Background
Benjamin Sandoval Diaz, a Mexican citizen, sought cancellation of removal after being charged with inadmissibility for unlawful entry. Although he was indicted for three felony drug offenses in North Carolina, the charges were dismissed in exchange for his cooperation with law enforcement. During immigration hearings, Diaz testified under oath and admitted to the essential elements of the drug offenses, including possession, sale, and delivery of cocaine. The Immigration Judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals denied his application, ruling that his admissions precluded a finding of good moral character.
The court’s reasoning
The court affirmed that Diaz’s admissions were valid because he testified voluntarily under oath with the assistance of counsel, distinguishing his case from Matter of K. The court noted that Matter of K applies to removability proceedings where the government bears the burden, whereas Diaz bore the burden of proving eligibility for relief. The court further rejected Diaz’s argument that his testimony failed to establish the substance was cocaine, noting his repeated acknowledgments of cocaine use and the specific details of the transaction.
The dissent
I do not believe the BIA decision here – which fails to enforce the agency’s standard rule governing admissions to crimes or acts constituting crimes – adheres to binding BIA precedent.
HARRIS
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces that noncitizens seeking cancellation of removal must be prepared to prove their eligibility, and their sworn admissions in that context will be held to a standard that may differ from removability proceedings.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download