Opinion ID: 2736985
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Removal Proceedings. DHS initiated removal

Text: proceedings against Antia‐Perea on August 20, 2010 by serving him with a Notice to Appear (“NTA”). The NTA alleged that Antia‐Perea was a citizen and native of Colombia who had entered the United States at an unknown place and time without being admitted or paroled by an immigration officer. It charged him with removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) as an alien present in the United States without being admitted or paroled. The NTA further alleged that Antia‐Perea had been convicted of “indecent liberties with a child,” a crime of moral turpitude, and charged him with removability on that basis as well. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I). Antia‐Perea appeared pro se before an IJ twice before he retained counsel. The only substantive occurrence at those hearings was that the Government filed and tendered to Antia‐Perea “several documents in this case pertaining to allegations in the Notice to Appear.” Those documents included a copy of a Form I‐213, a “Record of Deportable/Inadmissible Alien” prepared by DHS “that is typically a record of an immigration inspector’s conversation with an alien who will probably be subject to removal.” Pouhova v. Holder, 726 F.3d 1007, 1013 (7th Cir. 2013). The I‐ 213 stated that Antia‐Perea came into DHS custody on August 20, 2010, and at that time “voluntarily admitted” to DHS agent Yesenia Ochoa that he was not a citizen or national of the United States. According to the I‐213, Antia‐ Perea was “a native and citizen of Colombia” and “ma[d]e[] no claim to United States citizenship.” The documents tendered to Antia‐Perea also included a Chicago Police 4 Nos. 12‐3641, 13‐1228, 13‐1895, 13‐2737 Department “rap sheet,” and a “newer iClear Rap Sheet.” Both rap sheets indicated that Antia‐Perea was born in Puerto Rico. Antia‐Perea eventually retained counsel, who sought and received two continuances to review the documents, make Freedom of Information Act requests, and generally get up to speed with the case. The matter was reassigned to a different IJ, and Antia‐Perea and counsel appeared before the new IJ on May 24, 2011. On the advice of counsel, Antia‐ Perea declined to admit or deny the NTA’s allegations against him. Antia‐Perea further declined to designate Colombia as the country of removal. He requested that the Government be put to its burden of proving his alienage and removability. Antia‐Perea also asked that “the Government be put to its burden of proving removability before we get to the relief stage.” The IJ granted these requests and scheduled the matter for a contested hearing on the issue of removability. However, the IJ denied Antia‐Perea’s request “for subpoenas for the makers of any and all Government documents that are coming in.” The IJ advised Antia‐Perea that this request was “too broad” and told him that he would “have to identify what it is that you’re seeking and specify the nature of the request.” The IJ directed the Government to serve counsel with the documents it planned to use no later than 15 days before the contested hearing, which was set for June 28, 2011. The IJ also directed the Government to have all of its witnesses available for the hearing so that the case could proceed in an orderly fashion. At the contested hearing, the Government called Antia‐ Perea as its sole witness. Antia‐Perea refused to answer any of the Government’s questions. In light of Antia‐Perea’s Nos. 12‐3641, 13‐1228, 13‐1895, 13‐2737 5 silence, the Government requested that the IJ make a finding of removability on the documentary evidence it had submitted: the I‐213, the rap sheets, and a few other documents pertaining to Antia‐Perea’s convictions. The Government argued that the I‐213 “establishes that he did advise an Immigration Officer that he’s a native and citizen of Colombia.” The Government did not call to the IJ’s attention the discrepancy between the I‐213, which reported Colombia as Antia‐Perea’s birthplace, and the rap sheets, which identified Puerto Rico as Antia‐Perea’s birthplace. Neither did Antia‐Perea or his counsel. Instead, Antia‐Perea’s counsel advised the IJ that Antia‐ Perea refused to testify as to the authenticity or the accuracy of the I‐213 and reiterated his request to subpoena the preparer of that and the Government’s other documents. The IJ again denied the request as overly broad. The IJ also denied Antia‐Perea’s request to cross‐examine the preparer of the I‐213, rejecting Antia‐Perea’s contention that he had a right to do so under Malave v. Holder, 610 F.3d 483 (7th Cir. 2010), and 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(4)(B). The IJ further rejected Antia‐Perea’s challenge to the Government’s failure to produce any witnesses aside from Antia‐Perea himself. The IJ explained that the Government “does not have to present any witness to establish removability. They could do it solely from documentary evidence.” The IJ gave Antia‐Perea an opportunity to “challeng[e] the documentary evidence, through testimony or affidavits or something else” on rebuttal, but Antia‐Perea declined. He expressly stated that he objected to the use of the I‐213 solely on the ground that “we’re not being permitted to cross‐examine the maker of this document.” 