Oscar De Leon v. Eric Holder, Jr.
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 14546
| 4th Cir. | 2014Background
- De Leon, a Guatemalan national, seeks NACARA special rule cancellation of removal.
- NACARA allows Guatemala nationals to seek relief under pre-IIRIRA standards; eligibility requires proving entry free from official restraint.
- BIA and IJ denied NACARA relief; BIA later remanded for reconsideration; majority grants petition and remands to BIA.
- De Leon testified inconsistently about entry timing; government relied on Agent Huffman’s report showing entry observed 17 miles north of border.
- The central legal issue is whether De Leon entered free from official restraint, enabling NACARA eligibility, under governing standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether De Leon entered free from official restraint under NACARA | De Leon entered free from restraint; government surveillance beginning at milepost nine constituted restraint | De Leon failed to show freedom from restraint; Huffman’s observation near the border controls | Yes; De Leon proved entry free from official restraint; remand for NACARA consideration |
| Proper standard for determining ‘entry’ and ‘official restraint’ under NACARA | Collapse of the BIA standard in favor of established authority that surveillance can be restraint | BIA correctly applied need for clear evidence of no restraint | BIA’s standard that surveillance can constitute official restraint is correct; court remands to apply proper standard |
| Whether the government’s evidence can satisfy the burden when it supplies evidence used by the defendant | Defense burden may be satisfied by government-supplied evidence | Burden requires credible evidence from the applicant; lack of entry details undermines proof | Evidence (Huffman report) can satisfy burden even if supplied by the government |
| Whether the court has jurisdiction to review the BIA’s factual determinations and the Chevron deference to the BIA’s ‘entry’ standard | Review limited to legal questions; Plaintiff challenges legal standard | Agency deference may apply to ‘entry’ standard; but not necessary here | Judicial review limited to legal questions; agency’s ‘entry’ standard not deference-barred; remand for proper analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Pierre, 14 I. & N. Dec. 467 (BIA 1973) (defines ‘entry’ factors including freedom from restraint)
- In re G-, 20 I. & N. Dec. 764 (BIA 1993) (burden on applicant to prove eligibility; specific evidentiary standards)
- In re Z-, 20 I. & N. Dec. 707 (BIA 1993) (reaffirmed that absence of precise entry facts does not defeat freedom-from-restraint finding)
- Castellanos-Garcia, 270 F.3d 270 (9th Cir. 2001) (government evidence can establish eligibility; evidence need not be from the applicant)
- Cruz-Escoto, 476 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2007) (alien first observed beyond border can be free from official restraint)
- Yang v. Maugans, 68 F.3d 1540 (3d Cir. 1995) (discusses limits of burden and official-restraint concepts)
- Nyirenda v. INS, 279 F.3d 620 (8th Cir. 2002) (considers entry beyond the border and restraint standards)
- United States v. Hicks, 748 F.2d 854 (2d Cir. 1984) (illustrates government-evidence alibi dynamics)
- Gonzalez-Torres, 309 F.3d 594 (9th Cir. 2002) (surveillance and restraint concepts in border contexts)
- Zubeda v. Ashcroft, 333 F.3d 463 (3d Cir. 2003) (probative government reports can support relief determinations)