## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N o. 11

- 2648 E R NE S T O D EL GADO, P etitio ner, v. E R I C H. H OLDER, J R ., A tt or n ey G en er al ofthe U ni ted S tat es, R es pond ent
.

Pe tition fo r Review o f anOrd er of the Bo ard of Immigration App eals

. No . A 077-767- 216

A RGUED F EB RU AR Y 15, 2012

— D ECI DE D M AR CH 22, 2012

B efore P OSNER, F LA UM, an d M A NI ON, C ircu it Judges . F LA UM, Cir cu i tJudg e . Er ne st o De l g ado e nt er ed th e U n ite d Sta te s illeg ally in 1 98 9. E l ev en ye ar s la te r, in 20 00 , the I m m ig r at i o n a nd Natur al i za ti o n S er vi ce ( th e
“ I NS ” ) c o mm e nc e d r e mov a l p r o c e e di ng s a g ai nst De l g a do b y s e nd i ngh i m a No t i c e t o App e a r . De l g a do admi tt ed th e al l eg at i o ns in the Not i ce t o Appea r, b ut2 N o. 11

- 2648 soughtl eave to st ay i n th e Un i ted S tat es by fi l i ng an appli cati on f or Cancel l ati on of Rem ova l

. A fter sev er al im m igrati on h earings an d tw o r e m an d s from the B oard of Im m igr at ion A p p ea ls (th e “B IA ” or “B oa rd ”), an im m ig r at ion j u d ge d en ied D elg ad o’s ap p lica tio n for c an c ell a t i o n, a nd the BI A a ffi r med tha tfi nd i ng . De l g a do appeal s the BI A ’ s deci si on, cl ai m in g th at hi s ca ncel l ati o n a p p l i c a t i o n wa s wr o n g l y d e c i d e d a n d th a th i s r i g ht to d u e p ro c es s w a s v iola te d . W e d en y D elg ad o’s p et it i o n f o rr e v i e w.

I . B a c kg r o und I n 198 9, Del gado left h is ho m e in M or el os, M exi co and i l l ega l l y e n tered the U ni ted S tat es. H e s ett l ed inC h ica go w h er e h e h a s m ain ta in ed a c on tin u ou s re sidence. In 1992 , he m ar ri ed A nal oetRom an, ano ther i l l eg ala l ie n, a nd t o g ethe rthe y ha ve thr ee c hi l dr en : G u ad alu p e (1 8 y ea rs old ), D ais y (1 3 y ea rs old ) an d L u is (5 years ol d ). A llthree o f th e D elgad o’s children w ere born i n the U ni ted S tat es and are U

. S. ci ti zens. Th i s c a s e b e g a n i n 2 0 0 0 wh e n the I NS c om m enced proce edi ngs a gainst Delga d o w i th the fi l i ng o fa N oti ce to A pp ear . The N oti ce t o A pp earchar ged Del gad o w i th b e i nga n a t i v e o fMex i c o wh o i s s ubj e c tt o r e m ova l fr o m t he Uni t e d S t a t e s . In r e s po ns e , De l g a do fi l e d a n a pp l i ca t i o n f o rc a n c e l l a t i o n o fr e mo v a lp u r s u a n tt o I NA § 2 40 A (b )(1 ) , 8 U .S.C . § 12 29 b (b )1. T o q u alify for c an c ellat ion u n d er § 12 29 b (b )(1) , a n alien m u st m ee t t h e fo llow in g fou r c rit er ia:N o. 11

- 2648 3 ( A ) has been physi cal l y p re sent i n the U ni ted S tat es for a con tinu ou s p eriod of not less th a n 1 0 ye ars i m m edi at ely pr ec edingthe da te o fs ucha ppl i ca ti o n; ( B ) h a s b e e n a p e r s o n o f g o o d mo r a l c h a r a c t erdur i ng s uc h pe r i o d; ( C) has notbee n convi cted of a n o ffense und er sect i on 1 182( a) ( 2) , 12 27( a) ( 2) , o r 1227 ( a) ( 3) o f thi s t i tl e, su bj ec t to pa r ag r aph( 5) ; a nd ( D) e s t ab l i s he s tha tr e mov a lwo ul d r e s ul ti n e xc e ptional and extrem ely un us ua l ha rd sh ip to the a lie n ’s spo us e, pa r en t, o rc hi l d, w ho i s a ci ti ze n o fthe U nited States or an alien law fully ad m itted f o r perm anent r esi dence. The m er i ts hear i ng on Delg ado’ s ca ncel l ati on o fr em ova l cl ai m t o o kpl ac e o n S ept embe r2 4, 2004. Tho ug h the i m m i gr ati on j ud ge (“IJ”) f ound that Del gado est abl i shed the r equi si te continuous physi calpre sence an d go od m oral ch aract er forcan cellati on of rem ova l, h e d eterm i ned that Delg ado f ai l ed to m eethi s burden of sh o wi nghi s r emov alwoul d res ul t i n e xc ept i o na la nd e x t r em ely un us ua l ha rd sh ip to his ch il d ren, w ho are U ni ted S tat es ci tizens. The IJ deni ed hi s a pp l i cati on for can cellati on or rem oval, grante d volu n t ary d ep arture , and al ternati vel y, o rder ed hi s r em ova lto M exi co. D e l g ad o a p p ea led th e IJ’s d ec isio n to th e B IA . In 2005 , the BIA rem anded Del gado’ s c as e t o the IJ f or fur the ra c t i on a nd c e r t i fi c a t i o n b e c a us e the t a pe re cor ding ofDel gado’ s hea ring was d efe cti ve, wh i ch preve nted the BIA fr om anal yzing Del ga do’s cl ai m s o n4 N o. 11

