Lima v. Holder
758 F.3d 72
1st Cir.2014Background
- Lima, a Brazilian national, entered the U.S. in 2004 and became a lawful permanent resident in 2009.
- He was convicted in Massachusetts for breaking and entering in 2009 (house) and 2010 (cars), with dispositions including probation and restitution.
- DHS issued a Notice to Appear in 2011 alleging removability under INA § 237(a)(2)(A)(ii) for two CIMTs.
- At the March 2011 hearing, Lima’s first attorney conceded removability and that the 2009 conviction involved a house break‑in; Lima sought asylum relief.
- A second NTA was issued in 2011 alleging removability for a single CIMT (the 2009 house break‑in); the IJ denied a continuance.
- Lima later obtained a new attorney, vacatur of the 2011 conviction, and the BIA remanded to the IJ; a second NTA remained, and the IJ again found removability based on prior concessions; Lima’s petition for review followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the BIA properly relied on Lima’s concessions | Lima bound by his counsel’s admissions of removability. | DHS can uphold removability based on admissions. | Yes; concessions binding, support removability. |
| Whether the government met its burden beyond concessions | Record insufficient if limited to concessions. | Concessions, plus record, establish removability. | Concessions suffice; BIA properly found removability. |
| Exhaustion of due process claims | Due process claims based on continuance/amendment should be reviewable. | Claims not exhausted before BIA. | Claims not exhausted; Court declines to review. |
Key Cases Cited
- Urizar-Carrascoza v. Holder, 727 F.3d 27 (1st Cir. 2013) (deferential review for fact findings; removability framework)
- Patel v. Holder, 707 F.3d 77 (1st Cir. 2013) (legal question of removability; de novo review of law)
- Leblanc v. I.N.S., 715 F.2d 685 (1st Cir. 1983) (binding admissions in immigration context)
- Karim v. Mukasey, 269 F. App’x 5 (1st Cir. 2008) (admissions binding absent egregious conduct)
- Selimi v. I.N.S., 312 F.3d 854 (7th Cir. 2002) (admissions of removability not re‑litigated)
- Hoodho v. Holder, 558 F.3d 184 (2d Cir. 2009) (admission of removability not re‑examined by IJ)
- Kinisu v. Holder, 721 F.3d 29 (1st Cir. 2013) (exhaustion requirement for administrative appeals)
- Kandamar v. Gonzales, 464 F.3d 65 (1st Cir. 2006) (procedural claims exhaustion and reviewability)
- Bernal-Vallejo v. I.N.S., 195 F.3d 56 (1st Cir. 1999) (constitutional questions in removal context)