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

attorneyhearingdeportation
attorneyhearingdeportation

Related Cases

Leiva-Montalvo v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Gebremaria v. Ashcroft
View Case »
Rowoldt v. Perfetto
View Case »
Reyes-Romero; U.S. v.
View Case »
Rodriguez-Fernandez v. Wilkinson
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Reyes-Sanchez v. Holder

Facts

Margarita Reyes-Sanchez, a citizen and native of Mexico, entered the United States illegally in 1987 and remained until returning briefly to Mexico in August 2001. The Border Patrol apprehended Reyes-Sanchez in August 2001 near El Paso as she attempted to re-enter the United States. In custody, Reyes-Sanchez completed a Form I-826 'Notice of Rights and Request for Disposition' in which she admitted her illegal presence in the United States, waived a hearing, and agreed to return to Mexico. In May 2003, Ms. Reyes-Sanchez was apprehended in an unrelated Immigrations and Customs Enforcement raid. She applied for cancellation of removal, but the Immigration Judge (IJ) found her ineligible on the basis that her agreement, in August 2001, to return to Mexico constituted a break in her continuous physical presence in the United States.

Margarita Reyes-Sanchez, a citizen and native of Mexico, entered the United States illegally in 1987 and remained until returning briefly to Mexico in August 2001. The Border Patrol apprehended Reyes-Sanchez in August 2001 near El Paso as she attempted to re-enter the United States. In custody, Reyes-Sanchez completed a Form I-826 'Notice of Rights and Request for Disposition' in which she admitted her illegal presence in the United States, waived a hearing, and agreed to return to Mexico. In May 2003, Ms. Reyes-Sanchez was apprehended in an unrelated Immigrations and Customs Enforcement raid. She applied for cancellation of removal, but the Immigration Judge (IJ) found her ineligible on the basis that her agreement, in August 2001, to return to Mexico constituted a break in her continuous physical presence in the United States.

Issue

Whether Reyes-Sanchez's apprehension at the border in August 2001 constituted a break in her continuous physical presence in the United States.

Whether Reyes-Sanchez's apprehension at the border in August 2001 constituted a break in her continuous physical presence in the United States.

Rule

The Attorney General may cancel removal of an alien who would otherwise be removable if, among other requirements, the alien 'has been physically present in the United States for a continuous period of not less than 10 years immediately preceding the date of such application.' 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)(1)(A). A departure that is compelled under threat of the institution of deportation or removal proceedings is a break in physical presence.

The Attorney General may cancel removal of an alien who would otherwise be removable if, among other requirements, the alien 'has been physically present in the United States for a continuous period of not less than 10 years immediately preceding the date of such application.' 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)(1)(A). A departure that is compelled under threat of the institution of deportation or removal proceedings is a break in physical presence.

Analysis

The court applied the rule by examining whether Reyes-Sanchez faced a formal, documented process at the border and chose to depart under threat of removal. The IJ concluded that Reyes-Sanchez's contact at the border did constitute a break because she voluntarily departed under threat of removal, as evidenced by the Form I-826, the IDENT printout, and other documentation. The court found that Reyes-Sanchez was taken into custody, fingerprinted, and informed of her rights, which indicated that she understood the legal consequences of her actions.

The court applied the rule by examining whether Reyes-Sanchez faced a formal, documented process at the border and chose to depart under threat of removal. The IJ concluded that Reyes-Sanchez's contact at the border did constitute a break because she voluntarily departed under threat of removal, as evidenced by the Form I-826, the IDENT printout, and other documentation. The court found that Reyes-Sanchez was taken into custody, fingerprinted, and informed of her rights, which indicated that she understood the legal consequences of her actions.

Conclusion

The decisions of the IJ and the BIA were affirmed, concluding that Reyes-Sanchez's continuous physical presence in the United States was interrupted when she chose to return to Mexico in a formal, documented process while facing threat of removal.

The decisions of the IJ and the BIA were affirmed, concluding that Reyes-Sanchez's continuous physical presence in the United States was interrupted when she chose to return to Mexico in a formal, documented process while facing threat of removal.

Who won?

The government prevailed in the case because the court upheld the decisions of the IJ and BIA, finding that Reyes-Sanchez's actions constituted a break in her continuous physical presence.

The government prevailed in the case because the court upheld the decisions of the IJ and BIA, finding that Reyes-Sanchez's actions constituted a break in her continuous physical presence.

You must be