- 2648 appeal

. The BI A i nstr ucted the IJ to ta ke the s teps necess a r y a n d a p p r o p r i a t e t o e n ab l e th e B I A t o r e v i e w a c o mp let e re c or d a n d to h old a n ew h ea rin g if n ec es sa ry . In re sponse, the IJ d ete rm i ned that a new hear i ng was unne ce ss ary, g i ve n tha t th e o nl y s ho r tc o m i ngo fthe previ ous r eco rd was an inabi l i ty to disc er n w hat was sai d a t Delg ado’ s hear i ng. The IJ ther ef or e d ete rm i ned that i t wa s inappro pri ate to co nsi der ne w docum ents or evi dence. The BIA disagr ee d

. In J uly20 08, the BIA rul ed that i ts 2005 o rderdi d not pre cl ud e the sub m i ssi on o fnew ev i den ce o rthe ta ki ngo fa ddi ti o na lt es ti m o ny, a nd b ec au se n ew ev id e n c e m igh t h av e b ee n rele va n t, it or d er ed a n ew h ea rin g a n d p re p ar at i o n of a n ew d ec is i o n tha ti nc l ud e d c o mprehe ns i v e fi nd i ng s o ff a c t
. On J une 18, 20 10, the IJ hel d a se cond m er i ts hear i ng o n D elgad o’s app li cation f or rel ief

. Dur i ngDe l g ado ’ s 20 10 c an ce l l at i o n h ea r i ng

— th e hear i ng we now r ev i ew

— Del g ado o ffer ed su ppo r ting ev id en c e in th e fo rm of d oc u m e n t at ion an d live te st imo n y . D e l g a d o t e s t i fi e d th a th i s p a r e n t s a n d at l ea s tt wo br o th er s st i l lr es i de i n Mor el o s. D es pi te thi s f ac t, he cl ai med tha th i s f a mi l y wo ul d b e u nab l e t o s t a y with hi s par ents i n M ex i co because hi s par ents do not have th e r es o ur ce s to s uppo r t th em. De l g ado a d m its tha t he ha s not looked i nt o the p ossibil ity ofl ivi ng anyw he re ot h er th an M or elo s , o r livin g w ith an yo n e o th er th an h is parents
. Del gado al so sta ted thati fh e w ere t o m ove to M exi co, hi s f ather, wh o own s a busi ness i n M or el os, w oul d be unabl e t o offer hi m a j ob. Del gado adm i ts thatN o. 11

- 2648 5 he did not look int o the p ossibil ity o f w orking an yw he re besi des hi s f ather ’ s business. In a d d itio n to D elg ad o’s p er c ep tio n th at th er e is a la c k of h ou sin g a n d em p loy m en t o p p or tu n itie s in M or el o s , h e e xp l a i ne d tha tMo r e l o s i s n o ta s a fe p l ace t o l i v e , c i t i nge xcess i v e v i o l e nc e a nd mur de r . De l g a do al so l am ented th e possibi l i ty that hi s daughter s m ay need to ente r the M exica n e du cati on s yst em . H e s tat ed th atthe s ch o o l s ar e no t as g o o d a s th eya r e i n the U nited States, and that the ch il d ren w ou ld h ave d if

fi cul tyt ak i ngc l as se s i n S pan i sh

. G ua d alup e also testified at th e he a ring. H er sister, Dai sy, di d no t te st i fy, b ut G ua dal upe o ffer ed te st i m o ny as to h e rs i s t e r . Gu a da l up e i s i n ho no r s c l a s s e s , r ec eiv es A s a n d B s in sc h oo l, an d as p i r e s to w or k in the m edicalfi el d. Dais y a l so re cei ves A s a nd Bs. Both daught e r s ha v e b e e n t o M e xi c o o n v a c a t i o n, a nd bo th preferthe U ni ted S tat es to M exi co. Guad al up e ca n speak, r ea d and w ri te i n Spani sh. Dai sy can spea k Spani sh eno ugh to com m u n i cate with he r f ather ( w ho do e s n o ts pe a kEn g l i s h) , b uts he c a nn o tr e a d o r w ri te i n Spani sh. A ccord ing t o Gu adal up e a nd Del gado, a m ove to M ex i co w oul d be chal l engi ng f orbo th daughters , but w ou ld be m uch m or e di ffi cul t for Dais y. Del gado and G uadalu p e m ai ntai ned that Dais y w ou ld h av e a n es p ec ially d ifficu lt t im e, sin c e s h e is old enough to have beco m e accul tura ted by the U n i ted S t a t e s a nd s he c a nn o tr e a d o rwr i t e i n S pa ni s h. Gu a da l up e al so express ed co ncer n re gar ding her col l ege pro spects i n M exi co

