Vasquez-Castillo v. Garland, 20-9591

Petitioner Erik Vasquez-Castillo, a Mexican national brought to the U.S. as a child, applied to adjust status as an immediate relative of a U.S. citizen and sought a waiver of criminal-ground inadmissibility.
In 2016 he pleaded guilty to robbery, residential and commercial burglary, and larceny; the IJ found his robbery conviction a "violent or dangerous crime."
At a December 2019 hearing the IJ ordered closing briefs on whether the ordinary "extreme hardship" standard or the heightened "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" standard (8 C.F.R. § 1212.7(d)) applied; petitioner did not file a closing brief.
The IJ applied the heightened standard, found petitioner failed to meet it, and alternatively denied a waiver as a matter of discretion after balancing adverse criminal factors against equities.
The BIA affirmed both the application of the heightened hardship standard and the IJ's discretionary denial, and rejected petitioner’s due-process claim that he was prevented from presenting closing arguments.
The Tenth Circuit denied the petition for review: it held it lacked jurisdiction to review the discretionary denial and rejected the due-process claim for lack of deprivation and prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether IJ/BIA improperly applied heightened hardship standard and failed to consider ordinary discretionary equities	Vasquez-Castillo: IJ/BIA applied §1212.7(d) incorrectly and did not adequately consider his positive equities under the ordinary discretionary standard	Government: robbery is a violent/dangerous crime so heightened standard applies; in any event IJ properly denied waiver in the exercise of discretion	Court: petitioner waived/failed to adequately contest the discretionary denial; even if argued, discretionary denials under §1182(h) are generally unreviewable under §1252(a)(2)(B) — petition fails
Whether petitioner was denied due process by not being allowed to submit a closing argument	Vasquez-Castillo: IJ rescheduled hearing and issued decision without permitting closing argument/briefing, depriving him of meaningful opportunity to be heard	Government: IJ set a Dec. 24 deadline for briefs; petitioner never filed or sought extension; rescheduling did not extend deadline; any arguments could be raised to BIA; no prejudice shown	Court: No due-process violation — petitioner failed to show he was actually prevented from filing or that he suffered prejudice; claim denied

Uanreroro v. Gonzales, 443 F.3d 1197 (10th Cir. 2006) (court may consult IJ’s fuller explanation when reviewing BIA decisions)
Addo v. Barr, 982 F.3d 1263 (10th Cir. 2020) (substantial-evidence standard for factual findings; de novo for legal questions)
Schroeck v. Gonzales, 429 F.3d 947 (10th Cir. 2005) (adjustment and waiver are discretionary reliefs)
Kabba v. Mukasey, 530 F.3d 1239 (10th Cir. 2008) (issues inadequately briefed are waived)
Munis v. Holder, 720 F.3d 1293 (10th Cir. 2013) (agency’s discretionary denial of waiver is unreviewable absent legal/constitutional question)
Alzainati v. Holder, 568 F.3d 844 (10th Cir. 2009) (procedural-due-process claim requires showing of unfair procedure and prejudice)
Sosa-Valenzuela v. Holder, 692 F.3d 1103 (10th Cir. 2012) (BIA may consider the case de novo and effectively put itself in the IJ’s place)
Vladimirov v. Lynch, 805 F.3d 955 (10th Cir. 2015) (procedural due process entitles aliens to meaningful opportunity to be heard)