531 F. App'x 645
6th Cir.2013Background
- Petitioners Ruth Lepe-Paz and Julio Anaya-Figueroa, Mexican nationals, applied for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b) after receiving notices to appear in December 2008.
- Eligibility required 10 years continuous physical presence ending at service of the NTA, good moral character, no disqualifying convictions, and exceptional hardship to a qualifying relative.
- Petitioners testified to continuous U.S. presence but offered no corroborating documentary evidence; Anaya-Figueroa admitted past convictions (1988 DUI, 1992 domestic violence) after initially denying them on his application.
- They relied partly on U.S.-born children (1996, 1999, 2007) and one child’s medical treatment to support an exceptional-hardship claim.
- The IJ denied cancellation; the BIA affirmed, finding petitioners failed to prove ten years’ continuous presence and that Anaya-Figueroa lacked good moral character due to evasive testimony.
- Petitioners sought review in this court; the court reviews BIA factual findings for substantial-evidence support and has jurisdiction over non-discretionary eligibility determinations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petitioners established ten years’ continuous physical presence | Petitioners: their testimony plus inference from children’s U.S. birth dates shows presence 1998–2008 | Government/BIA: testimony uncorroborated; no documentary evidence; gaps and admissions undermine credibility | Denied — substantial evidence supports BIA finding of no continuous presence |
| Whether corroborating evidence was reasonably available or required | Petitioners: implied homemaker status (Lepe-Paz) limited documentary records (raised late) | BIA: applicants must corroborate credible testimony unless they show evidence is unavailable or cannot be obtained | Denied — petitioners did not show inability to obtain corroboration; BIA properly required corroboration |
| Whether Anaya-Figueroa demonstrated good moral character | Petitioners: asserted good moral character despite past incidents | BIA: evasive/contradictory testimony about prior arrests/convictions undermines claim | Denied — BIA reasonably found lack of good moral character based on evasive testimony |
| Whether children’s births compel reversal of BIA factual finding | Petitioners: children’s birth records infer parents’ presence | BIA/Govt: children’s birthplaces alone do not compel continuous-presence finding absent corroboration | Denied — children’s births do not compel contrary conclusion under substantial-evidence review |
Key Cases Cited
- Khalili v. Holder, 557 F.3d 429 (6th Cir. 2009) (BIA decision reviewed as final agency determination)
- Santana-Albarran v. Ashcroft, 393 F.3d 699 (6th Cir. 2005) (requirements for proving continuous physical presence and need for corroboration)
- Urbina-Mejia v. Holder, 597 F.3d 360 (6th Cir. 2010) (standard of substantial-evidence review for BIA factual findings)