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

jurisdictionmotionregulation
jurisdictionmotionregulation

Related Cases

Perez-Olano v. Gonzalez
View Case »
Rivas-Melendrez v. Napolitano
View Case »
Dorisme v. Gonzalez
View Case »
Guerra-Soto v. Ashcroft
View Case »
Krupa; Administrator, Wage and Hour Division v., Inc
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Salvador-Calleros v. Ashcroft

Facts

Martha Salvador-Calleros, a native and citizen of Mexico, entered the United States unlawfully in 1986 and has two U.S. citizen children. She was placed in removal proceedings in 1998 and applied for cancellation of removal, which was denied by the IJ due to failure to establish extreme hardship. The BIA affirmed the IJ's decision and renewed her voluntary departure period for 30 days, which expired on a Saturday. Salvador-Calleros filed a motion for a stay of removal on the following Monday.

Martha Salvador-Calleros, a native and citizen of Mexico, entered the United States unlawfully in 1986, when she was thirteen. She has remained here since that time. She has two U.S. citizen children for whom English is their first language. Salvador-Calleros was placed in removal proceedings on June 1, 1998. Salvador-Calleros testified that she would take her children with her to Mexico if denied relief. She also testified that they would suffer hardship because they do not speak Spanish proficiently, they would be separated from close relatives remaining in the United States, and she would have difficulty finding a job to support them.

Issue

Whether the court has jurisdiction to review the IJ's discretionary hardship determination and the BIA's application of its streamlining regulations, and whether the motion to stay voluntary departure was timely filed.

Whether the court has jurisdiction to review the IJ's discretionary hardship determination and the BIA's application of its streamlining regulations, and whether the motion to stay voluntary departure was timely filed.

Rule

The court lacks jurisdiction to review discretionary hardship determinations by the IJ or the BIA's streamlining decisions. However, it retains jurisdiction to review constitutional claims and can grant a stay of voluntary departure if timely filed.

The court lacks jurisdiction to review discretionary hardship determinations by the IJ or the BIA's streamlining decisions. However, it retains jurisdiction to review constitutional claims and can grant a stay of voluntary departure if timely filed.

Analysis

The court determined that it lacked jurisdiction to review the IJ's discretionary hardship determination or the BIA's streamlining regulations. However, it found that Salvador-Calleros' motion to stay voluntary departure was timely because the last day of her voluntary departure period fell on a weekend, and thus, according to Fed. R. App. P. 26(a)(3), the period was extended to the next business day.

The court determined that it lacked jurisdiction to review the IJ's discretionary hardship determination or the BIA's streamlining regulations. However, it found that Salvador-Calleros' motion to stay voluntary departure was timely because the last day of her voluntary departure period fell on a weekend, and thus, according to Fed. R. App. P. 26(a)(3), the period was extended to the next business day.

Conclusion

The court dismissed the petition for review regarding the IJ's discretionary hardship determination and the BIA's streamlining regulations, but granted the motion to stay voluntary departure.

The court dismissed the petition for review regarding the IJ's discretionary hardship determination and the BIA's streamlining regulations, but granted the motion to stay voluntary departure.

Who won?

Martha Salvador-Calleros prevailed in her motion to stay voluntary departure because the court found her filing was timely due to the expiration date falling on a weekend.

Martha Salvador-Calleros prevailed in her motion to stay voluntary departure because the court found her filing was timely due to the expiration date falling on a weekend.

You must be