Rauda-Castillo v. Lynch
616 F. App'x 385
10th Cir.2015Background
- Milagro Rauda-Castillo and daughter Yohanna Ramos-Rauda, Salvadoran nationals, entered the U.S. in 2006 and conceded removability; they applied for asylum, restriction (withholding) of removal, and CAT relief.
- Venue transfers occurred (San Antonio → Los Angeles → Salt Lake City); the case was pending for several years with multiple granted continuances.
- Petitioners sought another continuance in 2012 to obtain counsel; the IJ denied the continuance, and after a pro se hearing the IJ denied relief.
- The BIA affirmed the IJ, rejecting requests to administratively close or remand for DHS to exercise prosecutorial discretion.
- Petitioners appealed to the Tenth Circuit, arguing the continuance denial was an abuse of discretion and the BIA should have remanded or administratively closed to permit DHS prosecutorial discretion; they waived merits claims by not briefing them.
- The Tenth Circuit granted IFP, denied review of the continuance denial, and dismissed claims seeking judicial direction to the DHS for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of continuance to obtain counsel was an abuse of discretion | Petitioners: additional continuance was warranted given prior counsel changes and need for representation | Respondent: case was pending many years, multiple continuances already granted, petitioners warned hearing would proceed | Court: No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed |
| Whether BIA/IJ could order DHS to exercise prosecutorial discretion or remand for DHS action | Petitioners: BIA should administratively close/remand so DHS could exercise discretion (including mediation/DACA-based relief) | Respondent: DHS decision to exercise prosecutorial discretion is nonreviewable and outside BIA authority | Court: BIA lacks jurisdiction to direct DHS to exercise prosecutorial discretion; claim dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether the court can direct administrative closure or order DHS to mediate based on DACA assertion | Petitioners: daughter’s alleged DACA makes mother eligible for discretionary relief; ask for administrative closure/mediation | Respondent: no evidence of DACA; DHS prosecutorial discretion and deferred action do not confer status and are nonreviewable | Court: Administrative closing would be meaningless after final order; court lacks jurisdiction to order DHS action; claim dismissed |
| Whether asylum/withholding/CAT claims are before the court | Petitioners: argued before IJ and BIA | Respondent: merits not argued on appeal | Court: Petitioners waived these claims by failing to brief them; appellate review limited to preserved issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Maatougui v. Holder, 738 F.3d 1230 (10th Cir. 2013) (court may consult IJ explanation when BIA adopts IJ decision)
- Luevano v. Holder, 660 F.3d 1207 (10th Cir. 2011) (standard of review for continuance denial; IJ’s discretion reviewed for abuse)
- Dallakoti v. Holder, 619 F.3d 1264 (10th Cir. 2010) (BIA legal determinations reviewed de novo)
- Cortez-Felipe v. INS, 245 F.3d 1054 (9th Cir. 2001) (IJ and BIA lack authority to review or direct prosecutorial discretion)
- Batubara v. Holder, 733 F.3d 1040 (10th Cir. 2013) (BIA’s decision upholding removability is a final order)
- Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 471 (1999) (Section 1252(g) bars judicial review of certain prosecutorial-discretion decisions)