— th e ne ar es t uni ve r si ty to M o r el o s i s anho ur6 N o. 11

- 2648

an d a h alf aw ay . Sh e als o d isc u ss ed th e p ot en tia lly p ro h ibiti ve cos ts of a col l ege educati on i n M exi co, an d w h ile Delg ado di d not know wh etherG u ad alupe w oul d be el i gib l e forfi nanci alai d, Gu adal up e be l i eve d that sh e w ou ld n otbe ab le t o re c eiv e a n y fin an c ial h elp fro m the St ate
. Delg ado was uncl earr ega rdi ng wh er e hi s chi l dren w ou ld live if h e w er e d ep or te d . I f th ey d id rem ain in the Unite d Sta tes , theywould need to be supp or te d by the i nc o me o fthe i r mo the ra nd the $5 0 , 0 0 0 tha tDe l g a do has in the bank. Guad al up e di scusse d the poss ibi l i ty ofworking wh i l e in schoo lto hel p supp or t the f am i l y. I fDel gado does getdeport ed, ther e i s a poss ibi l i ty that he woul d r etur n to th e Uni te d S ta te s i n th e fut ure . One ofhi s br othe rs i s a U ni ted S tat es citiz en , and i n 199 9, Delg ado’ s br othe r appli ed f ora vi sa f orDel gado, thus r ai si ng the chances thatDel gado w oul d not be separ ate d fr om hi s f am i l y per m anentl y. At the he aring, the IJ t o o ka s emi

- ac ti ve r o l e i n the qu e s t i o ning( a s h e i s p e r mi t t e d t o do u nd e r8 U. S

. C. § 1 229a ( b) ( 1) , wh i ch al l ows the IJ to “inter ro gat e, exam ine, an d cross-exa m ine th e a lien an d any w itness es.”). D uring th e d irect ex am ination of D elgad o, th e IJ in t e rrupted the questi onin g th ree t o f our ti m es to ei ther clarify w ha t w as being said, ask for an ex p an d ed answ er, ori nq u ire as to wh y a cer tain l i ne o fte sti m ony w as re l eva nt
. Fo rexa m pl e, the IJ i nt er r upt ed a l i ne o fque st i o ni ng r e g a r d i n gth e u n d e s i r ab i l i t y o fDe l g a d o ’ s p a r e n t s ’ h o me as a p oten tial reside nc e for D elgad o’s f am il y. I n inte rj ecti ng, the IJ que st i o ne d the r el ev an ce o fthe t es ti m o nyN o. 11

- 2648 7 si nce Del gado coul d choose to live in any num bero f othe r l oca ti ons i n M or el os, o r eve n M exi co gene ra l l y. Th e IJ a l s o c o nd uc t e d hi s o wn e xa mi na t i o n o fDe l g a do once both att or neys had com ple ted the i r question ing. De l g a d o ’ s a t t o r n e y r e q u e s t e d p e r mi s s i o n t o a s kf o l l o wup que st i o ns to th e IJ ’ s ex ami na ti o n o f Del gad o, b ut her re quest was deni ed. S he al so as ke d that b oth of Delg ado’ s d au ghter s pro vi de tes ti m ony i n supp or t o f Delg ado’ s ca ncell ati on r equest, but the IJ o nl y a l l owed one daughter to testi fy. Del gado’ s a tto rneydi d not obj ect. Del g ado f au l ts the IJ ’ s g en er al de m ea no rdur i ng De l g a do ’ s h e a r i ng . He s ug g e s t s tha tthe IJ wa s r ud e and hostil e thro ughout the hear i ng. A s a n exam ple o f the IJ ’ s a l l e g e dl y i na pp r o pr i a t e de mea no r, De l g a do quotes the fol l owing l i n e ofquesti oni ng co nd ucted by th e IJ: Bu tth a t ’ s wh y y o u , a g o o d f a mi l y ma n wh o ’ s c o nce r ne d ab o ut y o ur f ami l y, woul d g o ba ck th er e an d l i ve ther e a s o pp ose d to any o therpl ace i n M exi co, i sn’ t i t? You’ d go to the p l ace that i s the m ostvi ol ent. Y ou ’d ch oose to live i n th at p lace in M ex ico. I sn ’t that ri ght, acc or ding to youracc ount? A t the c on cl usi on o fDel gado’ s 2 010 cancel l ati on he ar i ng, the IJ det er m i ne d tha t Del g ado met th r ee o fthe f o urc r i te r i a to b e el i g ibl e f o rc an ce l l at i o n ofrem o va l, b ut he l d tha tDe l g a do fe l ls ho r to fp r o v i ngtha th i s r em ova l w oul d res ulti n “exce pti onaland extr em el y unusual ha r d s h i p ” t o h i s c h i l d r e n . H e a l s o r u l e d th a tD e l g a do sh o ul d no t be gran te d v o l unt ary de par tu r e, s i nc e he c h o s e n o t t o l e a v e th e c o u n t r y v o l u n t a r i l y o n t he t wo8 N o. 11

