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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 7- 20 44

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Carl os Cab al le ro -Ma rti ne z

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

v.

W il li am P. Barr, At to rn ey

Gene ral of t he Uni te d S ta te s

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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 8- 11 98

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Carl os Cab al le ro -Ma rti ne z

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

v.

W il li am P. Barr, At to rn ey

Gene ral of t he Uni te d S ta te s

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

__ __ __ __ __ __
Pet it io n fo r Rev ie w of a n Ord er o f th e Bo ard of I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s

__ __ __ __ __ __Su bm it te d: Decem be r 11 , 20 18 Fi le d: Apri l 3 , 20 19

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re SM ITH, Chi ef J ud ge , W OLLMAN and GRASZ, Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

SMI TH, Chi ef J ud ge

.

Carl os Cab al le ro -Ma rti ne z p et it io ns for rev ie w of two or de rs fro m th e Bo ard of Im m ig rat io n App eal s (BIA). The fir st or de r de ni ed hi s m ot io n to ad m in is tra ti ve ly cl os e or rem an d to th e im m ig rat io n jud ge an d th e se co nd or de r de ni ed hi s m ot io n to

reo pe n an d reco ns id er th e fir st de ni al

. W e gr an t th e pe ti ti on fo r rev ie w an d affi rm in

pa rt a nd rem an d i n p art

.

I. Bac kg ro un d
A na ti ve an d ci ti zen of Mex ic o, Cab al le ro -Ma rti ne z en te red th e Uni te d St at es il le ga ll y in 20 00 . He has fou r ch il dr en , th ree o f who m are Un it ed Sta te s ci ti zen s.

In Sep te m

be r 20 1 1
, t h e Dep art m en t of Hom el an d Secu rit y (DHS) in it ia te d

rem ov al pr oc eed in gs ag ai ns t Cab al le ro -Ma rti ne z. At hi s rem ov al he ari ng , Cab al le ro -Ma rti ne z ad m it te d to be in g in th e Uni te d St at es i l l e ga ll y

. Howev er, he

req ue st ed can cel la ti on of r em ov al un de r 8 U.S.C . § 12 29 b. Se ct io n 1 22 9b (b )(1 )(D) al lo ws fo r can cel la ti on of rem ov al if th e “ rem ov al wou ld res ul t in ex cep ti on al an d

ex tre m el y un us ua l ha rd sh ip to th e al ie n’s sp ou se , pa ren t, or ch il d, who is a ci ti zen of th e Uni te d St at es or an al ie n la wfu ll y ad m it te d fo r pe rm an en t res id en ce.” Cab al le ro -Ma rti ne z cl a im ed hi s ch il dr en wou ld su ffer “ ex cep ti on al an d ex tre m el y

un us ua l h ard sh ip ” if

he were re m ov ed

.

Im m ig rat io n Ju dg e (IJ ) Pau la Dav is co nd uc te d Cab al le ro -Ma rti ne z’s rem ov al
h e a r i ng

. Howev er, IJ Dav is ret ire d be fo re is su in g a de ci si on ; th e cas e was t h e n

-2

-as si gn ed to IJ G l e n B ak er. IJ Bak er rev ie wed th e pr oc eed in gs an d IJ Dav is ’s dr aft

de ci si on , an d he ad op te d “ th e reas on in g an d co nc lu si on s th erei n.” Pet ’r’ s Add

. at 20

.

In a Feb ru ary 20 16 or de r, IJ Bak er fo un d Cab al le r o -Ma rti ne z’s “ ch il dr en [were ] go od st ud en ts in sc ho ol an d [d id ] no t ha ve an y le arn in g pr ob le m s or o t he r

m en ta l he al th pr ob le m s.” Id

. at 1 8

. H e no te d th at “ [t]he pr in ci pa l ha rd sh ip fact or id en ti fie d by [Cab al le ro -Ma rti ne z] is di ffi cu lt y in fin di ng wor k in hi s ho m et own an d th at he wou ld st ru gg le [to ] fin d a pl ace fo r hi s fam il y to li ve .” Id

. Tho ug h th e IJ fo un d Cab al le ro -Ma rti ne z’s ha rd sh ip te st im on y cred ib le
, h e u lt im at el y he ld th at Cab al le ro -Ma rti ne z ha d “ no t pr ov id ed ev id en ce to es ta bl is h th at hi s qu al ifyin g rel at iv es wou ld su ffer ha rd sh ip th at is su bs t a n t ia ll y di ffer en t fro m , or be y on d th at , whi ch wou ld no rm al ly be ex pe ct ed to res ul t from de po rta ti on of an al ie n with cl os e fam il y m em be rs in th e Uni te d S ta te s.” Id

. at 19

.

In Mar ch 20 16
, Cab al le ro -Ma rti ne z ap pe al ed IJ Bak er’s or de r to th e BIA. He
ag ai n arg ue d hi s ch il dr en wou ld su ffer “ ex cep ti on al an d ex tre m el y un us ua l ha rd sh ip ” if he ret ur ne d to Mex ic o; he al so arg ue d th at , by al lo win g a jud ge who ha d no t be en
pr es en t at hi s ca n c e ll at io n he ari ng to is su e a de ci si on in hi s cas e, th e im m ig rat io n

c o ur t ha d vi ol at ed hi s du e pr oc es s rig ht s as well as th e Im m ig rat io n a n d
Natu ral iz at io n Act (INA) an d i ts im pl em en ti ng reg ul at io ns

.

