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

jurisdictionappealhearingdue processdeportationjudicial reviewliens
jurisdictionappealhearingdue processdeportationliens

Related Cases

Singh v. Reno
View Case »
Trejo-Mejia v. Holder
View Case »
Gomes v. Smith
View Case »
Harchenko v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Al Najjar v. Ashcroft
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Sanchez-Cruz v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

Facts

Petitioner Raquel Sanchez-Cruz, a native and citizen of Mexico, entered the United States without inspection in 1985. She is a single mother of two U.S. citizen children and has received various forms of public assistance during her time in the U.S. Deportation proceedings were initiated against her in 1993, and she requested suspension of deportation, which was denied by the immigration judge who focused on her receipt of public assistance. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed this decision.

Petitioner Raquel Sanchez-Cruz is a native and citizen of Mexico who entered the United States without inspection in 1985, at the age of nineteen. Sanchez-Cruz is the single mother of two children, currently age thirteen and ten, both United States citizens. She separated from the father of the children in 1990 or 1991, and does not know his current whereabouts. Her parents, a brother, and three sisters live in Mexico. While in the United States, Sanchez-Cruz has worked intermittently, as a live-in maid, a babysitter, and–most recently–as a Mary Kay cosmetics salesperson. In addition to work and parenting, Sanchez-Cruz has been an active member of her church. She has never filed a United States tax return. During her time in this country, Sanchez-Cruz has received various forms of public assistance, including health insurance coverage through Medi-Cal for the birth of her two children as well as for two operations to remove a tumor on her uterus in 1994. In addition, Sanchez-Cruz received food stamps and Aid for Dependent Children from 1987 to 1994. She states that she was unable to work for much of this time because her partner–the children's father–would not allow her to work, despite the fact that he was unable to support the family. Since 1994 Sanchez-Cruz has not received public assistance. She and her children share an apartment with her brother, who is also in the country illegally.

Issue

Whether an allegation of bias by an immigration judge presents a colorable due process claim reviewable by the court despite the jurisdictional limitations of IIRIRA's transitional rules, and whether such a claim requires administrative exhaustion.

Whether an allegation of bias by an immigration judge presents a colorable due process claim reviewable by this court despite the jurisdictional limitations of IIRIRA's transitional rules, and whether such a claim requires administrative exhaustion.

Rule

The Due Process Clause requires that aliens threatened with deportation be provided the right to a full and fair hearing, which includes the right to a neutral judge.

The Due Process Clause requires that aliens threatened with deportation be provided the right to a full and fair hearing; a neutral judge was one of the most basic due process protections.

Analysis

The court found that Sanchez-Cruz's allegation of bias did present a colorable due process claim, as the immigration judge's behavior during the hearing suggested a lack of neutrality. However, since Sanchez-Cruz did not raise this issue before the Board of Immigration Appeals, she failed to exhaust her administrative remedies, which barred the court from exercising judicial review.

The record supports Sanchez-Cruz's colorable claim that she was denied a neutral fact-finder and an opportunity to have a full and fair hearing on her claims. However, she presents this argument for the first time in her petition for review. It is undisputed that she did not raise the issue of the IJ's bias before the BIA.

Conclusion

The appeal was dismissed due to the petitioner's failure to exhaust her administrative remedies regarding the claim of bias.

The appeal was dismissed.

Who won?

The Board of Immigration Appeals prevailed because the court dismissed the appeal based on the petitioner's failure to exhaust her administrative remedies.

The Board of Immigration Appeals prevailed because the court dismissed the appeal based on the petitioner's failure to exhaust her administrative remedies.

You must be