- 2648 pri oro ccasi ons that the IJ deni ed Del gado’s cancel l ati on request

— tha ti s , the de ni a l s fr o m whi c h De l g a do a ppe a l e d. J us t a s wi th the IJ ’ s p r e v i o us de ni a l s , De l g a do appeal ed the 2010 r uling to the BIA. Delg ado cla i m ed tha tthe IJ wa s i nc o r r e c ti n hi s a s s e s s men to fthe h a r ds hi p tha tDe l g a do ’ s c hi l dren wou l d f a c e i fDe l g a do w er e depor ted. Del gado al so ar gued that hi s due pro cess r i g ht s were v i o l at ed, g i ve n the IJ ’ s appa r en t bi as a nd th e IJ’s rej ec tio n of ce rt ain e v i d en c e, in c lu d in g t h e t es tim ony ofo ne o fDel gado’ s daughter s. On June 2 0, 20 11 , t h e BIA affi rm ed i n partand vaca ted i n pa r t th e dec i si o n o fthe IJ a fte rde no vo r evi ew. The BI A co nc l ude d tha t th e IJ di d note r ri n h i s as se ss m en t o f th e h a r d s h i p th a t De l g a d o ’ s c h i l d r e n wo u l d f a c e , b ut rul ed that the IJ d id e rr i n denyi ng Del gado’ s abi l i ty to l ea ve th e co unt r y vo l unt ar i l y . M o r e spe ci fi ca l ly, the B I A f o und tha t th e IJ ha d g r an te d De l g ado v o l untary d ep ar tu re i n hi s tw o previ ous rulings, and that i t was an abuse o fdi scr eti on to deny vol untarydepartur e no w ba se d s o l ely o n De l g ado ’ s dec i si o n t o pur su e h is r i g ht to ap p ea l an y d ec isio n m ad e b y t h e IJ. D elg ad o h as p et iti oned thi s co urt to re vi ew t he BI A ’ s dete rm i nati ons, a r guingtha tthe IJ a nd BI A wr o ng l y a s s e s s e d the l eve l ofhar dship tha t Delg ado’ s chi l dren f ace and that D elgad o’s du e proc ess rights w ere viol ated by the IJ. D elgad o therefore requ ests th at w e reverse th e B I A ’s dec i si o n a nd r emand f o rfurtherpr o ce eding s co ns i st en t w ith th at rev er sa l.N o. 11

- 2648 9 I I . Discussi on Del g ado di spu te s th e BI A’s de ci si o n fo rt wo ind ep en den t r eason s. F i r st, he a r g ue s th athe ha s m etthe f o ur cri ter i a nece ssa ryto be c on sid er ed f orcance l l ati on o f re m ova lunder 8 U

. S. C. § 1 229b ( b) ( 1)

. M ore s peci fi cal l y, he contends thathi s chi l dren wil lexper i ence “excepti onal a nd e xt r e mel y u nu s ua lh a r ds hi p” i fh e i s de po r t e d, re gar dle ss o f w hethertheygo with hi m to M exi co or re m ai n i n the U ni ted S tat es. S eco nd , D elgado ar gues th atthe IJ di d no t pr o vi de hi m wi ththe pr o ce ss tha t he w as du e under the F i fth A m endm ent o fth e Const i tuti on of th e U n ite d Sta te s. D elg ad o c laim s t h at th e IJ cle ar ly exhibi ted a bi as aga i nst hi m duri ng hi s ca ncel l ati on he aring, w hich w as evid en t both in th e ton e of th e IJ’ s questi ons and i n the f act that the IJ r ej ect ed proba ti ve ev i den ce tha t woul d ha ve a dva nc ed Del g ado ’ s po si ti o n. The governm en t co nt en ds th atb o tho fDe l g ado ’ s ar g um ents f al lsho rt
. Fi rs t, theym ai n ta in that we do not have j uri sdic ti on t o heara chal l enge to the BI A ’ s deci si on o n the m er i ts ofDel gado’ s r eq u est f orcance l l ati on o f r e mov al, a n d th u s i td o e s n o tma t t e rwh e th e rwe b e l i e v e thatDe l g a do ’ s c hi l dr e n wi l ls uffe re xt r e me ha r dshi p u p on D el gado’ s r em ova lfro m the U ni ted S tat es. N ex t, the g o ve r nm en t ar gu es thatDe l g ado was g i ve n a fulland f ai r hear i ng and a re aso nabl e o pp or tuni ty to p resen t h is c lai m s, an d thu s his d ue proc ess rights w ere no tv i o l a t e d.

A . J uri sdict i on W e r e v i e w que s t i o ns conce r ningo urj ur i s di c t i o n de n ov o. La ra-R uiz v . IN S, 241 F.3d 934, 939 (7th Cir.10 N o. 11

- 2648 2001 ). A p p li cation s for c a nc ell ation of rem oval orders a r e p e r mi t t e d u n d e r 8 U. S

. C

. § 1 2 2 9 b , a p r o v i s i o n o ft he I N A

. A notherI N A pro vi si on

— 8 U. S

. C. § 1 2 5 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( B)

— cl ear l y e stabl i shes that “no cour t sh allhave j uri sdic ti on to r evie w . . . any j ud gm ent r ega rdi ng the gr anti ng o f re l i efunder s ecti on . . . 1 22 9b

. . . o fthi s t i tl e. ” See a lso M ireles v. Go nz a les , 433 F.3d 96 5, 96 8 (7 th C ir. 20 06 ) (“D ec isi ons und er§ 1229 b ar e no t rev i ew abl e bythe federa l j ud i ci ar y. ”)

. W e there f or e l ack j uris d i cti on t o re vi ew D elg ad o’s cla im th at th e IJ an d B IA inc or re c t l y h eld th athi s ch i l dr enwoul d ex p er i en ce e xc ept i o na la nd un

u su al h ar d sh ip if D elg ad o w er e t o m ov e t o M ex ico

. Th e do o r - c l o s i ngp r o v i s i o n f o un d in § 1 2 5 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( B) is, h ow ev e r , s u b je c t t o a n e x c ep tio n fou n d in § 1 2 5 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( D) , wh i c h s t a t e s , “ No thin gins ub p a r a g r a p h ( B) or( C) .

. . shal lbe const rued as prec lu d ing r evi ew o f const i tuti onalcl ai m s o r questi ons ofl aw . . . . ” Thus, w e hav e j uri sdic ti on t o hearany const i tutio n al o r l ega l ch al l en g e Del g ado b r i ng s ag ains t th e BI A’s de ci si o n. A s no ted abo ve, Del gado has br ought a due pro cess c h a l l e ng e a g a i n s tth e IJ a n d B I A’ s d e t e r mi n a t i o n s . We turn no w to tho se ar gum ents.

