Yeison Meza Morales v. William Barr
973 F.3d 656
| 7th Cir. | 2020Background
- Meza Morales, a Mexican national who entered the U.S. without inspection as a child, was shot in 2013 and cooperated with police; he filed a U-visa petition in August 2017.
- ICE initiated removal proceedings in 2018 charging inadmissibility for unlawful presence and a 2014 marijuana conviction; Meza admitted the charges and invoked his pending U-visa petition as a defense.
- The immigration judge (IJ) granted a 30‑day continuance and an inadmissibility waiver under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(3)(A) so Meza could pursue the U petition, but later denied further continuance/administrative closure and ordered removal; the Board affirmed.
- USCIS later found Meza prima facie eligible, placed him on the U‑visa waiting list, and granted deferred action, but the IJ’s removal order remains in effect and Meza sought review.
- The Seventh Circuit held (1) a § 1182(d)(3)(A) waiver alone does not bar a removal order because the U visa (not the waiver) confers lawful presence, (2) remanded for the Board to reconsider denial of a continuance in light of new authority, and (3) rejected Castro‑Tum and held IJs may administratively close cases pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.10(b).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Effect of § 1182(d)(3)(A) waiver on removal | Waiver nullified the inadmissibility grounds; cannot remove on same bases | Waiver is collateral/procedural; only a U visa confers lawful presence so removal remains available | Waiver alone insufficient to preclude removal absent actual visa/status; claim rejected |
| Denial of continuance pending USCIS adjudication | IJ should have continued or administratively closed while USCIS decided the U petition | Board/IJ applied Sanchez Sosa factors and found continuance unwarranted | Remanded for Board to reconsider continuance under Matter of Mayen and Guerra Rocha (prima facie eligibility emphasized) |
| Authority to administratively close cases | 8 C.F.R. § 1003.10(b) authorizes IJs to take “any action” appropriate, including administrative closure | Castro‑Tum holds IJs lack general authority to administratively close; closure impermissible | Seventh Circuit rejects Castro‑Tum; holds § 1003.10(b) permits administrative closure when appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- L.D.G. v. Holder, 744 F.3d 1022 (7th Cir. 2014) (Attorney General’s inadmissibility waiver authority applies to U‑visa petitioners)
- Baez‑Sanchez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 854 (7th Cir. 2017) (IJs can grant inadmissibility waivers in removal proceedings for U‑visa petitioners)
- Vahora v. Holder, 626 F.3d 907 (7th Cir. 2010) (administrative‑closure doctrine and its standards)
- Guerra Rocha v. Barr, 951 F.3d 848 (7th Cir. 2020) (prima facie U‑visa eligibility is a principal factor for continuances)
- Qureshi v. Gonzales, 442 F.3d 985 (7th Cir. 2006) (mootness posture when collateral petition adjudicated unfavorably)
- Romero v. Barr, 937 F.3d 282 (4th Cir. 2019) (recognizing administrative closure to coordinate collateral executive‑branch adjudications)
- Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997) (deference to agencies’ interpretations of their own regulations)
- Kisor v. Wilkie, 139 S. Ct. 2400 (2019) (limits on Auer deference and requirement to apply traditional statutory/regulatory construction first)