5 F.4th 732
7th Cir.2021Background
- Meza, a Mexican national, entered the U.S. without admission in 1996 and has lived here since; he is married and has five U.S.-citizen children; his parents are lawful permanent residents.
- DHS initiated removal proceedings in 2012; Meza conceded removability and applied for discretionary cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. §1229b(b), asserting exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to qualifying relatives.
- Criminal history during the relevant period: 2013 conviction for DUI (BAC .20), and later traffic-related convictions (driving without a license, no insurance, failing to install an ignition interlock); Meza admitted using a fabricated Social Security number for employment (2003–2015).
- The IJ (Aug. 2018) denied cancellation, finding Meza lacked good moral character and had not shown exceptional hardship; the BIA (June 2020) affirmed solely on the good-moral-character ground.
- Meza petitioned for review, arguing legal errors by the IJ and BIA (improperly considering pre‑period conduct, misapplying precedent, ignoring evidence); the Seventh Circuit reviewed legal questions and denied the petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to review denial of discretionary relief | Meza: court can review legal errors the IJ/BIA made in denying cancellation | Gov: INA limits review of discretionary denials to constitutional or legal questions; the petition raises legal questions | Court: Jurisdiction exists because Meza framed claims as legal questions about statutory interpretation and ignored evidence doctrines |
| Whether IJ/BIA relied on conduct outside the statutory 10‑year period for good moral character | Meza: IJ considered pre‑2008 drug use and other pre‑period conduct improperly | Gov: BIA corrected IJ’s error and based its decision on conduct within the ten‑year window | Court: BIA expressly limited its review to the relevant 10‑year period and reasonably relied on in‑period offenses |
| Whether a single DUI was treated as presumptively defeating good moral character (conflict with BIA precedent) | Meza: Single DUI should not destroy good moral character; BIA conflicted with Matter of Sanchez‑Linn/ Castillo‑Perez | Gov: BIA considered the DUI in context with other offenses and misconduct (fake SSN, later violations) | Court: No precedent conflict; a single DUI can be weighted heavily when combined with other misconduct; BIA did not treat it as an automatic bar |
| Whether IJ/BIA ignored evidence of rehabilitation and character letters/testimony | Meza: Rehabilitation evidence and letters were overlooked and could have altered the outcome | Gov: IJ/BIA considered testimony and rehabilitation but found them not persuasive; letters were cumulative | Court: Record shows consideration of testimony and rehabilitation; omitted letters (if any) were cumulative and not likely to change the outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- Iglesias v. Mukasey, 540 F.3d 528 (7th Cir. 2008) (allegation that the BIA ignored evidence presents a legal question)
- Aparicio‑Brito v. Lynch, 824 F.3d 674 (7th Cir. 2016) (misinterpretation of statute or precedent raises a legal issue reviewable on petition)
- Dominguez‑Pulido v. Lynch, 821 F.3d 837 (7th Cir. 2016) (review the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA)
- Perez‑Fuentes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 506 (7th Cir. 2016) (ignored evidence must be central and potentially outcome‑altering to warrant relief)
- Delgado v. Holder, 674 F.3d 759 (7th Cir. 2012) (same standard for demonstrating that omitted evidence could change the result)
- Mansour v. INS, 230 F.3d 902 (7th Cir. 2000) (BIA need not write exhaustive analyses; must show it considered issues raised)
- INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94 (1988) (BIA may decide alternate or dispositive grounds and need not address every threshold issue)