Opinion ID: 202065
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Administrative Closure under the ABC Agreement

Text: 34 The Estradas' first challenge to the exclusion and deportation order is that the exclusion proceedings should not even have been allowed to continue: they say that they were eligible ABC class members entitled to administrative closure of their immigration proceedings, and that the proceedings should only have been reopened once it was determined at a hearing conducted in accordance with the mandates of the ABC agreement that they were not entitled to ABC benefits. 35 Under Paragraph 1 of the ABC Agreement, the settlement class includes only all Salvadorans in the United States as of September 19, 1990, and all Guatemalans in the United States as of October 1, 1990. Am. Baptist Churches, 760 F.Supp. at 799. Paragraph 2 states which class members are eligible for a de novo, unappealable asylum adjudication before an Asylum Officer, including a new interview. Id. First, the class member must not have been convicted of an aggravated felony as defined in the INA. Id. Second, for Guatemalans, the class members must indicate to the INS in writing their intent to apply for a de novo asylum adjudication before an Asylum Officer, or otherwise to receive the benefits of this agreement, within the period of time commencing July 1, 1991 and ending on December 31, 1991. Id. at 800. Finally, [c]lass members apprehended at time of entry after the date of preliminary approval of this agreement shall not be eligible for the benefits hereunder. Id. The district court provisionally approved the agreement on December 19, 1990. Id. at 797. 36 Paragraph 17 of the Agreement states that [t]he INS may only detain class members, eligible for relief under paragraph 2, who are otherwise subject to detention under current law and who: (1) have been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude for which the sentence actually imposed exceeded a term of imprisonment in excess of six months; or (2) pose a national security risk; or (3) pose a threat to public safety. Id. at 804. 37 Paragraph 19 provides for administrative closure pending the new asylum adjudication. It states, in pertinent part: [A]ny class member whose deportation proceeding . . . was commenced after November 30, 1990 . . . may ask the Immigration Court or the BIA to administratively close his or her case and the case will be administratively closed unless the class member has been convicted of an aggravated felony or is subject to detention under paragraph 17. 38 Id. at 805. Under Paragraph 20, [i]f the asylum application is finally denied under the procedures set forth in this agreement, a case pending before an IJ shall, upon notice from the INS, be recalendared. Id. at 806. 39 Under Paragraph 35, 40 [i]f an individual class member who has sought the benefits or rights of this agreement raises any claim regarding the denial of any such right or benefit (including a dispute over membership in the class) . . ., such individual is entitled to seek enforcement of the provisions hereof by initiating a separate proceeding in any federal district court, and the Defendants will not contest the jurisdiction of such court to hear any such claim. . . . 41 Id. at 809-10. 42 The crux of the Estradas' complaint is that they were not afforded a hearing before an asylum officer or otherwise given a chance to make their case for continued eligibility for benefits under the ABC Agreement. They say they were deprived of due process, because the INS reached the determination in its letter of February 4, 1997, without giving the family notice or an opportunity to present evidence. Because the INS' determination that Estrada was not entitled to ABC benefits was procedurally unsound, it amounted, the Estradas say, to nothing — essentially no determination at all — and the IJ and BIA erred in refusing to allow administrative closure. 43 The Estradas stress that none of the Paragraph 17 disqualifiers apply. Their case for eligibility is that the apprehended at time of entry after December 19, 1990 provision does not apply to them: once Estrada registered and filed an asylum request which listed his children, they say, their rights under the ABC agreement were vested. In the Estradas' view, once their rights vested, nothing in the ABC Agreement provides for the loss of their rights simply because Estrada departed and the family subsequently came to the United States. 44 The government responds that the INS determined that Estrada was ineligible for ABC benefits, that this determination was not reviewable by the IJ or by the BIA, see Matter of Morales, 21 I. & N. Dec. at 134-35, and that this court has no jurisdiction to consider any of the Estradas' ABC-related challenges. 8 45 The government says the ABC Agreement specifically provides for determination of [eligibility for ABC benefits] in a district court, not pursuant to a petition for review in a court of appeals. In the government's view, jurisdiction once existed in the district court, but Estrada squandered his chance there by failing to respond to the show-cause order and/or to appeal the district court's decision. The government also stresses that the Estradas never advised the BIA of the district court's decision, and that they never moved to reopen while the case was pending. The government says that in the posture of this case — a petition for review of the BIA's decision, and not an appeal from the district court — this court lacks jurisdiction to consider the Estradas' eligibility for ABC benefits. 46 At oral argument, this court raised the possibility of transferring the present ABC issue to the District Court for the District of Rhode Island. The government opposes such a transfer on two grounds. First, it says, the petition for review of the BIA decision could not have been brought in the district court in the first instance, so transfer is improper under 28 U.S.C. § 1631, which states: 47 Whenever a civil action is filed in a court . . . or an appeal, including a petition for review of administrative action, is noticed for or filed with . . . a court and that court finds that there is a want of jurisdiction, the court shall, if it is in the interest of justice, transfer such action or appeal to any other such court in which the action or appeal could have been brought at the time it was filed or noticed . . . . 48 28 U.S.C. § 1631 (emphasis added). The government's second argument is that it is not in the interest of justice to transfer this issue to the district court, because Estrada failed to respond to the show-cause order, did not appeal the district court's decision, and did not even advise the BIA of the district court's decision. The Estradas counter that jurisdiction in the district court would be proper, and that transfer would be in the interest of justice; they say they have raised and preserved the ABC issue throughout the course of the litigation. 49 We do not delve into the merits of the government's various jurisdictional challenges on the ABC issues. Instead, we rest on the ground that, on these facts, the petitioners have waived consideration of the ABC issue by this court or by the district court (even assuming a transfer). 50 Estrada never showed cause to the district court as to why his case based on a claim for ABC benefits should not be dismissed, and he never appealed the decision of the district court. The Estradas argued before the BIA that they were entitled to administrative closure under the ABC Agreement, noted that they had not received a hearing before an asylum officer on the matter, and alerted the BIA to the fact that Estrada had filed a case in the district court. But they never told the BIA how that case was decided or that the district court could have been viewed as deferring the ABC issue back to the agency. They had ample opportunity to do so. 51 The district court issued its memorandum and show-cause order on September 16, 1999, and it dismissed Estrada's complaint for failure to show cause on October 14, 1999, but the BIA did not decide the Estradas' appeal from the IJ's decision until April 15, 2003. The BIA did not address the proper response to the district court's decision because it was not asked to. Cf. Xu v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 45, 48-49 (1st Cir.2005) (where point was not argued in appeal from IJ's decision, BIA was under no obligation to address point, and issue was waived and would not be considered by this court). Rather, the Estradas chose to cause delay, which benefitted them by keeping them in the United States. The dismissal of Estrada's action in the district court was more than six years ago. Estrada is not entitled to reopen it now. Taken together, the various omissions amount to waiver, and we will neither consider the ABC issue nor transfer it to the district court for further proceedings.