Wroblewska v. Holder
656 F.3d 473
7th Cir.2011Background
- Wroblewska, a Polish citizen, entered the U.S. on a visitor visa in 1994 and overstayed.
- In 1999 she became involved in Operation Durango, a sting operation targeting immigration benefits brokers; she was alleged to have bribed an immigration officer.
- She married U.S. citizen Boguslaw Kania, who then filed a relative visa petition; in 2006 her I-485 adjustment of status application was filed.
- In removal proceedings, she conceded removable status but sought adjustment; she moved to suppress Durango evidence and for termination based on the adjustment petition.
- The IJ found removability and denied adjustment, relying on credibility concerns about her alleged bribery; the BIA affirmed.
- Wroblewska petitioned for review; the Seventh Circuit held it lacked jurisdiction to review discretionary denial, but could address legal/constitutional challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wroblewska may challenge Durango evidence on due process grounds. | Wroblewska contends Durango violated due process and warrants exclusion of evidence. | Government argues Krasilych forecloses due process challenge and evidence not suppressible. | Denied; claim foreclosed by Krasilych and Lopez-Mendoza. |
| Whether the court has jurisdiction to review the IJ/BIA discretionary denial of adjustment of status. | Petitioner argues for broader review of equities and discretionary denial. | Agency decisions on adjustment are generally not reviewable for merits. | Limited jurisdiction; cannot review discretionary denial on merits. |
| Whether the petition should be decided on legal/constitutional grounds related to due process. | Alleges a due process violation affected by evidence from Operation Durango. | No cognizable due process claim shown under controlling precedents. | Petition denied on the stated legal grounds; no due process violation established. |
| Whether Krasilych forecloses Wroblewska's argument even though filed before Krasilych decision. | Argues that Krasilych cannot bar her due process claim due to timing. | Krasilych applies retroactively to foreclose the claim. | Krasilych controls; argument foreclosed. |
| Whether counsel’s performance warrants a disciplinary referral. | Petitioner contends counsel’s performance fell below competent standards. | Not specifically addressed in merits; actions described as perfunctory. | We raise concerns and forward to disciplinary authorities. |
Key Cases Cited
- Krasilych v. Holder, 583 F.3d 962 (7th Cir. 2009) ( Fourth Amendment/egregious-violation standard forecloses due process challenge in this context)
- Pawlowska v. Holder, 623 F.3d 1138 (7th Cir. 2010) (recognizes sting operation context and limits on relief)
- Mozdzen v. Holder, 622 F.3d 680 (7th Cir. 2010) (stamps from Operation Durango do not confer status)
- Skorusa v. Gonzales, 482 F.3d 939 (7th Cir. 2007) (describes Durango procedures and credibility considerations)
- Pieniazek v. Gonzales, 449 F.3d 792 (7th Cir. 2006) (early Durango discussion and related issues)
- INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032 (1984) (requires egregious due process violations for exclusionary relief in immigration cases)
- United States v. Morris, 549 F.3d 548 (7th Cir. 2008) (definition of entrapment; distinctions in immigration context)