Maras Djokic v. Jeff Sessions, 16-3207

Background

Maras Djokic, a native of Yugoslavia (Montenegro), entered the U.S. without inspection in 1985; he conceded deportability and sought suspension of deportation under the pre-1996 statute.
He initially listed six siblings on an early application but later, in a 2011 application, listed only two; inconsistency arose during hearings.
At merits hearings Djokic and family members gave contradictory testimony and admitted to coordinated false testimony (particularly about a brother, Martin) intended to avoid immigration consequences; other testimony about hardship (blood feud, parental support) was also found false or inconsistent.
The IJ found Djokic lacked requisite good moral character because of false testimony and denied suspension of deportation; the Board affirmed and also denied his motion to remand to seek adjustment of status as a discretionary matter.
Djokic moved to reconsider/reopen and challenged use of a single-member BIA panel; the Board denied those motions and the district court (Sixth Circuit) denied petitions for review.

Issues

Issue	Djokic's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
1. Whether Djokic lacked "good moral character" due to false testimony	False testimony was retracted/timely or made to protect family, not to obtain benefits	False sworn statements (including about parental support and blood feud) were intended to obtain immigration relief; retraction was not timely	Substantial evidence supports finding of false testimony intended to obtain benefit; good moral character lacking
2. Whether denial of motion to remand for adjustment of status and denial of motions to reopen/reconsider was erroneous	Board failed to balance positive factors and overlooked evidence proving discretionary fitness	Board exercised discretion, cited conspiracy to provide false testimony as highly adverse factor and found negative factors outweighed positives	Abuse-of-discretion review; Board did not abuse discretion and properly denied remand and reopening/reconsideration
3. Whether Board erred by using a single-member panel on motions	Requested three-member review; claimed single-member decision involved clearly erroneous facts and legal error	Regulations permit single-member disposition absent certain triggers; no clear error shown and Board has discretion	No error; single-member review permissible and not a due-process violation
4. Whether Board wrongly concluded Djokic’s challenge to single-member assignment was barred by 8 C.F.R. §1003.2(b)(3)	Regulation applies only to summary affirmances, not the Board’s decision here	Board precedent and rule preamble treat motions challenging single-member assignment as barred to streamline docket	Board correctly applied its regulation and precedent; motion was barred and discretionary assignment stands

Key Cases Cited

Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759 (1988) (false sworn statements with intent to obtain immigration benefits negate good moral character)
INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314 (1992) (abuse-of-discretion standard for Board motions)
Pilica v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 941 (6th Cir. 2004) (adjustment of status is discretionary and not subject to judicial review)
Lateef v. Holder, 683 F.3d 275 (6th Cir. 2012) (court reviews both IJ and BIA decisions when BIA affirms for stated reasons)
Lin v. Holder, 565 F.3d 971 (6th Cir. 2009) (substantial-evidence standard for agency factfinding)
Yeremin v. Holder, 738 F.3d 708 (6th Cir. 2013) (abuse-of-discretion standard for motions to reopen/reconsider)
Koussan v. Holder, 556 F.3d 403 (6th Cir. 2009) (Board discretion to empanel three-member panel even if regulatory criteria present)
Tapia-Martinez v. Gonzales, 482 F.3d 417 (6th Cir. 2007) (no right to a three-member BIA panel)