Roberto Cruz-Mayaho v. Eric Holder
698 F.3d 574
| 7th Cir. | 2012Background
- Cruz-Mayaho entered the United States without inspection in January 1989.
- A 2005 Notice to Appear initiated removal proceedings.
- He sought cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b).
- The IJ and then the Board denied cancellation on the merits in 2008.
- Cruz-Mayaho pursued multiple motions to reopen and reconsider, and petitions for review, across several years.
- The court concludes it generally lacks jurisdiction to review the underlying cancellation decision, affirming Board denials.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has jurisdiction to review motions to reopen/reconsider when the underlying cancellation decision is— | Cruz-Mayaho argues for jurisdiction under Calma to review procedural denials. | Board/administration contends jurisdiction is limited and split from merits. | No jurisdiction to review the underlying merits; limited review for abuse of discretion where possible. |
| Timeliness of Cruz-Mayaho’s first motion to reopen | Cruz-Mayaho contends timely under 90-day rule from 2008 denial. | Sarmiento and related rulings reject altering the 90-day clock. | Untimely; Board correct to deny as time-barred. |
| Eligibility for asylum/CAT based on Mexico conditions | Conditions in Mexico warrant asylum or CAT relief. | General conditions do not establish eligibility without specific persecutory nexus. | Not entitled to asylum, cancellation, or CAT relief. |
| Due process/equal protection claims against Board actions | Board allegedly violated due process/equal protection in handling motions. | No protected liberty interest in discretionary relief; no improper motive shown. | No due process or equal protection violation; class-of-one claim rejected. |
Key Cases Cited
- Calma v. Holder, 663 F.3d 868 (7th Cir. 2011) (limits review of certain procedural denials when merits analysis remains possible)
- Sarmiento v. Holder, 680 F.3d 799 (7th Cir. 2012) (rejects treating a reconsideration denial as tolling the 90-day period for reopening)
- Vega v. Holder, 611 F.3d 1168 (9th Cir. 2010) (time limits for motions to reopen are fixed; petition for review does not toll)
- William v. INS, 217 F.3d 340 (5th Cir. 2000) (time limits for motions to reopen/reconsider)
- Khan v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 513 (7th Cir. 2008) (no protected liberty interest in discretionary relief)
- Del Marcelle v. Brown County Corp., 680 F.3d 887 (7th Cir. 2012) (class-of-one equal protection analysis guidance)