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

appealdeportation
trialdeportation

Related Cases

Arias-Valencia v. Mukasey
View Case »
Almeida-Amaral v. Gonzales
View Case »
Radkov v. Ashcroft
View Case »
Diaz-Nin; U.S. v.
View Case »
Ruckbi v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Rodriguez-Labato v. Sessions

Facts

Gabino Rodriguez-Labato, a native and citizen of Mexico, was served a Notice to Appear by the Department of Homeland Security while incarcerated in Iowa. He had entered the U.S. in 2001 and had voluntarily departed on six occasions. In 2010, he applied for cancellation of removal, but the DHS argued that his voluntary departure in 2001 broke his continuous presence in the U.S. The immigration judge found that Rodriguez-Labato's departure was under threat of deportation, which was affirmed by the Board of Immigration Appeals.

On or about August 13, 2009, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) filed a Notice to Appear (NTA) for Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico. Petitioner was incarcerated in Decorah, Iowa, at that time, awaiting trial for assault with intent to inflict damage. The NTA alleged that Petitioner had entered the United States on April 1, 2001, after having voluntarily departed on six occasions.

Issue

Did Rodriguez-Labato voluntarily depart the United States under threat of deportation, thereby breaking his continuous presence for cancellation of removal eligibility?

Did Rodriguez-Labato voluntarily depart the United States under threat of deportation, thereby breaking his continuous presence for cancellation of removal eligibility?

Rule

An alien's continuous presence in the U.S. is broken when they voluntarily depart under threat of deportation, and the record must show that the threat was expressed and understood by the alien.

An alien's continuous presence in this country is broken 'when an alien voluntarily departs under threat of deportation.' Reyes-Vasquez, 395 F.3d at 907 (quoting Palomino v. Ashcroft, 354 F.3d 942, 944 (8th Cir. 2004)).

Analysis

The court determined that Rodriguez-Labato's selection on the Form I-826 indicated he was aware of the threat of deportation and chose to return to Mexico instead of facing removal proceedings. The circumstances of his detention and the formal process he underwent supported the conclusion that he departed under threat of deportation, thus breaking his continuous presence.

We agree with the Board and the IJ that Petitioner departed under threat of deportation on March 23, 2001. His Form I-826 selection indicates that he was aware of the threat that he would be removed and of his right to removal proceedings, and that he elected to return to Mexico instead of exercising that right.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that Rodriguez-Labato's departure was indeed under threat of deportation, which broke his continuous presence in the U.S.

The petition for review is denied.

Who won?

The government prevailed in the case because the court upheld the Board's finding that Rodriguez-Labato's voluntary departure broke his continuous presence.

The government prevailed in the case because the court upheld the Board's finding that Rodriguez-Labato's voluntary departure broke his continuous presence.

You must be