W hi le th e ap pe al was st il l pen di ng , Cab al le ro -Ma rti ne z be cam e th e vi ct im of

a cri m in al as sa ul t. Bas ed on th i s d ev el op m en t, Cab al le ro -Ma rti ne z ap pl ie d to th e Uni te d St at es Ci ti zen sh ip an d N a t u ral iz at io n Serv ic es (USCIS ) fo r a U Vis a. The
U Vis a (Fo rm I-9 18 ) is a type of no n- im m ig ran t vi sa av ai la bl e to cri m e vi ct im s who

as si st la w en fo rcem en t. In Nov em be r 20 16
, Cab al le ro -Ma rti ne z fil ed a m ot io n wit h th e BIA to rem an d fo r a co nt in ua nc e, or , in th e al te rn at iv e, fo r ad m in is tra ti ve cl os ur e of rem ov al pr oc e e d i n g s, pe nd in g ad jud ic at io n of hi s U Vis a pe ti ti on

. Cab al le ro -Ma rti ne z al so co nt en de d th e BIA sh ou ld rem an d to al lo w th e IJ to co ns id er ad di ti on al ha rd sh ip ev id en ce, cl ai m in g hi s ch il dr en ha d be gu n pe rfo rm in g po or ly in

-3

-sc ho ol

. DHS op po se d th e m ot io n. USCIS di d no t is su e a F o r m I-7 97 Not ic e of

Acti on —i .e. a fil in g rece ip t fo r Cab al le ro -Ma rti ne z’s U V i s a pe ti ti on —u nt il
Decem be r 20 16 , aft er h e fi le d h is m ot io n t o re m an d.

The BIA de ni ed Cab al le ro -Ma rti ne z’s m ot io n to rem a nd or ad m in is tra ti ve ly cl os e in Apr il 20 17 (“ th e Apr il or de r”). The Apr il or de r be ga n by fin di ng IJ Bak er’s de ci si on was ne it he r su bs ta nt iv el y no r pr oc ed u r a l ly un so un d, ci ti ng reg ul at io ns
pe rm it ti ng th e us e of su bs ti tu te IJ s. The B I A th en fo un d Cab al le ro -Ma rti ne z’s ad di ti on al ha rd sh ip ev id en ce was un li ke ly t o al te r th e o ut co m e o f hi s ca se an d th us d e c l i n e d to rem an d. The BIA al so de cl in ed to ad m in is tra ti ve ly cl os e or rem an d

pe nd in g th e U Vis a pe ti ti on ’s ad jud ic at io n, ex pla ini ng tha t Ca ba lle ro -Marti ne z “ ha [d ]

no t pu t fo rward an ad eq ua te ba si s t o te m po rari ly rem ov e hi s cas e fro m th e Bo ard ’s do ck et or , if rem an de d, fro m th e Im m ig rat io n Ju dg e’s act iv e cal en da r.” Id

. at 9. The
BIA no te d in a fo ot no te th at Cab al le ro -Ma rti ne z ha d no t pr ov id ed ev id en ce, su ch as

a “ Not ic e of Acti on ,” th at hi s ap pl ic at io n ha d be en rece iv ed by USCIS

. The BIA al so

ex pl ai ne d th at “ [t]he reg ul at io ns pr ov id e ex cl us iv e ju r is di ct io n ov er [U Vis a]

ap pl ic at io ns to th e DHS an d al so sp eci fic al ly ad dr es s U [V]isa ‘pet it io ne rs ’ wit h fin al

or de rs of rem ov al

. The fil in g of th e ap pl ic at io n ha s no effe ct on th e Gov ern m en t’s

au th or it y to ex ecu te a fin al or de r

. . . .” Id

. (in te rn al ci ta ti on om it te d) . The o rd er d id

no t sp eci fy whe th er it was de nyin g Cab al le ro -Ma rti ne z’s req ue st on juri sd ic ti on al or

ev id en ti ary gr ou nd s.

Afte r rece iv in g a fil in g rece ip t fr o m USCIS
, Cab al le ro -Ma rti ne z m ov ed th e BIA to reo pe n an d reco ns id er hi s cas e in May 20 17

. The BIA de ni ed hi s req ue st fo r

reco ns id erat io n i n Decem be r 20 17 (“ th e Decem be r or de r”), ex pl ai ni ng th at Cab al le ro -Ma rti ne z’s “ m ot io n rel ie s on ev id en ce th at he su bm it te d on ap pe al an d by

m ot io n

. ” Id

. at 3. The BIA al so de cl in ed to reo pe n, rei te rat in g th at th e ha rd sh ip

ev id en ce pr es en te d as pa rt of hi s Nov em be r 20 16 m ot io n was no t su ffi ci en t to ch an ge th e ou tc om e of th e pr oc eed in gs

. F i n a l l y , th e BIA reaf fir m ed it s refu sa l to ad m in is tra ti ve ly cl os e pr oc eed in gs “ ba se d on [Cab al lero -Ma rti ne z’s] in te nt to pu rs ue

-4

-a U vi sa ap pl ic at io n.” Id

. The BIA ex pl ai ne d t ha t i n t he Apri l o rd er, “ we no te d t ha t

[Cab al le ro -Ma rti ne z] pu rp or te d th at he m ai le d th e U [V]isa ap pl ic at io n to USCIS bu t he di d no t pr ov id e ev id en ce th at th e ap pl ic at io n was rece iv ed
, su ch as by a Not ic e of Acti on (Fo rm I-7 97 ). W hi le [Cab al le ro -Ma rti ne z] ha s no w in cl ud ed rece ip t of hi s [U Vis a] app li cat io n, t hi s d oe s n ot alt er t he reas on s fo r ou r de ni al of h is req ue st fo r ad m in is tra ti ve clo su re.” Id

. at 3– 4.

