602 F. App'x 340
7th Cir.2015Background
- Stephen Teneng, a Cameroonian national, entered the U.S. on a student visa in 1986 and later accumulated multiple state and federal convictions for fraud and related offenses. He was found removable as an aggravated felon.
- In 1999 an IJ granted Teneng statutory withholding and CAT relief based on a well-founded fear of political persecution in Cameroon. The grant was mandatory once Teneng met his burden.
- In 2003 Teneng pleaded guilty to federal fraud offenses (false passport statements, access-device fraud, possession of multiple IDs) and was sentenced to 75 months in prison.
- After his 2008 release DHS moved to reopen and terminate the 1999 withholding on the ground that Teneng had committed a "particularly serious crime," making him ineligible for withholding; CAT deferral remained theoretically available.
- At the reopened proceedings Teneng sought a continuance to await adjudication of an I-130 filed by his U.S. citizen wife; the IJ denied the continuance and later terminated withholding, found two convictions to be "particularly serious," and also denied CAT deferral based primarily on credibility and lack of corroboration.
- The Seventh Circuit held it lacked jurisdiction to review the continuance and the "particularly serious crime" determinations, but retained and reviewed jurisdiction over the denial of CAT deferral and denied relief on the merits because the IJ reasonably found Teneng not credible.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of continuance to await I-130 adjudication | IJ and BIA misapplied Matter of Hashmi factors and should have granted continuance; DHS did not oppose continuance | Court lacks jurisdiction because Teneng is removable as an aggravated felon; decision was discretionary | No jurisdiction to review; petition dismissed as to continuance |
| Whether convictions are "particularly serious crimes" disqualifying withholding | IJ and BIA ignored Teneng's testimony about circumstances of crimes; legal error | Determination is committed to agency and jurisdictionally barred; agency considered and discounted testimony | No jurisdiction to review the "particularly serious" determination |
| Denial of CAT deferral based on credibility and corroboration | IJ improperly discredited Teneng by relying on prior fraud convictions; evidence and country reports show risk of torture | IJ reasonably weighed credibility and corroboration; prior fraud convictions undermine trustworthiness; CAT deferral review is judicially reviewable | Court has jurisdiction and affirms denial of CAT deferral on grounds Teneng failed to meet burden of proof |
| Denial of statutory withholding given particularly serious crime finding | Teneng challenges the characterization and factual findings | Government argues statutory bar applies and review is barred | No jurisdiction to review statutory withholding determination |
Key Cases Cited
- Wani Site v. Holder, 656 F.3d 590 (7th Cir. 2011) (holds §1252(a)(2)(C) does not bar review of CAT deferral denials)
- Issaq v. Holder, 617 F.3d 962 (7th Cir. 2010) (discusses jurisdictional limits and reviewability of CAT deferral)
- Pavlov v. Holder, 697 F.3d 616 (7th Cir. 2012) (prior deceit or lies can justify adverse credibility findings in immigration proceedings)
- Ali v. Achim, 468 F.3d 462 (7th Cir. 2006) (framework for assessing whether a conviction may be considered "particularly serious")
- Petrov v. Gonzales, 464 F.3d 800 (7th Cir. 2006) (discusses jurisdictional limits over immigration decisions)