6 Nos. 12‐3641, 13‐1228, 13‐1895, 13‐2737 Ultimately, the IJ concluded that the I‐213 was a reliable document that “clearly establishe[d] the respondent’s alienage” and that Antia‐Perea failed to show that “the time, manner, and place of his entry” were such that his presence in the United States was authorized. The IJ therefore found that Antia‐Perea was removable under § 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). At the same time, the IJ concluded that the Government’s evidence was insufficient to establish removability on the NTA’s second charge. The IJ did not address the fact that the rap sheets listed Puerto Rico as Antia‐Perea’s birthplace. Neither did counsel for either side. Antia‐Perea’s counsel did request a continuance to file various requests for relief from removability and an application for cancellation of removal. The IJ granted this request over the Government’s objection to allow Antia‐ Perea to “file any applications that you want me to consider in your case.” The IJ set the matter for a hearing on September 13, 2011. At the September 13 hearing, Antia‐Perea submitted an application for cancellation of removal, on which he left unanswered the questions about his birthplace, nationality, current citizenship, and his entry into the United States. Counsel indicated that Antia‐Perea “would refer to the record that was submitted previously by the Government.” Counsel also informed the IJ that Antia‐Perea’s son, then a student at John Marshall Law School, was preparing documentation “seeking a pardon of the things that would bar, perhaps statutorily, Mr. Antia from receiving cancellation.” Counsel asked the IJ for a six‐month continuance “for us to try to obtain a pardon from the Nos. 12‐3641, 13‐1228, 13‐1895, 13‐2737 7 governor, expressing to the governor the need for urgency here.” Antia‐Perea “respectfully refus[ed]” to answer the IJ’s questions about his application for cancellation of removal. Counsel told the IJ that he believed that Antia‐Perea could establish a prima facie case for relief without testifying. The IJ disagreed. The IJ addressed Antia‐Perea directly and told him that his application for cancellation of removal was inadequate in its present state. The IJ also advised Antia‐ Perea that he as the applicant for cancellation of removal bore the burden of showing an entitlement to relief. The IJ gave Antia‐Perea a one‐week continuance to discuss the matter with counsel. “Then you can come back to court next week with a completed application, and you have to be prepared to testify in support of your application next week. If you choose not to testify, then I’ll make a decision whether your application can be granted or not.” The IJ denied Antia‐ Perea’s requested continuance to allow for the processing of the pardon application, however, reasoning that the grant of a pardon was “too speculative” to warrant a continuation of the already protracted proceedings. At the continued hearing a week later, counsel presented the IJ with several documents in support of Antia‐Perea’s application for cancellation of removal, including his wife’s naturalization papers, tourist cards issued by the Colombian consulate listing Puerto Rico as Antia‐Perea’s place of birth, and birth certificates of Antia‐Perea’s adult children that said the same. Antia‐Perea did not testify, nor did he seek any other type of relief, such as voluntary departure. The IJ issued a written decision on September 26, 2011. The IJ found that the Government had carried its burden of 8 Nos. 12‐3641, 13‐1228, 13‐1895, 13‐2737 proving Antia‐Perea removable by clear and convincing evidence by way of the I‐213. The IJ cited Seventh Circuit case law for the proposition that the I‐213 is “presumptively reliable” such that it is admissible as evidence of the truth of its contents barring any countervailing evidence of inaccuracy or duress. The IJ also explained that he denied Antia‐Perea’s subpoena request for lack of good cause “because he did not present any evidence undermining the accuracy of the document or the methods by which it was obtained.” The IJ rejected Antia‐Perea’s reliance on Malave and concluded that without some evidence impugning the I‐ 213, “it is not apparent what information the respondent would elicit through cross‐examination of its author.” He ruled that “[t]he regulations governing subpoenas require at least that much,” and cited in support 8 C.F.R. § 1003.35(b)(2), which by its terms requires a party applying for a subpoena “to state in writing or at the proceeding, what he or she expects to prove by such witnesses or documentary evidence, and to show affirmatively that he or she has made diligent effort, without success, to produce the same.” The IJ also formally denied Antia‐Perea’s request for cancellation of removal. The IJ found that, in light of the rap sheets, which Antia‐Perea conceded were applicable to him, “there is at least a ‘reasonable indicat[ion]’ that the respondent is barred from cancellation of removal by section 240A(b)(1)(C),” 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(C). The IJ further noted that Antia‐Perea had sought a continuance to seek a pardon but that he had denied the request because he did not want to “delay proceedings and finds the respondent’s request too speculative.” Nos. 12‐3641, 13‐1228, 13‐1895, 13‐2737 9 B. Appeal to the BIA. Antia‐Perea timely appealed the IJ’s decision to the BIA. He contended that the IJ erred in (1) admitting the Form I‐213 into evidence; (2) denying his request to cross‐examine the maker of the Form I‐213; (3) ruling that the Government had established alienage; (4) ordering