Cab al le ro -Ma rti ne z no w pe ti ti on s th is co ur t fo r rev ie w of bo th th e BIA’s Apr il

an d Decem

be r or de rs

. Cab al l e r o

- Mar ti ne z arg ue s th e BIA’s Apr il or de r fai le d to ad dr e s s whe th er th e us e of a su bs ti tu te IJ vi ol at ed th e INA or it s im pl em en ti ng
reg ul at io ns

. He al so arg ue s th e BIA erre d in it s Apr il or de r by ap pl y in g th e in co rrec t
st an da rd to hi s m ot io n to rem an d fo r co ns id erat io n of ad di ti on al ha rd sh ip e vi de nc e

an d by de nyin g hi s m ot io n to rem an d for a co nt in ua nc e pe nd in g th e ad jud ic at io n of
hi s U Vis a p et it io n. Ad di ti on al ly, he arg ue s th e BIA erred in it s Dec em be r or de r by de cl in in g to reo pe n an d reco ns id er hi s cas e aft er he p r o v i d e d pr oo f of hi s U Vi sa ’s fil in g.

II. Dis cu ss io n A. Use of a S ub st it ut e IJ Cab al le ro -Ma rti ne z arg ue s th e BIA fai le d to ad dr es s whe th er us in g a su bs ti tu te IJ vi ol at ed th e INA or

it s i m pl em en ti ng reg ul at io ns in it s Ap ril ord er; he cla im s t he
BIA ex cl us iv el y ad dr es se d hi s du e pr oc es s arg um en t. W e di sa gr ee a n d affi rm th e BIA’s d eci si on to all ow t he us e o f th e su bs ti tu te IJ.

W e ha ve pr ev io us ly up he ld th e us e of su bs ti tu te IJ s in im m ig rat io n cas es

. Se e Nj or og e v. Se ss io ns , 70 9 F. App ’x 38 0, 38 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 17 ) (p er cu ria m ). In Nj or og e , th e IJ who co nd uc te d th e pe ti ti on er’s rem ov al he ari ng ret ire d b e fo re is su in g a de ci si on , so th e de ci si on was is su ed by a su bs ti tu te IJ

. Id

. at 38 0. Upo n rev ie win g th e

ev id en ce, th e su bs ti tu te IJ de te rm in ed th e pe ti ti on er was no t cred ib le an d de ni ed hi s

as y lu m cl ai m

. Id

. On ap pe al fro m a BIA or de r s u s t a in in g th e su bs ti tu te IJ ’s de ni al
,

-5

-pe ti ti on er co nt en de d “ tha t se ve ra l re gul at or y an d sta tutor y req ui rem en ts were vi ol at ed by reas on of th e se co nd I J ’s c red ib il it y de te rm in at io ns m ad e in th e ab se nc e of an
op po rtu ni ty to ob se rv e [th e pe ti ti on er’s] de m ean or in a face -to -fac e se tt in g.” Id

. at 38 1. Howev er, we he ld th at “ be cau se it was th e BIA’s de ci si on th at co ns ti tu te d th e fi n al rev ie wab le ag en cy act io n, whi ch di d no t rel y on th e cred ib il it y de te rm in at io n whe n it an al y ze d t h e merit s of [th e pe ti ti on er’s] cl ai m s,” th e pe ti ti on er’s rig ht s ha d

no t b een vi ol at ed

. Id

.

Cab al le ro -Ma rti ne z at te m pt s t o d is ti ng ui sh Nj or og e by ar gu in g t he BIA h ere “ex pl ic it ly affi rm ed th e IJ ’s fact ua l fin di ng s,” Pet ’r’ s Br. at 27
, whi le th e B I A i n Nj or og e di d no t rel y on th e IJ ’s cred ib il it y de te rm in at io ns

. Nj or og e , 70 9 F. App ’x at 38 1. Unl ik e in Nj or og e , ho wev er, whe re th e su bs ti tu te IJ di d no t fin d p e t i t i on er

c r e d i b l e, IJ Bak er di d fin d Cab al le ro -Ma rti ne z cred ib le ; ul ti m at el y , th e IJ de ni ed rel ie f no t be cau se Cab al le ro -Ma rti ne z was in si nc ere in al le gi ng ha rd sh ip
, bu t be cau se hi s ha rd sh ip ev id en ce was in su ffi ci en t. Here, Cabal le ro -Ma rti ne z do es no t co nt es t th e IJ ’s cred ib il it y fin di ng s. Rat he r, he co nt es ts th e IJ an d t h e B I A ’s weig hi ng of th e

ev id en ce.

Th e Apr il or de r in di cat es th at th e BIA di d, in fact
, co ns i d e r C a b a l le ro -Ma rti ne z’s ha rd sh ip ev id en ce; it s ul ti m at e ag reem en t wit h th e IJ ’s de te rm in at io n do es no t ren de r it s d e c i si on in va li d. Bec au se th e BIA’s Apr il or de r rel ie d on an un co nt es te d cred ib il it y de te rm in at io n, ou r de ci si on he re do es no t co nf li ct wit h ou r de ci si on in Nj or og e. Rat he r, Nj or og e s u p p o r t s th e pr op os it io n th at im m ig rat io n c ou rts m ay

us e su bs ti tu te IJs

.

