# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
Nos . 16 -1 29 9/ 16 -2 12 8

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
Dor is Eli zab et h C as tro -Varg as

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Peti ti on er

v.

Je ffer so n B . Ses si on s, II I, Att or ne y Gene ral of t he Uni te d S ta te s 1

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Resp on de nt

__ __ __ __ __ __
Pet it io ns for Rev ie w of Ord ers of t he Bo ard of I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s

__ __ __ __ __ __ Su bm it te d: Marc h 2 4, 2 01 7 Fi le d: Apri l 4 , 20 17 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re RI LEY, A RNOLD, and COLLOTON, Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __
PER CURI AM.

Je ffer so n B. Ses si on s, III ha s be en ap po in te d to se rv e as Att or ne y Gen eral of 1 th e Uni te d St at es , an d is su bs ti tu te d a s res po nd en t pu rs ua nt to Fed eral Ru le of App el la te Pro ced ur e 4 3( c).Dor is Cas tro -Varg as , a ci ti zen of El Sal va do r, pe ti t i o n s f or rev ie w of two de ci si on s o f th e Bo ard of I m m ig rat io n Ap pe al s (B IA). W e d en y th e p et it io ns

. 2

At he r co un se le d he ari n g be fo re an im m ig rat io n jud ge (IJ ), Cas tro -Varg as wit hd rew he r ap pl ic at io n fo r im m ig rat io n rel ie f, in di cat in g th at , pu rs ua nt t o an ag reem en t wit h th e Dep art m en t of Hom el an d Secu rit y (DHS), sh e wou l d i n s t ead

acce pt pr e-co nc lu si on vo lu nt ary de pa rtu re an d waiv e ap pe a l

. A f te r care fu ll y qu es ti on in g Cas tro -Varg as an d he r co un se l reg ard in g he r de ci si on , th e IJ al lo wed he r to wit hd raw he r ap pl ic at io n an d gr an te d he r pr e-co nc lu si on vo lu nt ary de p a r t u r e

. Cas tr o

- V a r g a s f

ai le d to de pa rt, an d in st ead fil ed a pr o se ap pe al wit h th e BIA,
arg ui ng , as rel ev an t, th at he r ap pe al waiv er was no t kn owi ng an d vo lu nt ary. The BIA fo un d th e ap pe al waiv er was va li d an d di sm is se d he r ap pe al ; he r pe ti ti on fo r rev ie w of th is or de r is th e su bjec t of No. 16 -1 29 9. The BIA de ni ed Cas tro -Varg as ’s

su bs eq ue nt m ot io n to reco ns id er it s di sm is sa l; he r pe ti ti on fo r rev ie w of th is or de r is th e su bjec t o f No. 1 6- 21 28

.

In th is co ur t, Cas tro -Varg as arg ue s (1 ) th e BIA en ga ge d in pr oh ib it ed f a ct

fin di ng , an d vi ol at ed it s own ru le s, whe n it de te rm in ed th e m eri ts of he r ch al le ng e to th e waiv er’s va li di ty, in st ead of rem an di ng th e m at te r to th e IJ ; (2 ) th e BIA’s waiv er fin di ng vi ol at ed he r du e pr oc es s rig ht to be m ean in gf ul ly he ard
, be cau se th e BIA di d

Bec au se Cas tro -Varg as rai se s th e co ns ti tu ti on al cl ai m s th at he r ap pe al waiv er 2

was no t vo lu nt ary an d th at th e BIA’s waiv er fin di ng vi ol at ed he r du e pr oc e s s rig ht to be m ean in gf

ul ly he ard
, we ha ve juri sd ic ti on

. See 8 U.S.C. § 1 2 5 2 (a)( 2) (D) (d ecl a r i n g t h at a rev ie w of co ns ti tu ti on al cl ai m s or qu es ti on s of la w rai se d in a pe ti ti on is no t pr ecl ud ed ); Uni te d St at es v. Men do z a

- Lo p e z , 48 1 U.S. 82 8, 83 9- 40 (1 98 7) (h ol di ng , if an ap pe al waiv er i s no t co ns id ered or in te ll ig en t, an al ie n’s

rem ov al pr oc eed in g vi ol at es du e pr oc es s) ; Tun v. Gon zal es , 48 5 F.3 d 10 14 , 10 25 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ) (s ta ti ng th at Due Pro ces s Cl au se en ti tl es im m ig ran t t o a f ai r rem ov al he ari ng whe re sh e m ay “ fai rly pr es en t e v i d e n c e , of fer arg um en ts , an d de ve lo p th e
reco rd ”).

-2

-no t add res s her ass ert io ns th at sh e was co erce d i nt o a ccep ti ng th e waiv er by DHS’s

co nd uc t; an d (3 ) he r ap pe al waiv er was no t k no win g a nd vo lu nt ary.

Fi rs t, th e BIA ha d au th or it y to de te rm in e whe th er th e ap pe al waiv er was va li d. See In re Pat in o, 23 I. & N. Dec. 74 , 76 (BIA 20 01 ) (ap pe al -wai ve r va li di ty m ay be ch al le ng ed by ap pe al di rect ly to BIA). Seco nd
, Cas tro -Varg as ha s no t de m on st rat ed
t h a t t h e BIA vi ol at ed he r du e pr oc es s rig ht s, as th e reco rd sh ows th at th e B I A

co ns id ered an d reject ed he r al le ga ti on s of co erci on

. See Lop ez v. Hein au er, 33 2 F.3 d 50 7, 51 2- 13 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ) (ex pl ai ni ng to es ta bl is h du e pr oc es s vi ol at io n , an al ie n

m us t de m on st rat e bo th fu nd am en ta l pr oc ed ur al erro r an d res ul ti ng pr ejud ic e). Thi rd
, th e reco rd sh ows th at th e BIA w as co rrec t in it s det erm in at io n th at Cas tro -Varg as ’s
ap pe al waiv er was kn owi ng an d vo lu nt ary. See Mal on ga v. Hol de r, 62 1 F. 3 d 75 7, 76 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (s ta ti ng ad m in is tra ti ve fin di ng s of fact are rev ie wed un de r de fere nt ia l su bs ta nt ia l-e vi de nc e st an da rd ); cf. U n i t ed St at es v. Hol lo way , 1 28 F.3 d 12 54 , 12 56 (8 th Cir . 19 97 ) (h ol di ng th at whet he r waiv er is kn owi ng an d in te ll ig en t is a qu es ti on of f

act ).

W e fu rth er co nc lu d e th e BIA di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in de nyin g Cas tro

Varg as ’s m ot io n fo r rec on si de rat io n. Se e St rat o v . As hc ro ft, 38 8 F.3 d 65 1, 65 4- 55 (8 th Cir . 20 04 ). The p et it io ns for rev ie w are d en ie d.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-3

-