him deported; and (5) denying his request for a continuance to seek a gubernatorial pardon. Antia‐Perea also asserted that the IJ was biased in favor of the Government and against him, and denied him his right to due process. The BIA dismissed the appeal after reviewing the IJ’s findings of fact for clear error and all other issues de novo. Especially pertinent here, the BIA agreed with the IJ that DHS met its burden of establishing alienage and removability based on the Form I‐213. The BIA found that “[t]here is nothing facially suspect about the Form I‐213,” and that absent some evidence or even allegations that an I‐ 213 is inaccurate, it may be considered inherently reliable and can be sufficient to establish alienage. Notwithstanding Antia‐Perea’s failure to raise the issue before the IJ, the BIA acknowledged that the rap sheets in the record indicated that Antia‐Perea was born in Puerto Rico. It accorded these documents little weight, however, reasoning that “[i]nformation such as place of birth for such documents is typically provided by the individual to whom they pertain, rather than an independent or verified source.” The BIA also agreed with the IJ that “[w]hether and when the respondent may be granted pardon is too speculative to provide good cause for a continuance.” Additionally, the BIA found that Antia‐Perea “has not shown he was prejudiced by the denial of a continuance” to seek a pardon, because “[t]he finding of removability was not based on his convictions, and the lack of a disqualifying conviction is only one of several statutory 10 Nos. 12‐3641, 13‐1228, 13‐1895, 13‐2737 factors for cancellation of removal that the respondent did not demonstrate.” The BIA rejected Antia‐Perea’s assertions of bias out of hand for failure to cite specific examples of impropriety. C. First Motion for Reconsideration. Antia‐Perea timely petitioned this Court for review of the BIA’s decision (No. 12‐3641). While his petition was pending, he filed a motion asking the BIA to reconsider its decision. He essentially reiterated the contentions that he made on initial review and asserted that the BIA erred in rejecting his requests for relief. The BIA denied Antia‐Perea’s motion to reconsider without engaging in new analysis. Antia‐Perea timely filed a petition for review of this decision (No. 13‐1228). D. Motion to Reopen. In January 2013, Antia‐Perea filed a motion requesting that the BIA reopen his proceedings pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1) and remand them to a different IJ. His motion presented virtually all of the arguments that the BIA previously rejected. In the final paragraphs of his motion, he raised for the first time an alleged fear of deportation to Colombia and sought a hearing “on his request for political asylum, withholding of removal, and/or protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture.” In support of this request for relief, he cited a 60 Minutes report on the “Super Cartel” in Colombia and submitted affidavit testimony that he feared “for [his] life if [he is] deported to Colombia because the Super Cartel may want to retaliate against [him] if they were to find out [his] daughter is an [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] ICE agent.” Antia‐Perea later supplemented this motion with a transcript of the segment on the Super Cartel. Nos. 12‐3641, 13‐1228, 13‐1895, 13‐2737 11 The BIA denied Antia‐Perea’s motion to reopen on April 12, 2013. It noted that “[m]ost of the issues raised in the respondent’s motion to reopen were adequately addressed in our October 22, 2012, decision or were addressed in our January 18, 2013, decision.” Accordingly, the BIA substantively addressed only Antia‐Perea’s requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). It did so briefly, concluding that Antia‐Perea failed to “show prima facie eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal” because he failed to show that “the Super Cartel would likely become aware upon his return to Colombia (or after) that his daughter is an ICE agent.” Because his CAT claim was based on the same evidence, the BIA summarily denied that claim as well. Antia‐Perea petitioned for review of the BIA’s decision (No. 13‐1895). E. Second Motion for Reconsideration. On May 9, 2013, Antia‐Perea filed with the BIA a motion to reconsider its denial of his motion requesting relief from removal. He argued that “the evidence he provided the BIA was sufficient to demonstrate that his fear of persecution is both subjectively genuine and grounded in an objectively reasonable basis.” He also claimed that the BIA’s failure to grant him a hearing infringed his due process rights and “that to remove him to Colombia would be violative of the International obligations of the United States.” Antia‐Perea added for the BIA’s consideration two news articles about ICE agents and informants getting killed by Mexican drug cartels in East El Paso, Texas. The BIA denied Antia‐Perea’s motion, which it treated as a motion to reopen in light of the newly appended articles. It 12 Nos. 12‐3641, 13‐1228, 13‐1895, 13‐2737 concluded that there was “little commonality” between Antia‐Perea’s fear and the fear expressed by one of the subjects in the 60 Minutes segment. The BIA considered Antia‐Perea’s two news articles and concluded that he was “not similarly situated to ICE agents, Texas Rangers, or informants for ICE.” Antia‐Perea filed a fourth petition seeking review of this decision (No. 13‐2737).