Fu rth erm or e, th e us e of a su bs ti tu te IJ is su pp or te d by th e INA’s im pl em en ti ng
reg ul at io ns , whi ch th e BIA ci te d in th e Apr il or de r. The reco rd th eref or e pl ai nl y

co nt rad ic ts Cab al le ro -Ma rti ne z’s cl ai m th at th e BIA di d no t ad dr es s hi s st at ut or y or
reg ul at or y arg um en ts in it s Ap r i l o r d e r. In fact
, th e BIA th or ou gh ly di sc us se d th e

-6

-st at ut or y an d reg ul at or y ba se s fo r us in g a su bs ti tu te IJ

. Sp eci fic al ly, th e BIA ci te d to

an d q uo te d 8 C.F.R. § 12 40 .1(b ) fo r su pp or t. Se ct io n 1 24 0.1 (b ) pr ov id es th at

[i]f an im m ig rat io n ju dg e be co m es un av ai la bl e to co m pl et e hi s or he r du ti es , an ot he r im m ig rat io n jud ge m ay be as si gn ed to co m pl et e th e cas e. The ne w im m ig rat io n jud ge sh al l fam il ia riz e hi m se lf or he rs el f wit h th e
reco rd in th e cas e an d sh al l st at e fo r th e reco rd th at he or s he ha s d on e
so

.

In de nyin g can cel la ti on , IJ Bak er co m pl ie d wit h th e reg ul at io ns

. At th e en d of
hi s or de r, IJ Bak er st at ed th at he ha d rev ie wed th e pr oc eed in gs co nd uc te d by IJ Dav is
,
as well as he r dr af

t d e c i s i o n. Cab al le ro -Ma rti ne z ha s pr es en te d no ev id en ce th at IJ Bak er di d ot he rwis e. Cab al le ro -Ma rti ne z’s at te m pt to cas t do ub t on IJ Bak er’s rev ie w by no ti ng th at hi s or de r is erro ne ou sl y cap ti on ed as an or al de ci si on is li ke wis e

un av ai li ng . The o rd er i s a wri tt en de ci si on reg ard le ss of i ts cap ti on

.

“ [T]he BIA ne ed no t rev is it in de ta il ev ery is su e rai se d co nc ern in g th e or ig in al

or de r.” Ca mac ho v. W

hi ta ker
, 91 0 F.3 d 37 8, 38 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 18 ). Rat he r, “ th e BIA’s ob li ga ti on i s t o ‘con si de r th e is su es rai se d an d an no un ce it s de ci si on in te rm s

su ffi ci en t to en ab le a rev ie win g co ur t to pe rcei ve th at it ha s he ard an d th ou gh t an d no t

mer e l y reac te d.’” Id

. (q uo ti ng Ca mar il lo -Jo se v. Hol de r , 6 76 F.3 d 11 40 , 1 14 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 )). The BIA’s su bs ta nt ia l di sc us si on of th e st at ut or y an d reg ul at or y ba se s fo r

us in g a su bs ti tu te IJ wer e su ffi ci en t fo r ou r rev ie w pu rp os es

.

B. Add it io na l Ha rd

sh ip Evid en ce Cab al le ro -Ma rti ne z al so arg ue s th e BIA erre d in no t rem an di ng hi s cas e to th e IJ aft er he su bm it te d ad di ti on al ha rd sh ip ev id en ce. In bo th it s Apr il an d Decem be r

or de rs , th e BIA de ni ed rem an d on th e ba si s th at th e ad di ti on al ha rd sh ip ev id en ce was

un li ke ly to al te r th e ou tc om e of th e cas e, ci ti ng to Mat te r of Co el ho
, 20 I. & N. Dec.
4 6 4 (BIA 19 92 ). Cab al le ro -Ma rti ne z de ni es Co el ho ’s va li di ty, cl ai m in g th e BIA

-7

-ab ro ga te d Co el ho in In re L-O- G
, 2 1 I

. & N. Dec. 41 3 (BIA 19 96 ).

Cab al le ro -Ma rti ne z arg ue s th at , pe r L-O-G
, th e BIA sh ou ld rem an d whe n pr es en te d wit h po te nt ia l l y w o r t h w h il e ne w ev id en ce. He as ks us to rem an d to th e BIA wit h
in st ru ct io ns to ap pl y

hi s p refe rred , lo wer s ta nd ard

.

“ [T]h e BIA’s in te rp ret at io n of im m ig rat io n la ws an d reg ul at io ns rece iv es

su bs ta nt ia l de fere nc e.” Mui ru ri v. Lyn ch
, 80 3 F.3 d 98 4, 98 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 ). W e ha ve

r e pe at ed ly up he ld th e BIA’s ap pl ic at io n of th e Co el ho li ke ly-to -ch an ge -th e-re s u l t
st an d a r d
, reco gn iz in g th at “ th e BIA wil l rem an d on ly if th e ev id en ce is of su ch a

na tu re th at th e Bo ard is sa ti sf ie d th at if pr oc eed in gs be fo re th e IJ were reo pe ne d, wit h al l th e at te nd an t de la y s, th e ne w evi de nc e wo ul d li kel y ch an ge th e re su lt in th e ca se

. ” Cl if to n v. Hol de r , 59 8 F.3 d 48 6, 49 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (em ph as is ad de d) (q uo ti ng Bert e

v. Ash cr of

t , 39 6 F.3 d 99 3, 99 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 )); se e al so Lee v. Hol de r , 76 5 F.3 d 85 1,
85 5 (8 th Cir . 20 14 ); Var

ga s v. Ho ld

er , 56 7 F .3d 38 7, 3 91 (8t h C ir. 2 00 9)

.

