Raul Antia-Perea v. Eric Holder, Jr., 768 F.3d 647

DHS filed removal against Antia-Perea based on an NTA alleging alienage and removability, with a Form I-213 stating he was not admitted and was a native and citizen of Colombia.
Rap sheets indicated Puerto Rico as birthplace, creating a discrepancy with the I-213’s Colombia birthplace.
An immigration judge bifurcated proceedings, required Government to prove removability primarily from documentary evidence, and denied Antia-Perea’s subpoena and cross-examination requests.
The IJ found the I-213 reliable, established his alienage, and concluded removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i); it rejected the NTA’s second basis for removability and denied cancellation of removal.
Antia-Perea sought a six-month continuance to pursue a gubernatorial pardon for relief; the IJ denied this continuance as speculative, but granted a continuance to consider other relief, and later denied cancellation.
BIA affirmed the IJ’s rulings, rejected Antia-Perea’s arguments on cross-examination, alienage, continuance, and later denied motions to reopen and reconsider; this consolidated petition for review followed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Cross-examination of I-213 drafter denied	Antia-Perea argued denial violated 1229a(b)(4)(B) and due process.	IJ/BIA properly relied on presumptively reliable I-213 and rejected broad subpoena request.	No due process error; I-213 presumptively reliable; silence allowed adverse inferences; Pouhova distinguished.
Reliability of I-213 amid conflicting rap sheets	Rap sheets undermined reliability of I-213 to prove alienage.	Total evidence supported alienage; I-213 presumptively reliable; silence weighed against plaintiff.	IJ and BIA correctly relied on I-213; burden shift to Antia-Perea and he failed to rebut.
Due process and continuance to seek a pardon	denial violated due process; pardon is discretionary but relevant to relief.	No protected liberty interest in discretionary relief like a gubernatorial pardon.	No due process violation; no entitlement to favorable discretionary relief.
Motion to reopen for asylum/withholding/CAT	Board lumped claims; sought separate consideration for each form of relief.	Board properly denied as no prima facie eligibility; relief overlapped and was properly addressed.	Board’s analysis rational; denial upheld.
Due process and IJ impartiality	IJ biased against him due to adverse rulings.	No demonstrated bias; rulings were procedurally and legally correct.	No error; lack of substantive bias proven.

Pouhova v. Holder, 726 F.3d 1007 (7th Cir. 2013) (I-213 reliability and cross-examination concerns when interviewee is not the respondent)
Malave v. Holder, 610 F.3d 483 (7th Cir. 2010) (due process limits on cross-examining particular witnesses; distinctions when statements are by others)
Gutierrez-Berdin v. Holder, 618 F.3d 647 (7th Cir. 2010) (presumption of reliability for I-213; adverse inferences from silence)
Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292 (U.S. 1993) (due process and statutory rights in removal proceedings)
Georgieva v. Holder, 751 F.3d 514 (7th Cir. 2014) (objective component of asylum requires reasonable fear of persecution)
Hassan v. Holder, 571 F.3d 631 (7th Cir. 2009) (burden for asylum/withholding and CAT standards; )
Bathula v. Holder, 723 F.3d 889 (7th Cir. 2013) (CAT standard and evidentiary scrutiny in relief determinations)
Cece v. Holder, 733 F.3d 662 (7th Cir. 2013) (authenticates review standard when board adopts IJ decision)