Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

attorneymotiondue process
attorneymotiondue process

Related Cases

Kareva v. United States
View Case »
U.S. SEC v. EB- Asset Manager
View Case »
Narenji v. Civiletti
View Case »
Naik v. Renaud
View Case »
Quaye; U.S. v.
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Garcia-Mateo v. Keisler

Facts

Garcia-Mateo entered the United States without inspection in January 1996 and was served with a Notice to Appear (NTA) in December 2004, charging her with removability. She filed motions for a change of venue to Los Angeles and sought relief in the form of cancellation of removal and voluntary departure. The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied her motions, concluding she was ineligible for cancellation of removal due to not meeting the ten-year continuous presence requirement. After accepting pre-conclusional voluntary departure, Garcia-Mateo later filed a motion to reopen her case, claiming a violation of her due-process rights.

Garcia-Mateo entered the United States without inspection in January 1996 and was served with a Notice to Appear (NTA) in December 2004, charging her with removability. She filed motions for a change of venue to Los Angeles and sought relief in the form of cancellation of removal and voluntary departure.

Issue

Whether the Immigration Judge's failure to inform Garcia-Mateo of her right to request post-conclusional voluntary departure constituted a violation of her due process rights.

Whether the Immigration Judge's failure to inform Garcia-Mateo of her right to request post-conclusional voluntary departure constituted a violation of her due process rights.

Rule

There is no constitutionally protected liberty or property interest in discretionary relief from removal, including voluntary departure, which is available only at the discretion of the Attorney General.

There is no constitutionally protected liberty or property interest in discretionary relief from removal, including voluntary departure, which is available only at the discretion of the Attorney General.

Analysis

The court determined that Garcia-Mateo could not establish a due process violation because she lacked a protected liberty or property interest in the discretionary relief of voluntary departure. The court referenced previous cases that affirmed the lack of a constitutionally protected interest in discretionary relief from removal, concluding that the IJ's actions did not violate her due process rights.

The court determined that Garcia-Mateo could not establish a due process violation because she lacked a protected liberty or property interest in the discretionary relief of voluntary departure.

Conclusion

The court denied Garcia-Mateo's petition for review, affirming the BIA's decision.

The court denied Garcia-Mateo's petition for review, affirming the BIA's decision.

Who won?

The government prevailed in the case because the court found that Garcia-Mateo had no constitutionally protected interest in the discretionary relief she sought.

The government prevailed in the case because the court found that Garcia-Mateo had no constitutionally protected interest in the discretionary relief she sought.

You must be