De Marroquin v. Attorney General of the United States

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
____________
No. 11-4448
____________
MILVIA MARITZA CUELLAR DE MARROQUIN,
Petitioner
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,
Respondent
__________________________________
On a Petition For Review of an Order
of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(Agency No. A073-127-873)
Immigration Judge: Susan G. Roy
__________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
October 10, 2012
Before: AMBRO, ALDISERT and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: October 11, 2012)
____________
OPINION
____________
PER CURIAM
Milvia Maritza Cuellar de Marroquin (“Cuellar”) petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ final order of removal. For the reasons that follow, we will
deny the petition for review.
Cuellar, a native and citizen of Guatemala, entered the United States without
inspection on or about May 4, 1994 near Douglas, Arizona. She was placed in
deportation proceedings pursuant to an Order To Show Cause, which charged that she
was deportable for her unlawful entry. Cuellar submitted an application for asylum and
withholding of removal, but, on May 8, 1995, she withdrew the application. The
Immigration Judge then granted her voluntary departure until May 8, 1996, and ordered
her deportation to Guatemala in the alternative. Cuellar waived an appeal of the
Immigration Judge’s May 8, 1995 decision.
Cuellar did not depart the United States by May 8, 1996, and, on May 9, 1996, a
Warrant of Removal/Deportation was issued against her. Meanwhile, Cuellar’s husband,
Luis Marroquin, a lawful permanent resident, filed a visa petition on her behalf, which
was approved on October 18, 1995. On October 1, 1996, daughter Kimberly was born to
the couple in New Jersey.
Over four years later, on February 16, 2001, Cuellar filed an Application for
Waiver of Grounds of Excludability (Form I-601) and an Application for Permission to
Reapply for Admission After Deportation or Removal (Form I-212), 8 U.S.C. §
1182(a)(9)(A). Cuellar gave birth to the couple’s daughter Jamie on September 7, 2001.
On August 10, 2002, District Director Andrea J. Quarantillo denied the applications for
waiver and permission to reapply for admission, concluding that Cuellar’s disregard of
U.S. immigration laws outweighed the hardship to her family that would result from her
deportation. Cuellar appealed, but on January 30, 2008, the Administrative Appeals
Office (“AAO”) dismissed her appeal. The AAO, noting that Cuellar was inadmissible
2
under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(A)(ii)(I) (2010) (alien ordered removed and who seeks
admission within 10 years of the date of such alien’s removal is inadmissible), found that
her family ties to a lawful permanent resident and United States citizens (her husband and
children), the general hardship they would experience if she was deported, the fact that
she had no criminal record, and her approved visa petition, all weighed in favor of
granting her relief from deportation. But the unfavorable factors – her initial entry
without inspection, her failure to abide by an order of deportation, and periods of
unauthorized presence in the United States – could not be condoned, and a favorable
exercise of discretion was not warranted in her case.
On August 27, 2009, Cuellar turned to the Immigration Court and filed a motion to
reopen deportation proceedings. A new Immigration Judge was assigned to her case.
Cuellar asserted that exceptional circumstances beyond her control had prevented her
from complying with the voluntary departure order in 1996, and that she now was prima
facie eligible to adjust her status. Cuellar explained in her motion to reopen that she did
not depart the United States by May 8, 1996 because she was pregnant and receiving
quality prenatal care through her husband’s health insurance plan. She was concerned
that she would not be able to get adequate prenatal care in Guatemala, since there is no
free access to health care there. Cuellar provided documentation with respect to
Guatemala’s substandard health care system. The Department of Homeland Security did
not respond to the motion to reopen.
On November 6, 2009, the Immigration Judge denied the motion to reopen as
untimely filed under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1) (providing that motion to reopen be filed
3
within 90 days of entry of final order of removal or by September 30, 1996). No joint
motion had been filed and Cuellar did not raise a claim for asylum or withholding of
removal, see id. at § 1003.23(b)(4)(i) and (iv), so no exceptions to the timeliness
requirement applied to her case. The IJ rejected Cuellar’s exceptional circumstances
argument. Noting that only exceptional circumstances beyond the control of an alien
would excuse the failure to depart voluntarily, 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(e)(2)(A) (repealed
1996); that an alien who had remained in the United States beyond the voluntary
departure period could not apply for adjustment of status for a period of five years absent
a showing of exceptional circumstances for failing to depart; and that the term
“exceptional circumstances” includes serious illness of the alien or death of an immediate
relative of the alien but does not include less compelling circumstances beyond the
control of the alien, see id. at § 1252b(f)(2), the IJ reasoned that Cuellar had not shown
compelling circumstances beyond her control. The IJ noted that Cuellar did not allege
that she suffered from any illness or complications during her pregnancy, she did not
allege that her child suffered from any prenatal complications, and she did not claim that
she had experienced any prenatal or postnatal complications following the birth of her
first child in Guatemala. 1 The IJ also concluded that Cuellar was not eligible for
adjustment of status because her application for readmission to the United States had
been denied by the District Director.
