Javier Alejo-Ramirez v. U.S. Attorney General
687 F. App'x 883
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Alejo-Ramirez (Alejo), a nonpermanent resident, sought cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1) (ten years' continuous presence, good moral character, no disqualifying convictions, and extreme hardship to qualifying relatives).
- At removal proceedings, immigration authorities recorded that Alejo used five different names in ten encounters; the IJ confronted him with names and photos and Alejo denied or said he could not recall using aliases.
- The IJ found Alejo lacked good moral character under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f)(6) because he gave false testimony about prior use of aliases; the BIA issued a separate decision affirming the IJ.
- Alejo also alleged the IJ acted hostilely, his counsel was ineffective, and the BIA failed to adequately review the record, raising due process and ineffective-assistance claims.
- The Eleventh Circuit reviewed the BIA’s decision (giving deference to factual findings under the substantial-evidence standard) and addressed jurisdictional limits on review of discretionary immigration decisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Alejo had good moral character given testimony about aliases | Alejo contends he did not falsely testify or was mistaken/confused about aliases | BIA/IJ contend his repeated use of aliases and denials show false testimony to obtain benefits, so lack of good moral character | Held: BIA’s finding supported by record; Alejo lacked good moral character and denial of cancellation affirmed |
| Whether IJ’s questioning and demeanor violated due process | Alejo argues IJ was hostile and not impartial, denying a fair hearing | Government: IJ may question witnesses and act as neutral factfinder; conduct did not violate due process | Held: Claim meritless; IJ’s questioning was permissible and did not state a colorable constitutional violation |
| Whether BIA’s alleged failure to review record violated due process | Alejo asserts BIA did not adequately review evidence, denying due process | Government: BIA issued a separate decision and reviewed the record; such claim is not a reviewable question of law under §1252(a)(2)(D) | Held: Not a cognizable constitutional or legal claim for review; no jurisdiction to consider it |
| Whether ineffective-assistance claim is reviewable | Alejo contends counsel’s performance denied him due process | Government: Claim unexhausted before BIA; courts lack jurisdiction to consider unexhausted claims | Held: Claim unexhausted and therefore not reviewable; dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262 (11th Cir. 2001) (review scope when BIA issues separate decision)
- Lamie v. U.S. Trustee, 540 U.S. 526 (2004) (plain statutory language governs judicial role)
- Ademfi v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1022 (11th Cir. 2004) (substantial-evidence standard for BIA factual findings)
- Alhuay v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 661 F.3d 534 (11th Cir. 2011) (limits on reviewability of hardship and related discretionary determinations)
- Martinez v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 446 F.3d 1219 (11th Cir. 2006) (INA precludes appellate review of discretionary cancellation determinations)
- Lapaix v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 605 F.3d 1138 (11th Cir. 2010) (due process requires notice, opportunity to be heard, and substantial-prejudice standard)