796 F.3d 157
1st Cir.2015Background
- Petitioner Andrés Rodolfo Pérez Batres, a Guatemalan national, reentered the U.S. without admission in 1974, was deported, reentered illegally, and was subject to removal orders in 1979 and 1984.
- In 1981 he obtained lawful permanent resident (LPR) status at a consulate after misstating his removal history; an IJ later terminated that LPR status in 1984 and ordered removal.
- Immigration officials did not confiscate his now-invalid LPR card or update databases, and Pérez Batres used the card to travel frequently between the U.S. and abroad for decades.
- His 2009 naturalization application was denied for lack of lawful admission evidence and false statements; DHS issued a Notice to Appear in 2011.
- An IJ found him removable for obtaining immigration benefits by fraud/material misrepresentation and for unlawful entry; the BIA affirmed.
- On petition to the First Circuit, Pérez Batres argued the government is equitably estopped from removing him because of its failure to confiscate the invalid green card and update records; the court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because he failed to raise/exhaust that estoppel claim before the BIA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether equitable estoppel can bar removal | Pérez Batres: government misconduct (not seizing card, admitting him) caused reasonable belief card was valid and he relied to his detriment, so estoppel applies | Government: claim not raised before BIA; exhaustion required; courts lack jurisdiction over unexhausted claims | Dismissed — court lacks jurisdiction because estoppel was not exhausted before the BIA |
| Whether Mata v. Lynch or other recent Supreme Court decisions cure exhaustion failure | Pérez Batres: (implicitly) recent Supreme Court rulings affect jurisdictional bars | Government: Mata and Kwai Fun Wong do not affect INA § 1252(d)(1)'s exhaustion requirement | Held — Mata and Kwai Fun Wong are inapposite; exhaustion requirement controls and bars review |
Key Cases Cited
- Costa v. INS, 233 F.3d 31 (1st Cir. 2000) (elements of equitable estoppel against government)
- Dantran, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, 171 F.3d 58 (1st Cir. 1999) (affirmative misconduct requires more than negligence)
- Shah v. Holder, 758 F.3d 32 (1st Cir. 2014) (exhaustion prerequisite for appellate review)
- Makhoul v. Ashcroft, 387 F.3d 75 (1st Cir. 2004) (theories not raised before BIA cannot be first presented on judicial review)
- Sunoto v. Gonzales, 504 F.3d 56 (1st Cir. 2007) (exhaustion applies to insufficiently developed claims)
- DeCosta v. Gonzales, 449 F.3d 45 (1st Cir. 2006) (declining to consider equitable estoppel raised first on appeal)
- Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007) (courts cannot create equitable exceptions to jurisdictional requirements)
- Mata v. Lynch, 135 S. Ct. 2150 (2015) (distinguishable; addressed jurisdiction over motions to reopen, not § 1252(d)(1) exhaustion)
- United States v. Kwai Fun Wong, 135 S. Ct. 1625 (2015) (statute-of-limitations jurisdictional analysis; inapplicable here)