W e sp eci fic al ly de cl in e to in te rp ret L-O-G as ab ro ga ti ng Co e l h o

. S u ch an in te rp ret at io n wo u l d c on fli ct wit h ou r pr io r cas es an d is co nt rary to th e L-O-G de ci si on it se lf. The BIA in L-O-G e x p l i c i t ly di st in gu is he d Co el ho
, ex pl ai ni ng th at whe re, as in Co el ho
, “ th e al ie n ha d al read y ha d an op po rtu ni ty to fu ll y p res en t an d
li ti ga te hi s req ue st fo r di sc ret io na ry rel ie f fro m de po rta ti on

. . . . reo pe ni ng sh ou ld no t be gr an te d un le ss th e al ie n ha d m et th e ‘heav y bu r d e n ’ o f s h owi ng th at th e ne w

ev id en ce p res en te d ‘wou ld li ke ly chan ge th e res ul t i n t he cas e.’” L-O-G , 21 I. & N.
Dec. at 41 9– 20 (q uo ti ng Co el ho
, 2 0 I

. & N. Dec . a t 47 3) . C ab al le ro -Ma rti ne z “ ha d

an op po rtu ni ty to fu ll y pr es en t an d li ti ga te hi s req ue st fo r di sc ret io na ry rel ie f f r o m de po rta ti on ” be fo re th e im m ig rat io n co ur t, so “ reo pe ni ng should not be gr an te d unl es s
t h e al ie n ha [s ] m et ‘the he av y bu rd en ’ of sh owi ng th at th e ne w ev id en ce pr es e n t e d
‘wo ul d li kel

y ch an ge th e re su lt in th e ca se

. ’” Id

. at 42 0 (em ph as is ad de d) (q uo ti ng Co el ho , 20 I. & N. Dec. at 4 73 ).

-8

-Acco rd in gl y , we ho ld th at th e BI A a p p l i ed th e co rrec t le ga l st an da rd in

rev ie win g C ab al le ro -Ma rti ne z’s req ue st to su bm it ad di ti on al ha rd sh ip ev id en ce. 1

C. U Vis a Pet it io n Cab al le ro -Ma rti ne z’s fin al arg um en t is th at th e BIA erre d in it s Apr il or de r by de cl in in g to rem an d or ad m in is tra ti ve ly cl os e hi s cas e to a w a i t r es ol ut io n of hi s U Vis a pe ti ti on

. He al so cl ai m s th e BIA erred in it s Decem be r or de r by de cl in in g to

reo pe n an d reco ns id er hi s cas e aft er he su bm it te d pr oo f th at USCIS ha d rece iv ed hi s
pe ti ti on

. Cab al le ro -Ma rti ne z sp eci fic al ly arg ue s th at t h e BIA erro ne ou sl y de pa rte d fro m it s es ta bl is he d po li cy by de cl in in g to ap pl y “ ‘a reb ut ta bl e pr es um pt io n’ in fav or of de la y in g rem ov al pr oc eed in gs to awai t th e ad jud ic at io n of a U [V]isa ,” Pet ’r’ s Br.

at 20
, as art ic ul at ed in Mat te r of Sa nc he z- So sa , 25 I. & N. Dec. 80 7, 81 5 (BIA 20 12 ).

“ W e rev ie w bo th th e de ni al of a m ot io n to rem an d and th e de ni al of a m ot io n
to reo pe n fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n.” Cl if to n , 59 8 F.3 d at 49 0

. “Th e B I A ab us es it s di sc ret io n if it s de ci si on is wit ho ut rat io na l ex pl an at io n, de pa rts fro m es ta bl is he d

po li ci es , in vi di ou sl y di sc riminat es ag ai ns t a pa rti cu la r race or gr ou p, or whe re th e
ag en cy fai ls to co ns id er al l fact or s pr es en te d by th e al ie n or di st or ts im po rta nt as pe ct s of th e cl ai m .” Id

. at 49 0– 91 (qu ot in g Var

ga s , 56 7 F .3d at 3 91 ).

In Sa n ch ez -S

os a , th e BIA es ta bl is he d a po li cy by art ic ul at in g fact or s an IJ sh ou ld co ns id er in de te rm in in g whe th er to co nt in ue rem ov al pr oc eed in gs pe nd in g th e

To th e ex te nt Cab al le ro -Ma rti ne z ch al le ng es th e B IA’s un de rlyin g 1 de te rm in at io n th at th e ne w e vi de nc e li ke ly wo ul d no t ch an ge th e res ul t of th e cas e, th at de te rm in at io n is un rev ie wab le by th is co ur t. An ap pe ll an t who “ qu es ti on [s ] whe th er th e B I A accu rat el y as se ss ed or , ul ti m at el y , ga ve du e weig ht to th e[] [h ard sh ip ] fact or s

. . . at ta ck s th e BIA de te rm in at io n th at th e ev id en ce fai le d to sh ow

an ex tra or di na ry an d ex tre m el y un us ua l ha rd sh ip

. Thi s fin di ng , ho wev er, is pr eci se ly th e di s c r e ti on ary de te rm in at io n th at Co ng res s sh ie ld ed fro m ou r rev ie w.” Nu ne z- Por ti ll o v . Hol de r , 76 3 F .3d 97 4, 9 77 (8t h C ir. 2 01 4) (cl ean ed up ).