B . Du e P r o c e s s / S t a t u t o ryP r o c e s s C l a i ms 1. Propr i ety o fD ue Proc ess Ch al l enge i n Can cel l at i on ofRem ova l Pro ceedi ngs Delg ado cl ai m s that the Fi fth A m endm ent pr ovi des h im w ith ce rt ain d u e p ro c es s rig h ts i n rela tio n to h is appl i ca ti o n fo rc an ce l l at i o n o fr emov al

. In s uppo r t, heN o. 11

- 2648 11

re l i es onR eno v. Flo res , a Su p re m e C ou rtca se cle ar ly st a t i ng “ tha t the F i fth Am e nd men t e nt i t l e s a l i e ns to d ue proc ess of l aw i n d ep ortation p roceed ings.” 507 U

. S. 292, 30 6 ( 1993 )

. W hi l e thi s point is u nd oubte dlytr ue, an al i en el i gibl e fordi scr eti onar y r el i efdoes nothave a subst anti ve enti tl em ent, and ther ef or e, ther e i s no l iber ty i nter estatst ake i n a pr oce edi ng wh er e a n alien se eks d isc re tio n ar y re lief. Ka hn v. M uk a sey, 51 7 F

. 3d 5 13, 51 8 ( 7th Ci r . 20 08 )

. Thus , al i en s, do no t ha ve a r i g ht to d ue proce ss i n hear i ngs for d iscret i onar y r el i ef, such a s thos e co nd ucted in response to a § 1 229b appli cati on for ca n c ella tio n of re m ov al. Seeid .; see also Tow n of C astl e R o ck, Co lo . v. Go nz a les , 5 45 U. S

. 748 , 7 57( 2005 ) ( “Ou r cas e s r e c o g ni z e tha ta b e ne fi ti s n o ta p r o t e c t e d e nt i t l em en t if go ve rn m en t o fficia ls m ay gra n t o r d en y it in thei r disc re ti on. ”) ; P o rtillo -R end o n v . Ho lder, 66 2 F

. 3d 815, 81 7 ( 7th Ci r. 20 11) ( “To hav e alibe rty o r proper ty in te re st in s o m e be n efit, a p er so n m u st h av e a legit im at e cl ai m o fe nt i tl emen t, whi chmean s ane nt i tl ement e s t ab l i s h e d b y r u l e ; h o p e f o r a f a v o r ab l e e x e r c i s e o fa dm inistrative discret ion d oes not qu ali fy. ”). Thi s i s no t th e en d o fthe m at te r . In s i tu at i o ns w here peti ti oner s hav e m ade “fl abby const i tuti onal ar gum ents” o fthe sor t found here, we have c onst rued such c l a i ms a s a r g ume nt s “ tha tthe IJ ’ s h e a r i ngv i o l a t ed [ the] st atuto ryand r egul ato rypro vi si ons” appli cabl e t o th e h ea rin g inqu es tio n . Se e, e . g. , Apouvi eps e akoda v. Gonzales , 4 7 5 F

. 3 d 8 8 1 , 8 8 5 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 7 )

. Atfi r s tg l a nc e, th i s m aya ppea r to puto urj ur i sdi ct i o n in que st i o n c o nsi der i ngo ur an al y si s ab o ve , whi chi ndi ca te d tha t o ur j ur i s di c t i o n wa s b a s e d o n the f a c t tha t De l g a do has pre

-12 N o. 11

- 2648
sente d a co nsti tuti onalquestion

. But “[ t] he pro cedural su fficie n c y of a n im m igr at ion h ea rin g i s a leg al q u es tio n,” B o ya niv skyy v . Go nz a les , 450 F .3 d 2 8 6 , 291 (7th C ir. 2006), an d sin c e 8 U .S.C . § 12 52 (a)( 2)(D ) a llow s u s t o re ta in j uri sdic ti on o verany “co nsti tuti onalcl ai m s o r quest i o ns of law ,” D elg ad o’s ch alle n g e to th e s u fficie n c y of h is c a n c e l l a t i o np r o c e e d i n g s i s s a fe l y wi th i n o u rpu r v i e w. W e r evi ew questi ons ofl aw de nov o. Id.

2 . Suf f i c i e nc yo fDe l g a do ’ s C a nc e l l a t i o n P r o c e edi ngs A n al i en apply i ng f orcance l l ati on o fr em ova lhas the s am e s tatutor y pr oce ss prot ect ion s as a n al i en i nv o l ve d i n r emov alproceeding s, whi cha r e l ai d o ut u n d er 8 U .S.C . § 12 29 a; c f

. Po r t i l l o - Re ndon , 6 62 F. 3d at 817 ( sta ti ng tha t pr oce du ra lenti tl em ents f ound i n § 1 229a ap p ly to ali en that ap p li ed f or can cellatio n of rem oval). U nd er§ 1229 a( b )(4) , an a l i en subj ect to a ca ncel l ati on proce edi n g “ shal lhave a re aso nabl e o pp or tuni ty to ex ami ne the e vi den ce a g ains t th e al i en, t o pr es en t evi dence on the a l i en’ s o w n behal f, and to cr oss exam i ne witnes ses pre sente d by the Governm ent. ” See a lso Apou vi eps e akoda , 4 7 5 F

