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

hearingtestimonyparoledue processdeportationliens
hearingparoledue processdeportationliens

Related Cases

Monet v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
He v. Gonzales
View Case »
Singh v. Ashcroft
View Case »
Puga v. Chertoff
View Case »
Garcia-Quintero v. Gonzales
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Gutierrez v. Holder

Facts

Gutierrez is a seventy year-old native and citizen of Mexico who entered the United States sometime between 1969 and 1971. Gutierrez is not married and has no children. Gutierrez's mother and brother are United States citizens, and his sister and other brother are lawful permanent residents of the United States. In October 2001, Gutierrez was issued a Notice to Appear, charging him with being removable from the United States as an alien who was present in the United States without being admitted or paroled, in violation of Section 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Gutierrez appeared before an IJ and conceded his removability from the United States. For relief from removal, Gutierrez requested registry, cancellation of removal, and voluntary departure. During the hearing, Gutierrez presented evidence including that of his good moral character. Gutierrez also moved to present the telephonic testimony of three witnesses regarding the issue of his good moral character, claiming the witnesses were unavailable due to preestablished work commitments.

Gutierrez is a seventy year-old native and citizen of Mexico who entered the United States sometime between 1969 and 1971. Gutierrez is not married and has no children. Gutierrez's mother and brother are United States citizens, and his sister and other brother are lawful permanent residents of the United States. In October 2001, Gutierrez was issued a Notice to Appear, charging him with being removable from the United States as an alien who was present in the United States without being admitted or paroled, in violation of Section 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Gutierrez appeared before an IJ and conceded his removability from the United States. For relief from removal, Gutierrez requested registry, cancellation of removal, and voluntary departure. During the hearing, Gutierrez presented evidence including that of his good moral character.

Issue

Whether the IJ's denial of registry, cancellation of removal, and voluntary departure was supported by substantial evidence and whether Gutierrez's due process rights were violated.

Whether the IJ's denial of registry, cancellation of removal, and voluntary departure was supported by substantial evidence and whether Gutierrez's due process rights were violated.

Rule

The IJ can look back at evidence of good moral character from past time periods, and a full and fair hearing is one of the due process rights afforded to aliens in deportation proceedings.

The IJ can look back at evidence of good moral character from past time periods, and a full and fair hearing is one of the due process rights afforded to aliens in deportation proceedings.

Analysis

The IJ made a multifaceted determination based on conduct stretching back many years, but leading up to the time of the hearing: eight months in prison, seven or eight DUI convictions with the most recent three years prior to the hearing, and driving with a suspended license at the time of the hearing. The IJ looked at facts bearing on lack of good moral character that continued into at least the five years preceding the immigration hearing. There is no basis to find that the IJ was restricted to a time period shorter than the shortest time period for the good moral character inquiry specified in other immigration provisions.

The IJ made a multifaceted determination based on conduct stretching back many years, but leading up to the time of the hearing: eight months in prison, seven or eight DUI convictions with the most recent three years prior to the hearing, and driving with a suspended license at the time of the hearing. The IJ looked at facts bearing on lack of good moral character that continued into at least the five years preceding the immigration hearing.

Conclusion

The appellate court denied the petition for review as to the registry issues and dismissed the review as to the remaining issues.

The appellate court denied the petition for review as to the registry issues and dismissed the review as to the remaining issues.

Who won?

The government prevailed in the case because the court found that the IJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence and that Gutierrez's due process rights were not violated.

The government prevailed in the case because the court found that the IJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence and that Gutierrez's due process rights were not violated.

You must be