-9

-ad

jud ic at io n of a U Vis a ap pl ic at io n. I. & N. Dec. at 81 2. IJ s m ay gr an t co nt in ua nc es

on th e b a si s of pe nd in g U Vis a pe ti ti on s ev en th ou gh th ey do no t ha ve juri sd ic ti on

ov er U Vis a pe ti ti on s. Id

. at 81 2. Acco rd in g to Sa nc he z- So sa , IJ s sh ou ld co ns id er “ (1 ) th e DHS’s res po ns e to th e [al ie n’s] m ot io n [to co nt in ue ]; (2 ) whe th er th e un de rlyin g vi s a p e t it io n is pr im a faci e ap pr ov ab le ; an d (3 ) th e reas on fo r th e co nt in ua nc e an d

ot he r pr oc ed ur al fact or s.” Id

. at 81 2– 13

. As pa rt of pr ov in g th e ap pr ov ab il it y of th ei r
pe ti ti on , al ie ns are als o enc ou rag ed to pr ov id e “ a rece ip t in di cat in g th at th e pe ti ti on ha s be en su bm it te d to th e U S C I S

. ” I d. at 81 4. W he re “ th e al ie n sh ows th at he ha s fil ed a co m

pl et ed ap pl ic at io n be fo re th e USCIS

. . . an d th e pe ti ti on ap pe ars to m eet th e ne ces sa ry cri te ria to be gr an te d, th en an y de la y no t at tri bu ta bl e to th e al ie n ‘aug ur s in fav or of a co nt in ua nc e.’” Id

. (q uo ti ng Mat te r of Has hmi
, 24 I. & N. Dec. 78 5, 79 3 (BIA 20 09 ). “ As a ge ne ral ru le , t he re i s a reb ut ta bl e pr es um pt io n th at an al ie n who ha s fil ed a pr im a f

a ci e ap pr ov ab le ap pl ic at io n wit h th e USCIS wil l warra nt a fav or a b l e e x e r c is e of di sc ret io n fo r a co nt in ua nc e fo r a reas on ab le pe rio d of ti m e.” Id

. at 81 5. “ On rem an d, th e res po nd en t s s h o u l d be gi ve n a fin al op po rtu ni ty to
pr ov id e co pi es of an d pr oo f reg ard in g th e fil in g of th ei r ap pl ic at io n wit h th e USCIS

an d to ot he rwis e m eet th e cri te ria es ta bl is he d in th is de ci si o n fo r th e Im m ig rat io n Ju dg e’s co ns id erat io n o f th ei r req ue st for a co nt in ua nc e.” Id

. at 81 6.

A rece nt un pu bl is he d BIA de ci si on su gg es ts th at , whe n a res po nd en t fil es a

m ot io n to rem an d pe nd in g th e ad jud ic at io n of hi s U V i s a ap pl ic at io n du rin g th e
pe nd en cy of hi s ap pe al
, rem an d to th e IJ is ap pr op ria te

. Se e In Re: Jo se Lu is Gut ie rr ez -Rod

ri gu ez A.K.A. Jo se Gut ie rr ez , No. AX XX XX5 10 6 - ELO, 20 16 W L
65 19 97 7, at *5 (DCBAB R Sep t. 26
, 20 16 ). In Gut ie rr ez -Rod ri gu ez , th e BIA

rem an de d fo ll owi ng res po nd en t’s fil in g of a U Vis a no ti ng “ th at th e Im m ig rat io n Ju dg e sh ou ld ha ve th e op po rtu ni ty to d e v e l o p th e reco rd wit h reg ard to th es e

co ns id erat io ns in is su in g a ne w dec is io n.” Id

.

-1 0-1. Th e Apr il Ord er In it s Apr il or de r, th e BIA of fere d two rat io na le s fo r d en y in g Cab al le ro -Ma rti ne z’s req ue st to awai t ad jud ic at io n of hi s U Vis a pe ti ti on : Cab al le ro

Mar ti ne z’s fai lu re to pr ov id e an “ ad eq ua te ba si s” fo r pa us in g rem ov al pr oc eed in gs

an d t h e B I A ’s la ck of juri sd ic ti on ov er U Vis a pe ti ti on s. Pet ’r’ s Add

. at 9. Tho ug h Cab al le ro -Ma rti ne z req ue st ed ei th er rem an d or ad m in is tra ti ve cl os ur e in hi s m ot io n, th e BIA’s Apr il or de r ch arac te riz ed Cab al le ro -Ma rti ne z as ha vi ng on ly req ue st ed ad m in is tra ti ve cl os ur e wit h res pe ct to th e U Vis a pe ti ti on

. Howev er, th e BIA ci te d to bo th Sa nc he

z- So sa —a rem an d cas e—a nd Mat te r of Avet is ya n , 25 I. & N. Dec. 68 8,
69 6 (BIA 20 12 )—a n ad m in is tra ti ve cl os ur e cas e—f or su pp or t, su gg es ti ng th e BIA

co ns id ered bo th gro un ds for rel ie f.

On ap pe al
, th e go ve rn m en t arg ue s th at bo th of th e ba se s id en ti fie d by th e BIA jus ti fie d its de ci si on no t to rem an d. The go ve rn m en t al so sp eci fic al ly arg ue s Sa nc hezSo sa

— an d it s reb ut ta bl e pr es um pt io n in fav or of rem an d— do no t ap pl y he re. The

go ve rn m en t di st in gu is he s Sa nc he z- So sa pr oc ed ur al ly, no ti ng th at res po nd en t in th at

cas e req ue st ed a co nt in ua nc e be fo re th e IJ
, whi le Cab al le ro -Ma rti ne z r e qu es te d ad m in is tra ti ve cl os ur e di rect ly fro m th e BIA. The refor e, ac co rd ing to the gov ern m en t, th e ap pl ic ab le pre ced en t fo r th e BIA was Avet is ya n

.

