. 2007) (admission of facts enough for guilt; not subject to collateral attack)
- Makhoul v. Ashcroft, 387 F.3d 75 (1st Cir. 2004) (preservation requirement for arguments not raised before IJ)
- Gouveia v. I.N.S., 980 F.2d 814 (1st Cir. 1992) (criminal convictions collaterally attacked not allowed in immigration proceedings)
- Elysee v. Gonzales, 437 F.3d 221 (1st Cir. 2006) (review limited to constitutional or legal issues, not discretionary relief)
- Argueta v. Holder, 617 F.3d 109 (2d Cir. 2010) (jurisdiction for NACARA discretionary review; limits on review)