1
The couple’s first child was born in Guatemala on April 9, 1993 and still resides there.
The couple send money to the person who is raising this child in Guatemala.
4
Cuellar appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, contending that her
deportation proceedings should be reopened in order for her to pursue adjustment of
status, because her failure to depart by May 8, 1996 was due to exceptional circumstances
beyond her control, that is her pregnancy and need for prenatal care. Moreover, since
more than five years had elapsed since the departure order, she was no longer disqualified
from applying for adjustment of status, A.R. 15. In essence, Cuellar argued that,
although she was advised that she would face a disqualification for a period of years if
she did not depart, she was also advised that there would be no consequences if that
failure was due to exceptional circumstances, see id. at 17.
On November 14, 2011, the Board dismissed the appeal. The Board concluded
that the record established that the original Immigration Judge’s voluntary departure
order provided Cuellar with the correct written warnings concerning the five-year
adjustment of status disqualification, citing page 2 of the order. The Board next
concluded that Cuellar’s motion to reopen was not timely filed because the motion was
due no later than September 30, 1996, but it was not filed until August 27, 2009.
Moreover, no regulatory exceptions to the filing deadline applied, and a motion to reopen
in order to apply for adjustment of status does not fall within any of the statutory or
regulatory exceptions to the filing deadline. Because Cuellar’s motion to reopen was
untimely filed, the Board found it unnecessary to address the IJ’s additional conclusions
that Cuellar was barred in any event from adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C. §
1182(a)(9), and that her pregnancy and desire for prenatal care did not establish
exceptional circumstances for her failure to depart the United States by May 8, 1996.
5
The Board also declined to reopen proceedings sua sponte, see Matter of J-J-, 21 I. & N.
Dec. 976 (BIA 1997), noting that Cuellar had obtained “additional equities” as a result of
overstaying the voluntary departure period. A.R. 4.
Cuellar petitions for review of the Board’s decision. We have jurisdiction under 8
U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1) and (b)(1) to review the Board’s November 14, 2011 decision. In
her brief, Cuellar argues that her proceedings should be reopened “on the grounds that the
adverse consequences” of failing to depart within the voluntary departure period “attach
only if the Immigration Judge provides certain oral warnings, where the record
establishes that only written warnings were provided….” See Petitioner’s Brief, at 2.
Cuellar argued that, pursuant to former 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(e)(2), the issuance of written
warnings alone does not disqualify an alien from receiving immigration benefits, see id.
at 12, 15, and she cited Barker v. Ashcroft, 382 F.3d 313, 316 (3d Cir. 2003), where, we
note, the alien argued that a general warning about losing the right to apply for certain
immigration benefits and a general statement about what constitutes exceptional
circumstances, is insufficient. See Petitioner’s Brief, at 15-16. The Department of
Homeland Security argues that we lack jurisdiction over this argument because Cuellar
failed to exhaust her administrative remedies with respect to it.
We will deny the petition for review. An alien must exhaust all administrative
remedies available to her as a prerequisite to raising a claim before this Court. See 8
U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Yan Lan Wu v. Ashcroft, 393 F.3d 418, 422 (3d Cir. 2005). Failure
to present an issue to the agency constitutes a failure to exhaust, thus depriving us of
jurisdiction to consider it. See Lin v. Att’y Gen. of the U.S., 543 F.3d 114, 119-20 (3d
6
Cir. 2008). Exhaustion of administrative remedies is satisfied so long as the alien makes
some effort to place the agency on notice of a straightforward issue, see Joseph v. Att’y
Gen. of the U.S., 465 F.3d 123, 126 (3d Cir. 2006), and we have commented that our
“exhaustion policy” is “liberal,” id., but Cuellar concedes that she did not present the
argument to the agency that she did not receive the warning concerning the five-year
adjustment of status disqualification orally. See Petitioner’s Brief, at 12, 15.