. 3 d a t8 8 5

. “ I n o r de rt o s uc ceed i n chal l engi ng the l ega l i ty of su ch a hear i ng, the al i en m ust s h ow n ot onl y that her‘ re aso nabl e o pp or tuni ty’ w as denie d, but al so that she was prej ud i ced. ” Id. In th e en d, the que st i o n we m us t an swe ri s whethe r, c o nsi deri ng the to tal i ty ofthe ci rcum sta nces, t h e al i en r ec eiv ed a fu ll an d fair op p or tu n ity to be h ea rd

. Id. at 886.N o. 11

- 2648 13 Delg ado o ffer s tw o ar gum ents for wh y hi s ca ncel l ati on pro ceedi ngs fel lsho rto fthe sta nd ar d set by § 1 229a

. F i r st, he a r g ue s th atthe IJ ’ s ag g r es si ve que st i o ni nga nd interru p tions, al ong w ith IJ’ s clear ho s t il ity tow ard Del g ado , b el i ed an y c l ai m s to neu tr al i tya nd de m o nstr ate d a bi as that preve nted Del gado’ s hea rin g fro m being a fair one . Secon d , De lgad o p r o t ests th e IJ’ s deci si on t o excl ud e ce rt ai n proba ti ve evi d en c e i n dir ect vi o l at i o n o f§ 1 22 9a ’ s war ni ng

— th at an al i en sho uld be ab le t o “ p re se n t e vid en c e o n [h is] ow n be h alf.”

a. Bi as A n IJ ’ s deci si on t o questio n a n a l i en i n a r em ova lo r cancel l ati on proce ed i ng i s no t di sposi ti ve evi dence of b ia s . In d ee d , un d er § 12 29 a, an im m igr at ion j u d ge is per m i tt ed to “ i nt er r o g at e, e xa m i ne , a nd cro ss - ex ami ne th e ali en a n d a n y w itness es.” 8 U

. S. C

. § 1229a(b)(1). M or eov er, an i m m i gr ati on j u d ge has “ bro ad dis cre ti on to co ntro lthe m anner ofi nter ro gat i on in or der t o asce rt ai n the tru th

. ” Iliev v . I. N .S., 127 F. 3d 638, 64 3 ( 7th C ir . 1 997). L im iti ng an IJ ’s discretion is the ap p li can t’s rig h t t o a fu ll an d fair op p or tu n ity to be h ea rd

. See Apouvi eps e akoda , 475 F

. 3d at 885. A s t o the m an n er i n w hi ch an IJ questi ons an appli cant, w e hav e r outi nel y hel d that we w ou ld preferIJ s t o ex h ibita p p ro p ria te d ec or u m d u rin g re m ov al or ca n c ell ati on pro ceedi ngs, bu t i m pati ence, i napp ro pri ate ness, an d e ve n h os tilit y t ow ar d ap p lica n ts d o n otge n er ally ri se to such a l eve las to pre vent an appli can t fro m r ec e ivin g a fu ll an d fair h ea rin g. Apouvi eps e akoda , 475 F

. 3d14 N o. 11

- 2648
at 88 5-8 6; Firish ch a kv . H o l d er, 636 F.3d 305 , 311 (7th C ir. 20 1 1 )

. Th e c l o s e s t c a s e s a r e tho s e “ i n whi c h the questi oni ng be com es so ag gr ess i ve that i t fra zzl es appli cants and nit

- pick s inconsi ste nci es unti la p eti ti oner[ beco m es] so dist ra ught that th e i m m i gr ati on j ud ge [ i s] f or ced to p au se th e proc eed ings to give the [non -citiz e n] a chance t o col l ect hers el f

. ” Apouvieps e akoda , 475 F. 3d at 886 ( i nter nalquotation m ar ks om i tte d) ( ci ti ng Gida y v . G o nz a les, 434 F.3d 543, 549 (7th Cir. 2006)). I n C a stilho de O liv iera v . Ho lder, w e reason ed th a t a n IJ’ s in ap p ro p ria te an d irre lev a n t q u es tio n s, alo n g w ith h is qu e s t i o nab l e t o ne , di d no t pr e v e nt a pe t i t i o ne r f ro m pu tting o n hi s ca se, but did sugg estthat h e m ay have been i m p erm issibly biased

. 564 F.3d 8 92, 899 ( 7th Cir. 20 09 )

. The IJ i n Cast i l ho int er rup ted an e xpert w i tness wi thi na ppr o pr i at e an d c o nfr o nt at i o na lque st i o ns , i nquir ed i nto seve ra lwitnes ses ’ r el i gi ous b el i ef s ( despi te the f ac t th atthe a l i enwas no t cl ai m i ngr el i g i o us perse cuti on), and aske d w hetherthe al i en was infe rt i l e, or, as the IJ p u t i t, m i ght “ shoo t bl anks. ” Id . W e h eld that the IJ ’ s inapp ro pri ate to ne, fre quent i nter rupti ons, a n d a p p a r e n t f o c u s o n i r r e l e v a n t m a t t e r s l e d t o th e i mpr es si o n tha t the IJ “ en te r ed th e he ar i ngwi thhi s m i nd al re ady m ade up. ” Id

. at89 9- 900. Con ve r se l y, the IJ i n Apouvi eps e akoda was deem ed not to have preve nted a fu l land f ai r hear i ng, despi te the f act that he used a m ock in g tone , “dem onst ra ted i nt emper an ce , ” an d m ayha ve “ as k ed a m aj or i tyo fthe questi ons” at the a pp l i cant’ s hea ring. 475 F