Add res si ng th e fact s of thi s case , th e go ve rn m en t’s vie ws of the ap pl ic ab il it y of Sa nc he

z- So sa an d Avet is

ya n are in accu rat e. The reco rd in di cat es th at Ca ba ll ero -Ma rti ne z req ue st ed ei th er rem an d fo r a co nt in ua nc e or ad m in is tra ti ve cl os ur e, pe nd in g th e ad

jud ic at io n of hi s U Vis a pe ti ti on

. The refo re, th e go ve rn m en t’s

arg um en t t ha t o nl y Avet is ya n co nt ro ls is un pe rs ua si ve

. 2

Fu rth erm or e, Avet is

ya n ’s co nt in ue d va li di ty ha s be en cal le d in to qu es ti on by 2 Mat te r of Ca st ro -Tu m , 27 I. & N. Dec. 27 1 (A.G. 20 18 ), a r e cen t de ci si on by th e Att or ne y Gen eral es se nti ally en di ng th e pr act ic e of ad m in is tra ti ve cl os ur e. Cab al le ro

Mar ti ne z ha s in di cat ed th at he is waiv in g hi s ad m in is tra ti ve cl os ur e arg um en t fo r th e pu rp os e of th is ap pe al

. W e ag ree th at res ol vi ng th e qu es ti on of whe th e r t h e BIA pr op erl y de ni ed ad m in is tra ti ve cl os ur e is no t ne ces sa ry to th e res ol ut io n of th is cas e.

-1 1-W e are li ke wis e u nc on vi nc ed by th e go ve rn m en t’s arg um en t th at Cab al le ro

Mar ti ne z’s req ue st in g rem an d fo r a co nt in ua nc e fro m th e BIA rat he r th an a

co nt in ua nc e d ire ct ly fro m th e IJ pre ve nt s Sa nc he z- So sa fro m

co nt ro ll in g t he res ul t. The cri m in al as sa ul t ag ai ns t Cab al le ro -Ma r t i ne z oc cu rred aft er th e IJ ha d al read y is su ed hi s o rd er. The as sa ul t— th e ev en t tri gg eri ng hi s U Vis a el ig ib il it y —o ccu rred

to o la te to en ab le Cab al le ro -Ma rti ne z to req ue st a co nt in ua nc e be fo re th e IJ

. W e se e

no di st in gu i s h i n g f

eat ur e th at wou ld cau se th e pr in ci pl e st at ed in Sa nc hezSo sa

— pa us in g rem ova l pr oc ee din gs pe ndin g th e ad jud ic at io n of a pe ti ti on po te nt ia ll y

ren de rin g rem ov al in ap pl ic a b l e —t o op erat e di ffer en tl y de pe nd in g on whe th er th e tri gg eri ng ev en t o ccu rs whi le th e cas e is be fo re t he IJ o r be fo re t he BIA.

Th e g o ve rn m en t’s rel ia nc e on th e BIA’s la ck of juri sd ic ti on ov er U V i s a
pe ti ti on s as a ba si s fo r de nyin g rem an d is sh ak y at be st

. In Cl if to n , we reject ed th e
arg um en t th at a la ck of juri sd ic ti on ov er th e u n d e rlyin g pe ti ti on jus ti fie d de nyin g

rem an d. 59 8 F.3 d at 49 3. The qu es ti on was whe th er “ th e BIA ab us e[s ] it s di sc ret io n by refu si ng to rem an d an d reo pe n rem ov al pr oc eed in gs so le ly on th e gr ou nd th at th e BIA la ck s juri sd ic ti on ov er an ap pl ic at io n fo r ad jus tm en t of st at us th at ha s be en fil ed wit h an d pe nd s be fo re USCIS ,” an d we an swe red it in th e affi rm at iv e. Id

. The is su es he r e an d in Cl if

to n are su ffi ci en tl y si m il ar fo r us to ho ld th at to th e ex te nt th e BIA de cl in ed to rem an d Cab al le ro -Ma rti ne z’s cas e du e to it s la ck of juri sd ic ti on ov er hi s U Vis a ap pl ic at io n, i t er red

.

Nev ert he le ss , th e BIA d id no t er r in de nyin g C ab al le ro -Ma rti ne z’s m ot io n t o

rem an d. Unl ik e in Cl if

to n , th e BIA di d of

fer a rat io na l an d no n-

juri sd ic ti on al reas on fo r de nyin g Cab el le ro -Ma rti ne z’s rem an d m ot io n: hi s fai lu re to pr ov id e th e BIA wit h

ev id en ce of hi s U Vis a pe ti ti on ’s fil in g. It is un cl ear fro m th e BIA’s la ng ua ge whe th er
ot he r fact or s— su ch as DHS’s op po si ti on to th e m ot io n— in flu en ce d th e BIA’s de te rm in at io n t h a t Cab al le ro -Ma rti ne z ha d no t pu t fo rward an “ ad eq ua te ba si s” fo r

rem an d. Bu t Cab al le ro -Ma rti ne z’s fai lu re to su bm it a fil in g rece ip t ren de rs th e BIA’s Apr il ord er af

fir m ab le

.

