Maras Djokic v. Jeff Sessions
683 F. App'x 385
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- Djokic, a Montenegro native, conceded deportability after entering the U.S. in 1985 and sought suspension of deportation (statute later repealed but governs his case).
- He initially listed six siblings on an early application, but in a 2011 updated application claimed only two siblings and asserted he was the primary support for his U.S.-resident parents and that removal would cause extreme hardship to his U.S.-citizen children.
- At merits hearings, Djokic and family members testified inconsistently and admitted to coordinated lies (including about a brother, Martin) to avoid immigration consequences; evidence also undermined the claimed blood-feud fear and support claims.
- The IJ found Djokic lacked the requisite good moral character, citing false testimony given to obtain immigration benefits, and denied suspension of deportation; the Board affirmed.
- While appeal was pending, Djokic moved to remand to seek adjustment of status based on a visa becoming current; the Board denied the remand and later denied a motion to reopen/reconsider, relying on the false-testimony findings and exercising its discretion.
- Djokic challenged (1) the good-moral-character finding, (2) denial of remand/reopen, (3) single-member panel use, and (4) the Board’s refusal to review the panel-assignment challenge; the Sixth Circuit denied relief on all issues.
Issues
| Issue | Djokic's Argument | Govt/Board's Position | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Djokic lacked "good moral character" under 8 U.S.C. §1101(f) due to false testimony | Djokic: any false statements were to protect family, some were timely retracted, and written discrepancies shouldn’t trigger §1101(f) | Board: false sworn testimony (including about hardship/support and siblings) was given to obtain benefits; retraction was not timely; oral testimony controls | Held: Substantial evidence supports finding of false testimony intended to obtain benefit; good moral character lacking |
| Whether the Board abused discretion by denying motion to remand for adjustment of status | Djokic: Board overlooked record evidence and misweighed positive factors; legal errors in balancing | Board: denial was discretionary; false-testimony conspiracy is a highly adverse factor; record considered and negatives outweigh positives | Held: Abuse-of-discretion review fails Djokic; Board properly exercised discretion and considered record |
| Whether single-member panel use violated procedural rules or due process | Djokic: case warranted three-member panel (clearly erroneous facts; legal conformity) and same-member decisions created bias | Board: regulation permits single-member disposition except in limited circumstances; no right to three-member panel; discretionary assignment | Held: No error; Djokic did not show criteria for three-member review or a due-process violation |
| Whether Board erred in finding a §1003.2(b)(3) bar to review of panel-assignment challenge | Djokic: regulation applies only to summary affirmances, not to this context; Board wrongly barred the claim | Board: precedent and rule streamlining bar motions that challenge single-member assignment or summary affirmance | Held: Board correctly applied its precedent and regulation; challenge barred and no constitutional right to three-member review |
Key Cases Cited
- Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759 (Sup. Ct. 1988) (false sworn statements to obtain immigration benefits negate good moral character)
- INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314 (Sup. Ct. 1992) (abuse-of-discretion standard for motions to reopen)
- Pilica v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 941 (6th Cir. 2004) (adjustment of status is discretionary and generally not judicially reviewable)
- Lateef v. Holder, 683 F.3d 275 (6th Cir. 2012) (scope of appellate review when Board adopts IJ reasoning)
- Lin v. Holder, 565 F.3d 971 (6th Cir. 2009) (substantial-evidence review of agency factfinding)
- Yeremin v. Holder, 738 F.3d 708 (6th Cir. 2013) (standards for motions to reopen/reconsider)
- Tapia-Martinez v. Gonzales, 482 F.3d 417 (6th Cir. 2007) (no entitlement to three-member BIA panel)
- Koussan v. Holder, 556 F.3d 403 (6th Cir. 2009) (Board discretion whether to empanel three members)