Julio Suarez-Diaz v. Eric Holder, Jr.
771 F.3d 935
6th Cir.2014Background
- Suarez-Diaz, a Cuban national paroled into the U.S. in 1980, faced removal after criminal convictions and lack of valid entry documentation; removal proceedings began in 2009.
- He conceded removability, requested continuances to pursue CAT relief and a Cuban Adjustment Act (CAA) application, and was warned that failure to file timely could be deemed abandonment.
- He filed a CAT application on November 1, 2010, and a late CAA application; the IJ denied a continuance tied to the CAT application and, at the November 15, 2010 hearing, Suarez-Diaz (through counsel and in court via interpreter) withdrew his CAT claim in order to obtain a continuance to pursue the CAA path.
- The IJ granted a continuance to August 2011 conditioned on a withdrawal of CAT relief with prejudice; CIS denied the CAA application on March 18, 2011; Suarez-Diaz’s later request (August 2, 2011) for another continuance to await appeal of the CIS denial was denied and the IJ ordered removal.
- Suarez-Diaz appealed to the BIA claiming the IJ coerced withdrawal of CAT relief (denying due process), abused discretion in refusing continuances, and that the BIA failed to address a Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) motion; the BIA upheld the IJ (one-member dissent) and this court denied judicial review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether IJ coerced withdrawal of CAT application, violating due process | Suarez-Diaz: IJ pressured/coerced him to withdraw CAT relief in exchange for a continuance, so his withdrawal was not knowing and voluntary | Government/IJ: Colloquy shows waiver was voluntary; withdrawal was a tactical choice and government requested withdrawal-with-prejudice as condition for consent | Court: No due process violation — withdrawal was knowing and voluntary; even if defect, no prejudice shown |
| Whether IJ abused discretion in denying continuances | Suarez-Diaz: IJ improperly denied several continuances preventing adjudication of relief | Government/IJ: Denials were within broad IJ discretion given delays, collateral nature of CAA appeal, and prior continuances granted | Court: No abuse of discretion — denials had rational explanations and followed BIA guidance about collateral events |
| Whether BIA erred by not addressing PRA motion | Suarez-Diaz: BIA failed to comply with or explain its position under the PRA | BIA/Government: No specific allegation that BIA violated PRA or that any violation caused injury; argument perfunctory | Court: PRA argument forfeited — petitioner failed to develop or show injury; BIA’s omission not reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- Hasan v. Ashcroft, 397 F.3d 417 (6th Cir.) (when BIA affirms without opinion, review looks to IJ)
- Khalili v. Holder, 557 F.3d 429 (6th Cir.) (when BIA issues separate opinion, review is of BIA as final agency decision)
- Ilic-Lee v. Mukasey, 507 F.3d 1044 (6th Cir.) (standard for abuse of discretion in denying continuances)
- Ndrecaj v. Mukasey, 522 F.3d 667 (6th Cir.) (due process claim requires showing a defect and resulting prejudice)
- Lin v. Holder, 565 F.3d 971 (6th Cir.) (due process requires a full and fair hearing)
- Mece v. Gonzales, 415 F.3d 562 (6th Cir.) (context on IJ conduct and continuances)
- Vasha v. Gonzales, 410 F.3d 863 (6th Cir.) (discusses prejudice requirement for due process claims)
- Scorteanu v. INS, 339 F.3d 407 (6th Cir.) (BIA must consider issues raised and announce decisions sufficiently)
- Johns v. Holder, 678 F.3d 404 (6th Cir.) (PRA arguments waived if perfunctory and undeveloped)