Mario Ruiz-Del-Cid v. Eric Holder, Jr.
765 F.3d 635
| 6th Cir. | 2014Background
- Ruiz-Del-Cid filed a 1993 asylum application and was interviewed in 2007; he later admitted the 1993 and 2007 statements were false.
- The false statements concerned threats by guerillas in Guatemala and were written by a notary who did not reflect Ruiz’s actual situation.
- Ruiz’s retraction occurred in immigration court; government argued the retraction was untimely and failed to purge false testimony.
- The IJ found a clear Section 101(f)(6) violation and held Ruiz statutorily barred from good moral character.
- The BIA affirmed the timeliness issue and remanded for hardship analysis; the reviewing court vacated the BIA and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
- The court ultimately remands to determine whether Ruiz satisfies hardship under §1229b(b)(1)(D) and is eligible for cancellation of removal; the BIA’s decision is vacated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ruiz’s retraction qualifies under the doctrine of retraction | Ruiz timely and voluntarily retracted before exposure | BIA held the retraction not timely | Yes; timely retraction applies and protects good moral character |
| How timeliness should be evaluated in retraction cases | Timeliness hinges on voluntary, timely correction before exposure, not elapsed time | Timeliness depends on delay and exposure risk | Timeliness is before exposure; four-year delay may still be permissible if no exposure |
| Remand for hardship determination under cancellation of removal | Ruiz should be considered for all four §1229b(b)(1)(A)-(D) elements | Hardship merits should be evaluated later | Remand to assess hardship and eligibility for cancellation of removal |
| Appropriate scope of appellate deference to BIA interpretations | Chevron deference should apply where statute is ambiguous | Deference to BIA’s construction is limited; must accord Skidmore and related standards | Court remands for continued BIA consideration; BIA interpretation insufficiently explained |
Key Cases Cited
- Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759 (U.S. 1988) (definition of lack of good moral character; statute’s purpose)
- Matter of M-, 9 I. & N. Dec. 119 (BIA 1960) (retraction must be voluntary and without prior exposure)
- Matter of Namio, 14 I. & N. Dec. 412 (BIA 1973) (timeliness requires voluntary, timely retraction)
- Valdiviezo-Galdamez v. Att’y Gen. of the U.S., 663 F.3d 582 (3d Cir. 2011) (review of BIA decision; deference standards; burden on agency)
- Costa v. Att’y Gen. of the U.S., 257 Fed.Appx. 543 (3d Cir. 2007) (retraction timing and public duty considerations)
- Kalombo Kalonji, 2010 WL 673495 (BIA 2010) (timeliness related to exposure; non-dispositive factor)