130 F.4th 325
2d Cir.2025Background
- Diego Penaranda Arevalo, a citizen of Ecuador, lived in the U.S. unlawfully for over 20 years and was placed in removal proceedings.
- Penaranda sought cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1), which requires, among other things, proof of good moral character for the preceding ten years.
- The immigration judge (IJ) denied Penaranda’s application, finding he had given false testimony for an immigration benefit based on evidence about his marriages (first to Lucy, then to her mother, Lucia).
- The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ’s decision, and Penaranda petitioned the Second Circuit for review.
- While his petition was pending, Penaranda also sought to terminate his removal proceedings before the BIA, arguing for the first time that his notice to appear was defective for lacking the date and time of his hearing.
- The BIA denied this motion as untimely, concluding Penaranda had forfeited the objection by not raising it earlier; Penaranda challenged this decision as well, and the Second Circuit decided both petitions together.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of removal order due to notice to appear missing time/date | The notice to appear lacked required time and place information, so removal proceedings were invalid | The objection was not timely raised; omission is a waivable, non-jurisdictional claim-processing rule | The issue was forfeited; BIA did not abuse discretion in denying motion to terminate |
| IJ's finding of false testimony for immigration benefit | Penaranda did not deliberately lie but was nervous and inconsistent; agency misapplied standard | Agency’s factual findings and credibility determinations are supported and unreviewable by court | Jurisdiction to review factual findings is lacking; petition dismissed for this issue |
| Legal standard applied to proof of bona fide marriage | IJ used higher clear and convincing evidence standard when only preponderance was required | IJ correctly applied burden of proof statutes, and in context, did not apply higher standard | No error; even if lesser standard applied, record supports denial—petition denied |
| Jurisdiction over review of factual vs. legal questions | Agency erred in understanding or applying law to facts (mixed question reviewable) | Only pure legal or constitutional issues are reviewable; factual findings are not | Only pure legal standards reviewable; court lacked jurisdiction over factual disputes |
Key Cases Cited
- Banegas Gomez v. Barr, 922 F.3d 101 (2d Cir. 2019) (Held § 1229(a) time-and-place requirements are non-jurisdictional and subject to waiver)
- Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328 (2022) (Federal courts lack jurisdiction to review factual findings on discretionary immigration relief)
- Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759 (1988) (Subjective intent regarding false testimony is a factual determination)
- Wilkinson v. Garland, 601 U.S. 209 (2024) (Distinction between reviewable legal/mixed questions and unreviewable factual ones in discretionary immigration relief)
- Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428 (2011) (Claim-processing rules differ from jurisdictional bars, and arguments may be forfeited)