Jacek Trela v. Eric Holder, Jr.
607 F. App'x 527
6th Cir.2015Background
- Trela, a Polish national and lawful permanent resident since 1989, was convicted in 1998 of possession of <25 grams of heroin and later faced a 2011 DUI charge while his cancellation application was pending.
- He suffered a shotgun injury in 1997 that led to painkiller dependence and later heroin and alcohol addiction; he has a long U.S. residence and family ties here.
- Trela applied for cancellation of removal under INA § 240A(a); the IJ emphasized rehabilitation as a key discretionary factor and continued the hearing several times to assess it.
- While on probation in 2011–2012, Trela admitted probation violations and relapses (positive tests for alcohol and cocaine); he later completed probation and submitted the discharge document, which the IJ received as untimely.
- The IJ denied cancellation, citing criminal history, relapse while proceedings were pending, and testimonial dishonesty as undermining Trela’s potential for rehabilitation; the BIA affirmed.
- Trela petitioned for review, arguing the BIA failed to properly balance equities under Matter of C-V-T- and effectively made complete rehabilitation a prerequisite for relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BIA failed to balance equities as required by Matter of C-V-T- | Trela: BIA merely listed factors and did not perform the required balancing | Government/BIA: BIA explicitly stated it must balance factors, summarized parties’ arguments, and affirmed IJ’s weighing | Court: BIA’s brief order and record provided sufficient basis; disagreement about weight is a discretionary dispute beyond review |
| Whether BIA/IJ made complete rehabilitation an absolute prerequisite | Trela: IJ/BIA treated complete rehabilitation as required for relief | Government/BIA: They applied precedent saying rehabilitation is generally required but not absolute | Court: Neither made rehabilitation an absolute prerequisite; IJ relied on multiple factors (dishonesty, recidivism), affirmance stands |
| Jurisdiction to review discretionary weighing | Trela: frames claim as legal error to invoke review | Government: argued this is discretionary and not reviewable | Court: Limited jurisdiction; questions of law reviewed de novo but discretionary weight assignments are not reviewable |
| Timeliness and consideration of probation discharge evidence | Trela: IJ should have credited the probation discharge proffered late | Government: IJ permissibly treated the document as untimely and factored it accordingly | Court: IJ accepted the document but reasonably found it did not overcome dishonesty and recidivism; no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- Scorteanu v. I.N.S., 339 F.3d 407 (6th Cir. 2003) (BIA need not write an exegesis on every contention; brief affirmances permissible if reviewable)
- Suarez-Diaz v. Holder, 771 F.3d 935 (6th Cir. 2014) (court will uphold streamlined BIA decisions where record allows meaningful review)
- Ettienne v. Holder, 659 F.3d 513 (6th Cir. 2011) (questions alleging BIA failed to follow its precedent can be legal issues; disagreement over weight is not reviewable)
- Liu v. I.N.S., 508 F.3d 716 (2d Cir. 2007) (applicant cannot convert a discretionary disagreement into a legal claim)
- Gilaj v. Gonzales, 408 F.3d 275 (6th Cir. 2005) (when BIA adopts IJ reasoning, court reviews the IJ’s decision directly)