. 3d at 886- 87. I n Apouvi eps e akoda w e em p ha sized the fact th at an IJ’sN o. 11

- 2648 15 i nter rupti on o fte sti m ony i s no t inapp ro priat e as l ong as it i s ai m ed atf o cus i ngthe he ar i ng, e xc l udi ngi r r el ev an t m ate ri al, and ensur e cl ar i ty i n an appl i cant’ s a nsw er s. Id. at 877. W e furtherhi ghl i ghted th at the IJ defer re d to the a pp l i cant’ s co unselto di re ct the to pics o fdi scussi on and gave appli cant’ s co u n sel m ult i ple o pp or tuni ti es to q u es tio n th e a p p lica n t. Id. at8 87

- 88

. S i m i l ar l y, i n Barradas v. Ho lderwe determi ne d tha t anIJ ’ s i nt erj ec ti o ns a nd questi oni ng o fthe ap pli cant were noti napp ro pri ate , g i ve n tha t the i nt erj ec ti o ns wer e ai m ed atc l ar i fi ca ti o n, the interj ecti ons did notco ncer n i rr el evant o r i napp ro pr i at e m at te r s, a nd the que st i o ni ngo cc ur r ed aft erthe gov er nm ent had a chance t o question the appli cant. 582 F.3d 754, 767 (7th Cir. 2009). Tur ni ngt o the c as e atha nd, the IJ ’ s i nt er r upt i o ns and questi oni ng di d n ot r i se to the l eve lo ftho se s e e n i n C a stilho

. The IJ ’ s s ubstanti ve i nter rupti ons of Delg ado’ s t est i m ony i ncl ud ed a quest i on about w h et her Delg ado had pai d a bond or dered by the cour t, a questi on att em pti ng to cl ar i fy w hether Delg ado w as re fer rin g to h is h om e in C h i c a g o or h is p ot en tia l fu tu re h om e in M ex ico, and an att em p t to de term ine th e im p ort of a l i ne ofquesti oni ng i nvol vi ng the l i vi ng co nd i ti ons at D elgad o’s paren ts’ hom e. A llof th ese q ue s t io ns are c lea r l y r ele va n t, u n like th e q u es tio n s a sk ed by th e IJ in Cast i l ho

. Fur ther, any h ost i l i ty, i m pati ence, o r rudeness exhibi ted by the IJ w as si gni fi cantl y l ess than the rud eness ex hibi te d i n Apouvi eps e akoda , a nd y etwe dee m ed th e he ar ing i n Apouvi eps e akoda to be fu ll an d fair. In A pouv i eps e akoda , f or i nstance , w e obs er ved that the IJ m ock ed th e appli cant r ega rdi ng a cul tura ldi ffer ence16 N o. 11

- 2648 between the U ni ted Stat es and her hom e in A fri ca. 475 F

. 3d at 88 6-8 7. T h e m os t t h at ca n be sa id ab ou t t h e IJ in t h is case i s that h e m igh t hav e a pp ear ed sar cast i c wh en questi oni ng wh y Del gado w oul d choos e t o l i ve i n M or el os in st ea d of a s aferparto fM exi co, and that the IJ was perturbed by Delg ado’ s lack ofev i denti ar y s up portf or hi s be l i eftha t th er e ar e no j o bs i n Mor el o s. Any o fthe i nqui r i es o n the pa r t o f th e IJ c anno t be l ab el ed as ha ving p reven ted De lgad o fr om hav ing a reason a ble opp ortu ni tyt o pr es en t hi s ca se , a nd do n ot suppo r t th e co nte n tio n th at th e IJ h arb or ed an y b ias to w ar d D elg ad o.
b. I nab i l i ty t o Pr esentEvi den ce A n i mm i g r a t i o n j ud g e h a s the a utho r i t y t o n a r ro w the focu s o fa hear i ng and excl ud e i rr el evantev i dence, but he m ay no t “b ar co m pl et e ch unk s o f o ral testi m o ny that w oul d supp or t the appli cant’ s cl ai m . ” B a rrad a s, 582 F. 3d at 766 ( ci ti ng Ke r c i k u v . IN S, 314 F. 3d 913, 91 8 ( 7th C ir. 2003)). W he n ex clud ed testim ony goes to the h eart ofa peti ti oner ’ s cl ai m s, and m ay have had the pot enti al to c ha ng e th e o ut come o fthe he ar i ng, we m us t fi nd th at th e pe titi one r did not h ave a m ean ingful opp ortu n ity to be h ea rd

. See R o drig u e z G a l icia v. G o nz a les , 42 2 F.3d 529 , 540 (7th C ir. 2005). I n Z o lo tuk hin v. G o nz a les , the IJ p re vented seve ra lke y w i tness es

— in c lu d in g p et itio n er ’s g ra n d m ot h er , pe titioner’s m oth er, p etitioner him self, and an ex p ert

— fr o m te st i fy i ngabo utthe pe r se cut i o n s uffer ed bythe p et itio n er ’s fa m ily an d oth er s s im ilar ly sit u a t e d in p et iti o ne r ’ s ho m e co unt r y, o n the g r o unds tha t pas t per se cu-N o. 11

- 2648 17 tion is u nim p ortan t. 417 F.3d 1073 , 1 075-76 (9th Cir. 2005). T h e N in th C irc u it h eld th at t h is t es tim on y c ou ld have shown thatp et itioner had a well

