Ramirez Matias v. Holder
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 2306
| 1st Cir. | 2015Background
- Juan Ramirez-Matias, a Guatemalan national, entered without inspection in 1990 and faced removal proceedings in 2008; he conceded removability and applied for NACARA special rule cancellation and, alternatively, asylum, withholding, and CAT protection.
- He met NACARA threshold requirements (entry date, registration, continuous presence) and proved hardship for a special-needs child, but the IJ assessed his moral character given two prior domestic-violence incidents (1994 and 2006) and perceived contradictions in testimony.
- The IJ denied NACARA relief as an unfavorable exercise of discretion, citing credibility concerns and perceived perjury; the IJ also denied asylum, withholding, and CAT claims on the merits (no past persecution, no well‑founded fear, no torture risk).
- The BIA affirmed the IJ on all counts, explicitly upholding the discretionary NACARA denial and concluding the petitioner failed to meaningfully brief other claims.
- On petition for review, Ramirez argued (1) the NACARA denial was an abuse of discretion because the IJ improperly relied on police reports over live testimony and (2) he qualified for asylum/withholding as an indigenous Guatemalan social group.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reviewability of NACARA discretionary denial | Ramirez: IJ abused discretion by overrelying on police reports and misweighing evidence; legal error/fundamental unfairness | Gov't: Discretionary denial is statutorily unreviewable absent colorable legal or constitutional claim | Court: Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction — petitioner raised factual credibility complaints, not colorable legal/constitutional claims |
| Whether hearsay/police reports use raises a legal question | Ramirez: Use of contradicted police reports violated probative-value assessment and fairness (implying legal error) | Gov't: This is a factual credibility and weight issue for the agency | Court: Treated as factbound credibility determination; not a question of law reviewable by Article III courts |
| Exhaustion of administrative remedies for asylum/social-group claim | Ramirez: Asserts membership in indigenous Guatemalan group and fear based on civil-war persecution (raised in brief to this court) | Gov't: Claim was not meaningfully presented to BIA; petitioner primarily litigated NACARA and only perfunctorily mentioned other claims | Court: Dismissed asylum/withholding theory for lack of exhaustion — no jurisdiction to review unexhausted claims |
| Scope of judicial review when BIA adopts and supplements IJ decision | Ramirez: Implicitly argues errors at both IJ and BIA levels | Gov't: When BIA adopts IJ and adds reasoning, courts review the decisions together as a unit | Court: Reviewed IJ and BIA as a unit and found no reviewable legal errors; jurisdictional limits bar review of discretionary and unexhausted matters |
Key Cases Cited
- Gonzalez-Ruano v. Holder, 662 F.3d 59 (1st Cir.) (NACARA eligibility and standards for relief)
- Castro v. Holder, 727 F.3d 125 (1st Cir.) (NACARA discretionary denials and limits on judicial review of factual claims)
- Ayeni v. Holder, 617 F.3d 67 (1st Cir.) (statutory bar on review of discretionary immigration decisions)
- Alvarado v. Holder, 743 F.3d 271 (1st Cir.) (substance-over-form test for colorable legal or constitutional claims)
- Makhoul v. Ashcroft, 387 F.3d 75 (1st Cir.) (failure to raise theories before BIA forfeits judicial review)
- Wu v. Holder, 705 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.) (exhaustion requirement and BIA primacy on issues not meaningfully briefed)