Miguel Perez-Fuentes v. Loretta E. Lynch
842 F.3d 506
| 7th Cir. | 2016Background
- Miguel Perez-Fuentes, a Mexican national who entered the U.S. without inspection, was charged with removability and applied for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b).
- At a final merits hearing (he proceeded pro se at the IJ level), Perez-Fuentes and two witnesses (his girlfriend Raquel Ochoa and Blanca Ruiz) testified; he submitted tax returns and seven untranslated written statements in Spanish.
- The IJ denied cancellation, finding Perez-Fuentes failed to prove continuous 10-year physical presence, good moral character (citing multiple arrests and credibility/income issues), and that his U.S. citizen daughter would suffer ‘‘exceptional and extremely unusual hardship.’’ The IJ also denied relief as a matter of discretion.
- The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed, concluding the IJ developed the record, did not violate due process, and that the aggregate hardships did not meet the high statutory threshold.
- Perez-Fuentes appealed to the Seventh Circuit, raising claims that the IJ improperly excluded evidence and failed to develop the record, among other challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Perez-Fuentes' Argument | Government/Board's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether IJ failed to develop the record re: daughter’s hardship | IJ asked insufficient follow-up questions and thus didn’t elicit evidence of hardships beyond separation/financial | IJ did ask targeted questions; petitioner’s answers showed no additional hardships | Court: No statutory/regulatory violation; petitioner not prejudiced and failed to show omitted answers that would change outcome |
| Whether IJ excluded two additional witnesses improperly | IJ prevented two witnesses from testifying, depriving petitioner of evidence | Petitioner didn’t exhaust this claim before the BIA; IJ asked if there were other witnesses and petitioner downplayed them | Court: Claim dismissed for lack of exhaustion; alternative meritless because IJ afforded opportunity and petitioner said witnesses weren’t as knowledgeable |
| Whether IJ ignored seven untranslated written statements | IJ didn’t consider untranslated Spanish letters, violating due process | IJ need not mention every piece of evidence; record suggests IJ could not have meaningfully considered letters before oral decision; even if ignored, letters weren’t central to hardship issue | Court: Even if not considered, letters wouldn’t have altered the hardship determination; no reversible error |
| Jurisdiction to review discretionary denial of cancellation | N/A (jurisdictional legal point) | Government: Court lacks jurisdiction over discretionary relief except for legal/constitutional claims | Court: Dismissed part of petition for lack of jurisdiction; reviewed only legal claims and denied those on merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Adame v. Holder, 762 F.3d 667 (7th Cir.) (burden on applicant to prove statutory prerequisites for cancellation)
- Delgado v. Holder, 674 F.3d 759 (7th Cir.) (excluded evidence that could change outcome requires reversal)
- Cruz-Moyaho v. Holder, 703 F.3d 991 (7th Cir.) (standard for hardships relative to deportation of family members)
- El-Gazawy v. Holder, 690 F.3d 852 (7th Cir.) (due process claim requires alleging excluded testimony that could affect outcome)
- Barradas v. Holder, 582 F.3d 759 (7th Cir.) (IJ may narrow hearings but cannot bar critical testimony)
- Niam v. Ashcroft, 354 F.3d 652 (7th Cir.) (effects of untranslated evidence on record and review)
- Aparicio-Brito v. Lynch, 824 F.3d 674 (7th Cir.) (hardship threshold for cancellation must be met before discretionary relief)