- f ounded fearo f fu tu re p er se c u tio n, an d th u s a lte r e d t h e res u lt of h is he aring, an d thu s foun d a viol a t io n of p etitioner’s ri gh ts
. Id. at 10 76 -77 . Th e IJ als o in d ica te d th at sh e d id no t be l i ev e th e pet i ti o ne r ’ s st o r y, be f o r e hi s hea r i ng ev en be ga n . Id

. at10 75. I n Apouvi eps e akoda , con ve rs ely , th e IJ’ s d e n ial of c er ta in w i tness es’ pro posed t esti m ony w as not f ound to b e a vi ol ati on o fthe petition er ’ s pro ceduralr i ghts. 475 F

. 3d at 88 9. In that case , the IJ decl i ned to hearthe tes tim ony ofthe peti ti oner ’ s daughter

— w h i ch w oul d have i ncl ud ed i nfo rm ati on about the abuse that p etit i oner su ffered i n h e r hom e cou nt ry

— and the t est i m ony ofan experto n the pol i ti cs o fpeti ti oner ’ s h om e co untry. Id

. at 888. The IJ instea d accep ted an off e r o f p roof. W e r eas oned that“[ t] he ty pica lco ntex t in wh i ch w e hav e fou n d f aul t with an IJ ’ s deci si on t o deny cor ro bor ating witne ss tes ti m ony has a ri sen whe re an IJ has ‘m ad e u p h i s m in d ab ou t t h e c as e a n d w as su b se q u en tly unwi l l i ngt o l i st ent o a ny t es ti m o ny, ’ de spi te the di l i g en t i ns i st ence o fthe a l i en ’ s co uns eltha t th e te st i m o ny speaks di re ctl y t o the ques tio n s the IJ i s s up posed to ev alu ate i n m aking the deci si on. ” Id

. a t8 8 8

- 8 9 ( q u o t i ng Kercik u v . IN S, 314 F. 3d 9 13, 91 8 ( 7th Ci r. 20 02) )

. S i nce th e pe titi one r’s coun sel m ad e no object io n to the IJ ’s r efus alt o he arthe t wo wi tn es ses’ te sti m o ny a nd the peti ti onerr ecei ved pl enty ofti m e a nd op p or tuni ty to a r gue h e rcase g e ne r a l l y, we h e l d tha ts he r e c e i v e d a re as on able opportunity t o be he ar d, despit e herl ess th an p er fec t h ea rin g. Id

. at88 9.18 N o. 11

- 2648 Delg ado chal l enges two de c isions bythe IJ to r est ri ct t h e ev id en c e h e w as p er m itt ed to p re se n t. Firs t, h e c h all enges the IJ ’ s d ec isio n notto al l ow any new evi dence to be a dm i tte d at Del gado’ s 2 007 hear i ng. T h is err orwas c u r e d wh e n De l g a d o r e c e i v e d a fu l l h e a r i n g i n 2 0 1 0, a nd thus co uld nothave prej ud i ced Del gado. Apouv i eps e akoda , 475 F. 3d at 885. D elg ad o al so chal l enges the IJ ’ s deci si on to perm i t o nl y o ne o fDel gad o’s daughters , Guad alup e, to te st ify. A s w ith th e e x c lu sio n s o f te st im on y in Ap ouvi eps e akoda , Del gado’ s a tto rney s di d not obj ect to th e IJ’ s d ecision to pe rm it only one da ug ht er to testify inth is c as e. Fu rt h er , un l ike th e d ec isio n s m ad e b y t h e IJ i n Z olotukhin , the deci si o n t o e xc l ude Da i sy ’ s te st i m o ny do e s n o ts ug g e s ttha tthe IJ i n thi s case a l r e a dyma de u p h is m in d . Th e e x c lu sio n of D ais y’s te s t i m on y is bett erexpl ai ned b y a desi re to f ocus the t est i m ony provi ded and cut o ut extr aneou s, cum ula ti ve, o r unnecessar y e vi dence. Thi s co ncl usion is bol ste re d by the f act th at bo t h D elg ad o a n d h is d au gh te r G u ad alu p e t es tifi ed as to the l i kel y e ffects that Del gado’ s depor tat i on w ou ld h ave on Da isy, as w ellas the IJ ’s stated de sire to avo i d unn eces sar y s tr ess and pre ss u re on chi l dren that m ust t est i fy in proc eedi ngs o fthi s nature. Eve n i fDa i sy ’ s te sti m o ny was i na ppr o pr i at ely e xcl u d ed , Del gado has no t s how n that he was prej ud i ced bythi s ex cl us i o n. H e ha s no t su g g es te d a ny t es ti m o ny that she would have pro vi ded thatwas not al re ady r eveal ed thro ugh the tes ti m ony ofDel gado and G uadalupe. T h e re c or d refle c ts th at D elg ad o a p p ea rs to be a re sp on sible i nd ivi d ua l w ith a strong sens e of fam il y and w ork et h ic w h o h as live d a p ea c e fu l an d p ro d u c tiv e life inN o. 11

- 2648 19 th e Uni te d S ta te s f o ro ve r2 0 y ea r s. Howev er, c o nsi der i ngthe t o ta l i tyo fthe c i r cumst an ce s su rrounding hi s ca ncel l ati on hea rin g, it cannot be s ai d that he f ai l ed to r ec ei ve a ful la nd f ai rhe ar i ng in w hich he ha d the re aso nabl e o pp or tuni ty to prese nt hi s ca se.

I I I . Concl usio n Forthe f or ego i n g r eas ons, we D EN YDel gado’ s peti ti on f o rr e v i e w.

3- 22- 12