Sicaju-Diaz v. Holder
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 22657
| 1st Cir. | 2011Background
- Guatemalan citizen Sicaju-Diaz living in Rhode Island with family; detained by immigration authorities in 1991 after crossing the Rio Grande; deportation order entered in absentia following failure to appear at an October 1991 hearing.
- Filed for asylum in 1991; later sought suspension of deportation under pre-1996 regime, later replaced by cancellation of removal with a stop-time rule.
- NACARA (1997 amendments) provides eligibility for Guatemalans meeting conditions, including not being apprehended at the time of entry; Board of Immigration Appeals ruled Sicaju-Diaz was apprehended at entry, potentially barring NACARA relief.
- IJ denied suspension in 2006 due to stop-time and apprehension at entry; Board reviewed and ultimately denied asylum relief on the social group theory and NACARA grounds.
- Board held that the proposed social group “family returning to Guatemala after lengthy residence in the US” is not a cognizable social group for asylum; Board also held Sicaju-Diaz did not qualify for NACARA suspension relief due to apprehension at entry.
- Petition for review challenging both asylum and NACARA determinations; jurisdiction and standard of review clarified (de novo for legal questions, substantial evidence for factual findings).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether wealth-based social group qualifies for asylum denial. | Sicaju-Diaz argues wealth-identity constitutes a cognizable social group. | Board rejected wealth as a protected social group for asylum. | Wealth-based social group not recognized; Board correct. |
| Whether CIC NACARA relief was available given apprehension at entry. | NACARA excludes those not apprehended at entry or satisfies other conditions. | Record shows apprehension at entry; NACARA relief barred. | NACARA relief denied; review of the apprehension finding barred under §203(a)(1). |
| Whether new affidavits can be considered to dispute “entry” status on review. | New affidavits raise factual dispute about entry timing. | New evidence not part of administrative record; cannot be considered on review. | New affidavits not part of record; can't be considered; record supports entry-at-entry finding. |
| Whether the Board’s factual determinations were properly reviewed under the legal standards. | Board impermissibly substituted its own fact-finding on objective fear. | Board appropriately applied standard; objective fear not met. | Board’s objective-fear assessment upheld under appropriate standard. |
| Whether the NACARA finality clause bars review of petitioner's claims. | §203(a)(1) review bar should not preclude constitutional/other questions. | Clear statutory bar applies to review of such determinations. | NACARA finality clause applied; petition denied on those grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- INS v. Aguirre-Aguirre, 526 U.S. 415 (U.S. 1999) (guides asylum group interpretation and Board deference)
- Arteaga v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 940 (9th Cir. 2007) (explains social group concept in asylum law)
- Lanuza v. Holder, 597 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 2010) (per curiam; addresses jurisdictional limits on review of NACARA claims)
- Cifuentes Ruiz v. Gonzales, 455 F.3d 661 (6th Cir. 2006) (per curiam; discusses social group and asylum factors)
- Centeno v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 441 F.3d 904 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam; state of evidence and standard of review in asylum cases)
- Sugiarto v. Holder, 586 F.3d 90 (1st Cir. 2009) (standard for objective fear and timing of threats)
- In re A-S-B-,, 24 I. & N. Dec. 493 (BIA 2008) (Board decision on evidentiary standards for objective fear)