Portillo-Rendon v. Holder
662 F.3d 815
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- Portillo-Rendon, a Mexican national, entered the United States without inspection and remained unlawfully.
- He married an alien without authorization and the couple have three United States citizen children.
- He accumulated multiple driving-related convictions, including several DUI offenses and license suspensions, and served time in prison.
- Federal authorities initiated removal proceedings after discovering his undocumented status.
- He sought cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1), alleging economic hardship in Mexico and potential superior care for a chronically ill child in the United States, and asserting good moral character is met.
- The Immigration Judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals held that Portillo-Rendon lacks good moral character; the decision is not reviewable on discretionary grounds under § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the good moral character determination subject to plenary judicial review? | Portillo-Rendon argues it is a legal question under §1252(a)(2)(D). | Holder contends it is a discretionary factual determination not subject to review. | Not reviewable; discretionary determination. |
| Does Portillo-Rendon's due process claim have merit in the cancellation context? | Claims a due process violation in the handling of his case. | No due process violation; no liberty or property interest in cancellation. | No due process violation; petition dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Muratoski v. Holder, 622 F.3d 824 (7th Cir. 2010) (good moral character is a discretionary, non-reviewable factor in § 1229b determinations)
- Cevilla v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 658 (7th Cir. 2006) (textual interpretation governs whether 'law' yields a legal dispute versus policy)
- Jimenez Viracacha v. Mukasey, 518 F.3d 511 (7th Cir. 2008) (integration of textual vs. discretionary review in § 1252 matters)
- Khan v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 513 (7th Cir. 2008) (alien lacks entitlement to a benefit when discretionary; due process concerns not controlling)
- Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (U.S. 2005) (liberty or property interests require a legitimate entitlement; mere hope does not qualify)