857 F.3d 757
7th Cir.2017Background
- Ricardo Sanchez, an undocumented immigrant, conceded removability and applied for cancellation of removal for nonpermanent residents under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b). He must show 10 years' physical presence, good moral character, and that removal would cause exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his U.S.-citizen children.
- Sanchez has three U.S.-citizen children (ages 8, 6, and 15 months) and his wife is also without legal status; Sanchez is the primary breadwinner and worked at the same pizza restaurant for 18 years.
- At the removal hearing Sanchez admitted to four DUI convictions over 16 years and two bond violations; the immigration judge found he lacked good moral character and also found he failed to show requisite hardship because he could not state whether family would accompany him to Mexico.
- The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the denial. Sanchez filed a timely motion to reopen, now represented by new counsel, alleging ineffective assistance of prior counsel and submitting new evidence (affidavits, child language and medical/developmental facts, tax returns, criminal-history records).
- The Board denied the motion to reopen in a summary fashion, stating the new evidence would not likely have altered the hardship outcome. Sanchez petitioned this court for review and moved to stay his removal pending review; the Department of Justice opposed both.
Issues
| Issue | Sanchez's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to review denial of motion to reopen | Federal court has jurisdiction to review legal questions and motions to reopen per Mata v. Lynch | Denial implicitly unreviewable because underlying cancellation relief is discretionary and typically not reviewable | Court assumes and exercises jurisdiction over Board’s denial of the motion to reopen, citing Mata and circuit precedent |
| Adequacy of Board’s explanation for denying new evidence / ineffective-assistance claim | Board’s blanket statement rejecting all new evidence precludes meaningful review; Board failed to explain why evidence would not alter hardship finding | Board offered only conclusory statement that evidence would not likely alter outcome | Rejected Board’s conclusory blanket rejection as inadequate for meaningful review (citing Ji Cheng Ni) |
| Stay of removal pending review | Removal would cause irreparable harm to Sanchez’s U.S.-citizen children (loss of primary breadwinner, interruption of therapy for youngest), so stay warranted | Government did not contest irreparable-harm argument in response | Court granted a stay of removal pending resolution of the petition for review due to potential irreparable harm |
| Merits of cancellation (good moral character / hardship) | New evidence (children’s limited Spanish/English dominance, infant’s therapy needs, tax returns) could affect hardship and effective assistance claims | Board and IJ found DUI convictions and inability to show family would follow him to Mexico defeated good moral character/hardship showing | Court did not decide merits; remand/review was ordered because procedural deficiencies in Board’s denial prevented meaningful review |
Key Cases Cited
- Mata v. Lynch, 135 S. Ct. 2150 (2015) (courts have jurisdiction to review denials of motions to reopen removal proceedings)
- Ji Cheng Ni v. Holder, 715 F.3d 620 (7th Cir. 2013) (Board must provide reasons beyond blanket rejections to allow meaningful judicial review)
- Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009) (standards for stay of removal and preliminary injunctive relief, including irreparable harm)
- Mazariegos v. Lynch, 790 F.3d 280 (1st Cir. 2015) (exercise of jurisdiction over motions to reopen where underlying relief is discretionary)