Victor Meraz-Saucedo v. Jeffrey A. Rosen
986 F.3d 676
| 7th Cir. | 2021Background
- Meraz-Saucedo, a Mexican national, entered the U.S. without inspection in 2004 and has U.S.-citizen children; DHS served a Notice to Appear (NTA) on Oct. 25, 2013 that omitted time/place; a subsequent Notice of Hearing (NOH) with time/place was served Dec. 4, 2013.
- He appeared with counsel before an IJ on July 23, 2014, admitted removability, and sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief based on threats and violence by the Sinaloa cartel directed at his family tied to his father’s refusal to grow marijuana in 2003.
- The IJ found Meraz-Saucedo credible but denied relief: no established pattern/practice of persecution of his family, no nexus between the harm and a protected ground (family membership), and no substantial risk of torture or state acquiescence.
- While his BIA appeal was pending, he moved to remand to apply for cancellation of removal under the stop-time rule as clarified in Pereira v. Sessions.
- The BIA affirmed the IJ and denied the remand, relying on Matter of Mendoza-Hernandez (permitting piecemeal notice) and finding the claim forfeited under Ortiz-Santiago because he did not timely object before the IJ.
- The Seventh Circuit denied review, holding the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying remand and that substantial evidence supported denial of asylum, withholding, and CAT relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a defective NTA that omitted time/place prevents the stop-time rule and thus permits cancellation of removal under §1229b(b) | Meraz-Saucedo: Pereira renders his NTA defective so stop-time did not trigger; he’s eligible to seek cancellation and merits remand | Government/BIA: Subsequent NOH cured the defect (Matter of Mendoza‑Hernandez); even if not, Meraz‑Saucedo forfeited the claim by failing to timely object | Denied: Forfeiture; Seventh Circuit relied on Chen/Ortiz‑Santiago line — he did not timely object before the IJ and cannot show excusable delay and hearing prejudice |
| Whether the BIA abused discretion by denying motion to remand post‑Pereira | Meraz‑Saucedo: BIA erred in applying Mendoza‑Hernandez and Ortiz‑Santiago | BIA: Proper exercise of discretion; claim-processing rules apply; relief limited to timely objections or excusable delay with prejudice | Denied: No abuse of discretion; forfeiture doctrine applies |
| Whether he established asylum eligibility via membership in a particular social group (nuclear family) | Meraz‑Saucedo: Cartel targeted his family because of his father’s refusal; threats and past violence show nexus to family membership | BIA/IJ: Attacks were motivated by financial extortion and generalized crime, not family status; incidents are temporally/geographically disconnected and lack evidence linking them | Denied: Substantial evidence supports lack of nexus; family membership not shown to be motive for persecution |
| Whether he met withholding/CAT standards (risk of torture and state acquiescence) | Meraz‑Saucedo: Country conditions and cartel threats show substantial risk and government inability/willingness to prevent harm | BIA/IJ: No particularized risk to him; no past torture; no evidence any official knowingly acquiesced to harm against him | Denied: Substantial evidence supports finding of no substantial risk of torture nor state acquiescence |
Key Cases Cited
- Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018) (defective NTA lacking time/place does not qualify as a §1229(a) notice for stop‑time)
- Ortiz‑Santiago v. Barr, 924 F.3d 956 (7th Cir. 2019) (NTA defects treated as claim‑processing rules; relief limited to timely objections or excusable delay with prejudice)
- Chen v. Barr, 960 F.3d 448 (7th Cir. 2020) (forfeiture where petitioner failed to raise NTA adequacy before the IJ)
- Cece v. Holder, 733 F.3d 662 (7th Cir. 2013) (review: legal questions de novo; factual findings under substantial‑evidence standard)
- Nasrallah v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1683 (2020) (agency factual findings are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude otherwise)
- Hernandez‑Alvarez v. Barr, 982 F.3d 1088 (7th Cir. 2020) (prejudice inquiry focuses on whether notice defects deprived alien of ability to attend/prepare for hearing)