Nelson Edgardo Escalante-Ramires v. U.S. Attorney General
23-11990
| 11th Cir. | Jun 14, 2024Background
- Nelson Edgardo Escalante-Ramires, a citizen of El Salvador, entered the US without inspection in 1990 and applied for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) in 2001.
- His 2001 initial TPS application was denied in 2003 due to lack of documentation related to his criminal record.
- After removal proceedings commenced in 2013, he sought TPS again, ultimately filing multiple applications, including under the late initial filing provisions.
- The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) repeatedly denied his TPS applications, citing insufficient evidence of continuous residence and physical presence, and failure to establish statutory eligibility.
- The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied his renewed TPS application, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed, finding insufficient documentary evidence and rejecting arguments for review based only on the initial 2001 application.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Court's jurisdiction to review statutory eligibility for TPS | Statutory eligibility determinations for TPS are reviewable. | Review is barred as a discretionary decision post-Patel | Court retains jurisdiction under existing precedent |
| Whether IJ had to conduct de novo review of initial 2001 TPS | IJ was required to conduct de novo review of the 2001 application. | IJ properly reviewed the most recent (late) application | De novo review required but outcome unaffected |
| Continuous residence/physical presence evidence | Testimony and initial evidence suffice to show eligibility. | Documentary proof is lacking for several key years | Insufficient documentary evidence; denial upheld |
| Exhaustion of administrative remedies | Core issue preserved before the BIA. | Specific legal arguments not previously exhausted | Core exhaustion sufficient for court review |
Key Cases Cited
- Mejia Rodriguez v. Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, 562 F.3d 1137 (11th Cir. 2009) (holding courts may review statutory eligibility determinations for TPS)
- Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328 (2022) (limiting judicial review in discretionary-relief proceedings, but focused on different subsection of the INA)
- Bouarfa v. Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, 75 F.4th 1157 (11th Cir. 2023) (clarifying distinction between review of discretionary vs. statutory eligibility determinations)