Immigration Decisions

Barrera-Quintero v. Holder, 2012 WL 5521836 (11/15/12) (Published) - Troubling immigration decision. The alien entered the U.S. in 1990 and stayed here until 2004 when he was removed. He was not told he could apply for cancellation of removal, which includes a requirement that he be continuously present in this country for 10 years. He returned 66 days later. The government attempted to remove the alien again in 2007. Now with counsel he sought cancellation of removal. The BIA held he did not qualify because he had not been continuously here for 10 years, given his removal in 2004. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(2) says departures from the U.S. longer than 90 days constitute a break in continuous presence. But BIA has decided it's also a break if an alien leaves under threat of removal proceedings, regardless of how long he's out of the country. The 10th holds this is a reasonable interpretation and so a federal court can't overturn it. "The agency's interpretation need not speak to our highest sense of fair dealing or appear very wise. It only has to be reasonable." Statutes prohibit the 10th from reviewing the BIA's discretionary decision that the alien voluntarily left the U.S. under threat of removal proceedings, despite the failure of immigration officers to inform him of his rights to request removal cancellation. Allowing the ICE agent who was responsible for the alien's removal to testify over the phone did not violate due process. There were good reasons for the agent to do so. The 10th noted it did not "wholeheartedly endorse telephonic testimony as a readily interchangeable substitute for in-person testimony."

Ocampo-Guaderrama v. Holder, 2012 WL 5507114 (11/14/12) (unpub'd) - The 10th finds permissible the BIA's interpretation of "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship,"---a criterion for cancellation of removal--- to mean an alien must provide evidence of harm to a U.S. citizen relative that is substantially beyond what ordinarily would be expected to result from an alien's deportation.

Wu v. Holder, 2012 WL 5507112 (11/14/12) (unpub'd) - The involuntary sterilization of the alien's wife in China would not constitute persecution of the alien unless he was persecuted for resisting his wife's sterilization. So no asylum.

Harper v. Rudek, 2012 WL 5507220 (11/14/12) (Okl.) (unpub'd) - The 10th affirms a dismissal on the grounds that the plaintiff was "maliciously" judge shopping when he filed a letter along with his § 1983 complaints instructing the clerk to dismiss complaints if certain magistrate judges were assigned.