Professional Documents
Culture Documents
United States Court of Appeals: For The First Circuit
United States Court of Appeals: For The First Circuit
Before
Lynch, Chief Judge,
Torruella and Howard, Circuit Judges.
TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge. Petitioner Omar Antonio DuqueCceres ("Duque"), a native and citizen of Venezuela, seeks review
of a final order of deportation issued by the Board of Immigration
Appeals ("BIA").
On December 10,
During Gladys's
However, when
-3-
wife, that she married him as a favor, and that he would provide
Gladys with monetary aid when necessary.
C.
Removal proceedings
On May 5, 2009, the Department of Homeland Security
Appearing
with counsel before the IJ, Duque admitted all of the allegations
against
him,
save
for
the
allegation
that
his
marriage
was
At the
sent
Duque
notice
instructing
him
to
submit
evidence
or
applications
--
specifically,
to
submit
any
his
prior
joint
I-751
evidence
with
the
waiver
petition
to
contained in its original denial decision, the CIS found that Duque
failed to establish the bona fides of his marriage to Gladys and,
thus, his eligibility for a waiver.
E.
According
Hernndez
-- Duque's friend and witness -- told him that Gladys had moved to
-5-
another town to live with the man with whom she was having an
affair.
Duque
testified
that,
upon
hearing
this
news,
he
divorced, and she married her new partner on June 28, 2009.
Duque was asked why Gladys testified that she did not
live with Duque and that he had paid her to marry him so that he
could obtain immigration benefits. Duque responded that Gladys was
lying because she wanted to "get rid" of him due to her affair.
Duque denied having admitted at an earlier hearing that he never
lived with Gladys.
Though Duque alleged that Gladys's five-year-old son
Javier lived with them, Duque could not recall the child's last
name or the name of Javier's father, and he stated that he never
celebrated Javier's birthday with him.
Duque testified that he and Gladys lived in an apartment
on Wilson Street, and that his friend, Hernndez, had visited them
at the apartment several times for social occasions, such as
Duque's birthday in 2008. Duque indicated that Hernndez had known
Gladys prior to her meeting Duque and that Hernndez had, in fact,
introduced Gladys to Duque.
-6-
birthday party.
that only four people, of which Landnez was not one, had attended
his birthday party.
mistaken, but that he was certain Landnez had met Gladys on his
birthday in 2006.
As evidence of his legitimate marriage to Gladys, Duque
asserted that at the time of the submission of his first petition
-- i.e., the joint I-751 petition submitted with Gladys -- he
proffered a 2007 lease agreement, a joint bank account statement,
a joint medical insurance plan, and joint Sears and JC Penney
credit cards.
Duque testified that he did not have a lease from before 2007
because the owner had not required one until that time.
Duque
claimed that he did not have a lease for 2008, 2009, and 2010
because he told his landlord he was thinking of moving elsewhere
due to troubles with Gladys and the owner did not require him to
sign a new lease.
The IJ noted that Duque had failed to provide the
Immigration Court with any documentary evidence of a shared life
with Gladys - a task he acknowledged he was required to fulfill -
and that he had failed to submit any of the documents he claimed to
have given to the CIS interviewer.
that he believed that the IJ would have all the evidence that was
in his file from the submission of his joint I-751, and that he
-7-
whether,
Gladys's
after
originally
denying
statements
at
the
have met Gladys and Duque when they married in 2004, but later
recanted and stated he met them both before they married.
Though
Later,
-8-
He did
testimony that Landnez had met Gladys in 2006, and instead claimed
to have met her at their wedding in 2004.
F.
I-751 waiver and his request for voluntary departure, and ordered
his removal from the United States.
the finding that Duque and his witnesses were not credible, and
hence, Duque failed to prove that his marriage to Gladys was
legitimate.
The IJ noted the myriad inconsistencies between and
within the testimonies of the three men.
-9-
the CISs initial decision that the joint I-751 petition contained
false information. Thus, the IJ held that Duque was ineligible for
an I-751 waiver of the joint filing requirements.
Because the IJ
Duque
waiver
reasoning
request
stated
in
by
simply
the
incorporating
agency's
denial
of
by
reference
his
joint
the
I-751
petition. Duque, however, did not appeal the IJ's finding that his
witnesses were not credible, and that he had failed to provide
3
Duque
did
not
challenge
the
IJ's
adverse
credibility
review
the
BIA's
order
under
the
deferential
"compel
determination."
reasonable
factfinder
to
reach
contrary
McKenzie-
of
removal
only
if
'the
-11-
alien
has
exhausted
all
"The law
remedies'
court
as
from
to
that
issue,
exercising
which,
jurisdiction
'in
over
turn,
forecloses
this
[the
issue].'"
The
-12-
arguments in turn.
A.
Specifically,
Duque
the
IJ's
adverse
and
that
of
failed
credibility
to
challenge
findings
of
before
Duque's
the
BIA:
testimony
his
witnesses; the IJ's finding that Duque failed to satisfy his burden
of proof showing that he entered into his marriage with Gladys in
good faith; and the IJ's denial of his application for voluntary
departure.
2013); see also Sombah v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 49, 52 (1st Cir. 2008)
(stating that claims not presented to the BIA are not reviewable).
We need go no further.
B.
do
have
jurisdiction
to
consider
on
of
Duque's
arguments: that the IJ and the BIA erred by allowing the CIS to
adjudicate his I-751 waiver petition in violation of the CIS's own
practice and procedure.
-13-
right
to
an
adjudication
on
the
merits
--
including
an
prejudice
fairly
attributable
to
the
challenged
process."
Kheireddine v. Gonzales,
before the IJ cured any potential prejudice Duque might have faced
due to the alleged procedural transgression.
Even assuming that the failure to hold a second interview
during
the
adjudication
of
Duque's
I-751
waiver
petition
as
Ojeda-Terrazas, 290
We note that the memo "is intended solely for the training and
guidance of [CIS] personnel in performing their duties relative to
the adjudication of applications. It is not intended to, does not,
and may not be relied upon to create any right or benefit,
substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or by any individual
or other party in removal proceedings, in litigation with the
United States, or in any other form or manner." Memorandum from
Donald Neufeld, the Acting Associate Director, Domestic Operations
Directorate, of the CIS, to Field Leaders in the CIS on the Proper
Ways to Adjudicate I-751 Applications and I-751 Waiver Petitions
(Oct. 9, 2009)(on file with the CIS).
-15-
At the removal
hearing, Duque was offered the opportunity to renew his request for
a
waiver
as
well
as
fully
present
his
case
by
submitting
a right Duque
and testimony in making its decision, and it did not base the
decision solely on the prior denial of the joint I-751 petition.
That the record was barren of any credible evidence in Duque's
favor is a defect entirely of his own making.
Thus, Duque is
In sum,
-17-