In Barker, we held that the alien failed to raise her issue that she did not receive
adequate or sufficient oral notice of the consequences of failing to depart voluntarily, and
that her failure to raise the issue before the agency barred our consideration of this issue.
382 F.3d at 317. Barker applies here and cannot be distinguished, because Cuellar
argued before the Board only that her pregnancy and desire for prenatal care was a
compelling circumstance beyond her control. She raised no issue before the agency that
the warnings she received were insufficient under former section 1252b(e)(2) because
they were not oral. Accordingly, her failure to raise the issue before the agency bars our
consideration of this issue. Barker, 382 F.3d at 317. 2
In any event, the failure to give oral warnings regarding the adjustment of status
disqualification would not exempt a subsequent motion to reopen from the timeliness
requirement, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(i)-(iv), just as the Board held. Cuellar argued
2
Having failed to squarely present the oral warnings issue to the Board, Cuellar gave the
Board no opportunity or reason to point out that the Immigration Judge’s 1995 order
includes not only written warnings about the five-year adjustment of status
disqualification, but also this statement, just above the Immigration Judge’s signature:
“This written notice was provided to the alien in English and in Spanish. Oral notice of
the contents of this notice was given to the alien in his/her native language, or in a
language he/she understands.” A.R. 121.
7
before the Board that the time limitation for motions to reopen should not apply to her
because she showed exceptional circumstances for failing to depart during the voluntary
departure period. We review the Board’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of
discretion. Immigration & Naturalization Serv. v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323 (1992).
Under this standard, we will reverse the Board’s decision only if it is arbitrary, irrational,
or contrary to law. Sevoian v. Ashcroft, 290 F.3d 166, 174 (3d Cir. 2002). An abuse of
discretion is found only “in those circumstances where the Board’s decision provides no
rational explanation, inexplicably departs from established policies, is devoid of any
reasoning, or contains only summary or conclusory statements; that is to say, where the
Board has acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner.” Shardar v. Att’y Gen. of the U.S.,
503 F.3d 308, 316 (3d Cir. 2007)(quoting Zhao v. Dep’t of Justice, 265 F.3d 83, 93 (2d
Cir. 2001)).
The Board did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Cuellar’s motion to
reopen was untimely filed and that no statutory or regulatory exceptions applied to
excuse the untimeliness. A motion to reopen must be filed no later than 90 days after the
date on which the final administrative decision was rendered in the proceeding sought to
be reopened, or on or before September 30, 1996, whichever is later. 8 C.F.R.
1003.23(b)(1). See also 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i). Cuellar thus had until September
30, 1996 in which to file a timely motion to reopen and raise her argument that her
deportation proceedings should be reopened in order for her to pursue adjustment of
status, because her failure to depart was due to compelling circumstances beyond her
8
control, that is her pregnancy and need for prenatal care. She plainly failed to file her
motion to reopen by the deadline.
An untimely motion to reopen may be considered in certain limited circumstances:
(1) where the alien seeks to apply or reapply for asylum or withholding of removal based
on changed country conditions; (2) where the alien seeks recission of an in absentia order
of removal; or (3) where the motion has been jointly filed and agreed upon by all parties.
8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(i)-(iv). See also 8 U.S.C. §§1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii)-(iii). The Board
properly concluded that none of the statutory and regulatory exemptions applies in
Cuellar’s case, 3 and properly pointed out that eligibility for adjustment of status is not
among the statutory or regulatory exemptions. See Matter of Yauri, 25 I. & N. Dec. 103,
105 (BIA 2009). Moreover, although the Board has the authority to reopen proceedings
sua sponte, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(a), its decision not to exercise its discretion, where, as
here, it did not rely on an incorrect legal premise, is unreviewable. See Calle-Vujiles v.
Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 472, 475 (3d Cir. 2003). See also Pllumi v. Att’y Gen. of the U.S.,
642 F.3d 155, 160 (3d Cir. 2011).
For the foregoing reasons, we will deny the petition for review.
3
The statute also provides special rules for battered spouses, children and parents, see id.at § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(iv).
9