Summary
This First Circuit opinion reviews the Board of Immigration Appeals' denial of Roobens Maurice's applications for adjustment of status and cancellation of removal. The court addresses whether the agency properly relied on uncorroborated police reports detailing arrests that did not result in convictions to deny discretionary relief. While the court finds no due process violation regarding the fundamental fairness of using the reports, it vacates and remands the adjustment of status denial because the BIA failed to make an express finding that the administrative record contained corroborating evidence as required by precedent. Claims regarding cancellation of removal were dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the agency could rely on police reports in adjudicating Maurice's discretionary adjustment-of-status application without making an express finding that the reports were reliable.
- Whether the agency was required to make an express fundamental-fairness finding before relying on the police reports.
- Whether the agency violated binding BIA precedent by giving substantial weight to police reports concerning unconvicted conduct without determining whether the reports were corroborated.
- Whether Maurice could challenge on judicial review defects in his notice to appear that he had not presented to the BIA.
- Whether the agency properly determined that Maurice was ineligible for cancellation of removal based on failure to satisfy the ten-year continuous-physical-presence requirement.
Holdings
- The court could not consider Maurice's argument that the agency failed to make an express reliability finding because he did not properly exhaust that argument before the BIA.
- The agency was not required to make an express finding that use of the police reports was fundamentally fair so long as it gave Maurice an opportunity to be heard and to challenge and rebut the reports.
- The agency may consider police reports concerning conduct that did not result in a conviction, but under In re Arreguin De Rodriguez it may not give such reports substantial weight in denying discretionary immigration relief unless the reports' allegations are corroborated. The BIA failed to determine whether corroborating evidence existed, requiring vacatur and remand of the adjustment-of-status decision.
- The court could not consider Maurice's arguments that his notice to appear was defective because he was a minor, because of the absence of pleadings by the original Immigration Judge, or because the case had been administratively closed during his temporary protected status; those theories were not exhausted before the BIA.
Key quotations
“The agency may "generally consider a police report . . . when making a discretionary immigration decision, even if an arrest did not result in a charge or conviction."” (at 11)
“However, Arreguin requires that to give such reports "substantial weight," there must be "corroborating evidence of the [report's] allegations."” (at 11)
“These considerations are distinct from the additional requirement that a police report, absent a conviction, must be corroborated before the agency may give the report substantial weight in denying adjustment of status as a matter of discretion.” (at 14)
Factual background
Maurice, a native and citizen of Haiti, entered the United States on a temporary visa in April 2010 and later received temporary protected status. After that status ended, he was arrested in 2018 for conduct involving his estranged wife and was arrested twice in 2020 for domestic-assault-related conduct, including an incident in which he admitted accidentally striking his wife with a drill. The Immigration Judge relied substantially on police reports concerning the arrests in denying adjustment of status as a matter of discretion, while separately finding Maurice ineligible for cancellation of removal because his notice to appear stopped the continuous-presence clock less than two years after his arrival.
Procedural history
Maurice was placed in removal proceedings after overstaying a temporary visa. The Immigration Judge denied his applications for adjustment of status, cancellation of removal, asylum, withholding of removal, Convention Against Torture protection, and voluntary departure, and ordered him removed. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed, and Maurice timely petitioned the First Circuit for review, challenging the agency's use of police reports and its determination that he was ineligible for cancellation of removal.
Remand instructions
The petition is granted; the BIA's order is vacated insofar as it pertains to adjustment of status; and the matter is remanded for the BIA to determine whether the administrative record contains corroboration for the police reports relied upon to deny adjustment-of-status relief and for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. The cancellation-of-removal determination was not vacated.