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

jurisdictionstatutedue processliens
jurisdictionstatutedue processnaturalizationliens

Related Cases

Manook, Estate of, v. Research Triangle Institute
View Case »
Rosario v. Holder
View Case »
U.S. v. NLRB v. Sw. Gen., Inc.
View Case »
Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers Union v. OSHA
View Case »
Toquero v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Montero-Martinez v. Ashcroft

Facts

Montero-Hernandez and Montero-Martinez are father and son from Mexico who entered the United States in 1986. In 1997, they were served a Notice to Appear for being removable due to their illegal entry. They applied for cancellation of removal but were found ineligible because Montero-Hernandez's adult daughter, a lawful permanent resident, was too old to qualify as a 'child' under the relevant immigration statutes.

Montero-Hernandez and Montero-Martinez are father and son. They are natives and citizens of Mexico who entered the United States in 1986. In April 1997, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) served upon Petitioners a Notice to Appear, alleging that Petitioners were removable under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) because they had entered the United States without inspection. Petitioners admitted the allegations contained in the Notice and conceded removability. Because they had no other viable options for remaining in the United States, they applied for cancellation of removal pursuant to 1229b(b)(1).

Issue

Whether Montero-Hernandez's adult daughter qualifies as a 'child' for the purposes of 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)(1)(D) and whether the BIA denied the aliens procedural due process.

Whether Montero-Hernandez's adult daughter qualifies as a 'child' for the purposes of 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)(1)(D) and whether the BIA denied the aliens procedural due process.

Rule

Under 8 U.S.C. 1101(b), the term 'child' means an unmarried person under twenty-one years of age. The eligibility for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)(1) requires a qualifying relative.

Under 8 U.S.C. 1101(b), the term 'child' means an unmarried person under twenty-one years of age. The eligibility for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)(1) requires a qualifying relative.

Analysis

The court analyzed the definition of 'child' under 8 U.S.C. 1101(b) and determined that Montero-Hernandez's daughter, being over twenty-one, did not meet the statutory definition. The court also addressed the jurisdictional issues regarding the BIA's decisions and concluded that it had jurisdiction to review the legal question of whether the daughter qualified as a 'child', but found that the BIA's determination was correct.

The court analyzed the definition of 'child' under 8 U.S.C. 1101(b) and determined that Montero-Hernandez's daughter, being over twenty-one, did not meet the statutory definition. The court also addressed the jurisdictional issues regarding the BIA's decisions and concluded that it had jurisdiction to review the legal question of whether the daughter qualified as a 'child', but found that the BIA's determination was correct.

Conclusion

The court denied the petition for review, affirming the BIA's decision that the aliens were statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal.

The court denied the petition for review, affirming the BIA's decision that the aliens were statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal.

Who won?

The government prevailed in the case because the court upheld the BIA's determination that the petitioners did not have a qualifying relative under the statute.

The government prevailed in the case because the court upheld the BIA's determination that the petitioners did not have a qualifying relative under the statute.

You must be