2011 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

3-22-2011

Francisco Barrios v. Atty Gen USA

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 10-2216

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2011 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Francisco Barrios v. Atty Gen USA" (2011). 2011 Decisions. Paper 1615.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011/1615
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 10-2216

___________

FRANCISCO BARILLAS BARRIOS,

Petitioner

v.

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,

Respondent

____________________________________

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

(Agency No. A73-169-634)

Immigration Judge: Honorable Henry S. Dogin

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

March 16, 2011

Before: SCIRICA, FISHER and ALDISERT, Circuit Judges

(Filed: March 22, 2011)

___________

OPINION OF THE COURT

___________

PER CURIAM.

Francisco Barrios seeks review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals. 

For the reasons that follow, we will deny the petition for review. 
2

I.

Petitioner Francisco Barrios, a citizen of Guatemala, entered the United States 

illegally in April 2000 and was placed in removal proceedings in September 2007. He is 

married to a United States citizen and has three United States citizen children. Barrios 

applied for special rule cancellation of removal pursuant to § 203 of the Nicaraguan and 

Central American Relief Act of 1997 (“NACARA”), Pub. L. No. 105-100, 111 Stat. 

2193, 2196 (1997). The immigration judge (“IJ”) denied the application, finding that 

Barrios did not meet the statutory requirements for special rule cancellation because he 

did not register for benefits pursuant to the settlement agreement in American Baptist 

Churches v. Thornburgh, 760 F. Supp. 796 (N.D. Cal. 1991) (“ABC”), on or before 

December 31, 1991. The IJ granted voluntary departure.

Barrios appealed. The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) agreed with the IJ 

that Barrios had failed to establish that he was eligible for special rule cancellation. The 

BIA also denied his claim that the IJ had denied him due process. The BIA dismissed the 

appeal. Barrios filed a timely petition for review and motions for a stay of removal and a 

stay of the voluntary departure period. We denied both motions. 

II.

The government argues that we lack jurisdiction over the petition for review under 

the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (“IIRIRA”), 

which provides that a determination of eligibility under NACARA “shall not be subject 

to review by any court.” See Lanuza v. Holder, 597 F.3d 970, 972 (9th Cir. 2010). 
3

However, as the government recognizes, the NACARA jurisdiction-stripping provision 

does not bar judicial review of constitutional claims or questions of law. See 8 U.S.C. § 

1252(a)(2)(D); Lanuza, 597 F.3d at 972. Barrios raises a due process claim, which is 

sufficient to give this Court jurisdiction. See Romanishyn v. Att’y Gen., 455 F.3d 175, 

180 (3d Cir. 2006); Lanuza, 597 F.3d at 972. We exercise plenary review. Romanishyn, 

455 F.3d at 185. To the extent Barrios seeks to challenge the factual determinations 

underlying the BIA’s decision, we lack jurisdiction over such claims. See Jarbough v. 

Att’y Gen., 483 F.3d 184, 188 (3d Cir. 2007). 

III.

To prevail on his due process claim, Barrios must demonstrate that he was not 

provided a full and fair hearing and a reasonable opportunity to present evidence, and that 

he suffered substantial prejudice as a result. Romanishyn, 455 F.3d at 185. Barrios 

contends that he was denied the opportunity to testify regarding his eligibility for special 

rule cancellation. NACARA provides relief to certain individuals who, inter alia, have 

not been convicted of an aggravated felony and who “(a) first entered the U.S. on or 

before October 1, 1990 and (b) registered for benefits under the settlement agreement in 

[ABC] on or before December 31, 1991.” § 203, Pub. L. No. 105-100, 111 Stat. 2193; 

Munoz v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 950, 956 (9

th Cir. 2003). Barrios admits that the record 

does not contain any documentary evidence that he registered for benefits pursuant to the 

ABC settlement agreement. Nonetheless, he argues that he should have been permitted 

to testify regarding his registration.
4

The record reflects that the proceedings were continued at least three times before 

the IJ held the July 21, 2008 merits hearing. Barrios states that he requested an 

opportunity to testify, but that his attorney instead conceded that he had no documentary 

proof of ABC registration. Counsel did not explain the absence of the evidence or ask for 

a hearing on the issue. Barrios never argues that the IJ prevented him from testifying, see

Podio v. INS, 153 F.3d 506, 510-11 (7th Cir. 1998) (petitioner’s due process rights were 

violated when IJ refused to allow him to testify), and in fact concedes that the IJ provided 

him a “reasonable opportunity to present documentary evidence.” To the extent that he 

attributes error to his attorney,1this does not provide a basis for concluding that the IJ 

denied him due process. As such, we agree with the BIA that Barrios was afforded a full 

and fair hearing and a reasonable opportunity to present evidence.

Barrios asserts that his inability to testify resulted in substantial prejudice. 

However, he has failed to specify what testimony he would have provided to establish his 

eligibility for NACARA relief. In addition, he concedes that no documentary evidence is 

available, and he has made no showing that a hearing on the issue was necessary. 

Accordingly, Barrios cannot demonstrate that he suffered any prejudice.

IV.

For the foregoing reasons, we will deny the petition for review.

 

1 We note that Barrios has not attempted to claim ineffective assistance of counsel.