Morales-Durate v. Sessions
12-549
| 2d Cir. | Mar 15, 2017Background
- Petitioner Javier Morales-Durate, a Guatemalan national, sought adjustment of status; an Immigration Judge denied relief as a matter of discretion and ordered removal.
- The BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision on January 19, 2012; Morales petitioned for review in this Court.
- IJ relied principally on Morales’s testimony about repeated DUI arrests/convictions and driving without a license in denying adjustment.
- Morales argued the agency improperly considered arrests/convictions that are not statutory grounds of inadmissibility, failed to explain its finding that he lacked respect for U.S. laws, and declined to consider his adult children’s presence in the U.S.
- The panel reviewed only legal and constitutional questions (8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D)) and reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to review discretionary denial of adjustment | Morales contends legal errors were made, so court has jurisdiction to review. | Government contends discretionary denials are generally unreviewable except for legal/constitutional questions. | Court lacks jurisdiction over discretionary balancing; only legal/constitutional questions are reviewable. |
| Whether agency erred by considering non-inadmissibility arrests/convictions | Morales: BIA/IJ unlawfully relied on criminal conduct that is not a statutory ground of inadmissibility. | Government: Agency may consider past criminal conduct in discretionary determinations even if not grounds for inadmissibility. | Court held consideration of such conduct is permissible; argument amounts to disagreement with discretion and not a legal error the court can review. |
| Whether IJ failed to provide rational justification for finding "lack of respect for laws" | Morales: IJ failed to articulate basis for that characterization. | Government: IJ explained basis—Morales’s DUI arrests/convictions and driving without a license—providing record support. | Court held the IJ’s explanation was adequate; no mischaracterized or overlooked facts warranting reversal. |
| Whether IJ erred by not considering petitioner’s adult children in U.S. | Morales: IJ improperly refused to consider his children because their immigration status was unclear. | Government: BIA did not rely on the IJ’s finding about the children; it formed no part of final decision. | Court refused to review the IJ finding because it was not part of the agency decision under review. |
Key Cases Cited
- Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 426 F.3d 520 (2d Cir. 2005) (review of IJ decision as modified by the BIA)
- Guyadin v. Gonzales, 449 F.3d 465 (2d Cir. 2006) (discretionary denials of adjustment are generally unreviewable)
- Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 471 F.3d 315 (2d Cir. 2006) (court examines whether claim alleges a legal/constitutional question or mere disagreement with discretionary decision)
- Pierre v. Holder, 588 F.3d 767 (2d Cir. 2009) (standard of review for legal questions is de novo)
- Mendez v. Holder, 566 F.3d 316 (2d Cir. 2009) (agency commits legal error if facts important to discretionary determination are totally overlooked or seriously mischaracterized)
- Wallace v. Gonzales, 463 F.3d 135 (2d Cir. 2006) (agency may consider past criminal conduct in discretionary relief determinations)