-1 2-2. Th e Dece mbe r Or de r

The BIA su gg es te d i n i ts Apri l o rd er th at it ha d d en ie d C ab al le ro -Ma rti ne z’s

m ot io n be cau s e o f h i s fai lu re to pr ov id e pr oo f of hi s U Vis a pe ti ti on ’s fil in g. In

res po ns e, Cab al le ro -Ma rti ne z su bm it te d th e req ui red Not ic e of Acti on , al on g wit h a

m ot io n to reo pe n an d reco ns id er hi s req ue st fo r re man d o r ad m in is tra ti ve cl os ur e. Howev er, th e BIA de ni ed th e m ot io n in th e Decem be r or de r, no ti ng th at “ [w]hil e th e

res po nd en t ha s no w in cl ud ed a rece ip t of h i s F o r m I-9 18 ap pl ic at io n, th is do es no t al te r th e reas on s fo r ou r de ni al of hi s req ue st fo r ad m in is tra ti ve cl os ur e.” Pet ’r’ s Add

. at 4. The BIA ap pa r e nt ly co ns tru ed Cab al le ro -Ma rti ne z’s m ot io n to reo pe n an d

reco ns id er so le ly as req ue st in g ad m in is tra ti ve cl os ur e, m ak in g no m en ti on of rem an d fo r a co nt in ua nc e an d c it in g n o re m an d- sp eci fic cas e la w.

In of feri ng su ch an ab br ev ia te d ex pl an at io n, th e BIA fai le d to of fer a co he ren t,

“ rat io na l ex pl an at io n” fo r it s de ni al of Cab al le ro

- M a r t i ne z’s m ot io n to reo pe n or

reco ns id er. Cl if

to n , 5 98 F.3 d at 49 0. In ot he r wor ds
, t h e B IA di d no t “ an no un ce it s de ci si on in te rm s su ffi ci en t to en ab le [u s] to pe rcei ve th at it ha s he ard an d th ou gh t

an d no t m erel y reac te d.” Ca mac ho
, 91 0 F.3 d at 38 1 (q uo ti ng Ca mar il lo

- J o s e , 67 6
F.3 d a t 11 43 . Th e BIA di d no t sp eci fy it s pr ev io us reas on s fo r de ni al , lea vi ng us to in fer th es e reas on s fro m it s pr ev io us or de r. Si nc e th e BIA ci te d bo th ev id en ti ary an d juri sd ic ti on al co nc ern s in Apr il —i .e., no fil in g r e c e i p t, no au th or it y ov er U Vis a
pe ti ti on s— y et de cl in ed to cred it th e fil in g rece ip t in Decem be r, we a r e le ft to
sp ecu la te whe th er th e B I A ’s “ reas on s fo r de ni al ” in Decem be r were juri sd ic ti on al

rat he r th an ev id en ti ary.

Rat he r th an sp e c u l a te , we rem an d fo r cl ari fic at io n on two in te rco nn ect ed is su es

. Fi rs t, we as k th e BIA to cl ari fy it s “ reas on s fo r de ni al ” f r o m t h e A p ril de ci si on

. As no te d, th e BIA su gg es te d in it s Apr il or de r th at it de ni ed Cab al le ro

M a r t in ez’s m ot io n fo r bo th ev id en ti ary an d juri sd ic ti on al reas on s. Fo ot no te d la ng ua ge im

pl ie d t h e mi ss in g fil in g rece ip t was su bs ta nt iv el y de ci si ve , bu t th e

va gu en es s of th e m ai n te xt ’s la ng ua ge —t ha t Cab al le ro -Ma rti ne z “ ha [d ] no t pu t

-1 3-fo rward an ad eq ua te ba si s to te m po rari ly rem ov e hi s cas e fro m th e Bo ard ’s do ck et or , i f r e mand ed
, fro m th e Im m ig rat io n Ju dg e’s act iv e cal en da r”— le av es op en th e
po ss ib il it y

th at hi s requ es t was sub st an ti ve ly in ad eq ua te in se ve ral res pe ct s bu t th at th e BIA on ly ch os e to hi gh li gh t th e m is si ng fil in g rece ip t. Pet ’r’ s Add

. at 9. Rea di ng th e Apr il an d Decem

be r or de rs to ge th er, th e reas on s f o r t h e BIA’s de ci si on no t to

rem an d p en di ng th e U Vis a’s ad jud ic at io n a re u nc le ar.

Seco nd
, si nc e Ca

ba lle ro -M ar

tin ez re que ste d not onl y ad m ini str at iv e cl os ur e bu t al so r e man d, we as k th e BIA to ex pl ai n it s de ci si on no t to ap pl y th e Sa nc he z- So sa fact or s to Cab al le ro -Ma rti ne z’s rem an d req ue st in it s Decem be r an al y si s. In sh or t, we

as k th e BIA to ex pl ai n why it ul ti m at el y m ad e no di ffer en ce th at Cab al le ro -Ma rti ne z in cl ud ed a U Vis a fil in g rece ip t in hi s ren ewed m ot io n whe n Sa nc he z- So sa su gg es ts

a co m pl et ed ap pl ic at io n weig hs in fav or of pa us in g th e rem ov al pro ces s. 2 5 I. & N.
Dec. at 81 5.

III. Co nc lu si on The BIA’s Apr il or de r is affi rm ed . Th e BIA’s Decem be r or de r is affi rm ed in

pa rt an d rem an de d i n p art fo r cl ari fic at io n co ns is te nt wit h th e is su e rai se d in th is

op in io n.

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

-1 4-