The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision to deny Juan Carlos Pastor-Hernandez’s motion to reopen his removal proceedings. The court found that the BIA correctly applied the law and that Pastor-Hernandez failed to provide sufficient evidence to support his claim for voluntary departure from the United States.
Background of the Case
Pastor-Hernandez, a native of Guatemala, entered the U.S. illegally. He was later ordered to be removed from the country. He then sought to reopen his case, hoping to be granted voluntary departure. This would have allowed him to leave the U.S. on his own terms and avoid a formal deportation order.
To qualify for voluntary departure, Pastor-Hernandez needed to meet several requirements, including proving he had the means to leave the country. This is where the case got complicated.
The Passport Issue
The key issue in this case revolved around Pastor-Hernandez’s ability to obtain a Guatemalan passport. Without a valid passport, he couldn’t legally return to Guatemala. While he claimed he was “in the process” of renewing his passport, he didn’t provide any concrete proof, such as an application or supporting documentation.
The BIA denied his motion to reopen, stating that his claim was insufficient without supporting evidence. The BIA reasoned that a valid passport is required for returning to Guatemala and that Pastor-Hernandez failed to provide any evidence to support his claim that he was in the process of obtaining one.
The Legal Arguments
Pastor-Hernandez argued that the BIA applied the wrong legal standard. He claimed the BIA should have accepted his assertion that he was working on getting a passport, even without immediate proof, because he was likely to have it by the time of a future hearing. He believed this satisfied the requirement of having the “means to depart” the U.S.
The Sixth Circuit, however, disagreed. The court explained that while Pastor-Hernandez had a right to file a motion to reopen, he still needed to provide supporting evidence. The court found that his claim was too “conclusory” and lacked the necessary factual details to demonstrate he met the requirements for voluntary departure.
The Court’s Decision
The Sixth Circuit’s decision focused on whether the BIA made a legal error in its ruling. The court found that the BIA did not misinterpret the law. It correctly required Pastor-Hernandez to provide sufficient evidence to support his claim that he could depart the United States.
The court acknowledged that Pastor-Hernandez’s claim that he was “in the process” of obtaining a passport raised the question of whether an immigrant can base a motion to reopen on future facts. The court determined, however, that it did not need to answer this question. The court found the BIA’s decision correct because Pastor-Hernandez failed to provide any factual details or documentation in support of his claim.
The court also noted that Pastor-Hernandez’s case was different from previous cases where the court had found the BIA to be in error. In those cases, the immigrants had provided more specific and detailed information to support their claims. In this case, Pastor-Hernandez’s claim was too vague.
Ultimately, the Sixth Circuit denied Pastor-Hernandez’s petition for review, meaning the BIA’s decision to deny his motion to reopen stands. This leaves the order for Pastor-Hernandez to be removed from the United States in place.