Josue Roman Sanchez, a native and citizen of Mexico, entered the United States illegally in 2000. Between 2019 and 2021, he was charged with and convicted of multiple crimes, including several driving under the influence offenses in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. In 2023, the Department of Homeland Security detained Sanchez and initiated removal proceedings. Sanchez applied for asylum, withholding of removal, protection under the Convention Against Torture, and cancellation of removal. The Immigration Judge denied all forms of relief, citing the one-year deadline for asylum, the lack of evidence for persecution or torture, and the multiple DUI convictions which precluded a finding of good moral character. The BIA affirmed the IJ's decision, deeming the asylum-related claims waived because Sanchez did not challenge the specific grounds for denial in his appeal. Sanchez petitioned the Third Circuit for review of these decisions.
The Court addressed three primary issues. First, regarding asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection, the Court held that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in finding these claims waived. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1), the Court lacks jurisdiction to review final orders unless the petitioner has exhausted all administrative remedies. To exhaust, a petitioner must meaningfully challenge the IJ's determinations in their appeal to the BIA. Sanchez failed to challenge the IJ's ruling on the one-year asylum deadline or the specific findings regarding persecution and torture in his BIA brief. Consequently, these claims were unexhausted and unreviewable. Second, regarding cancellation of removal, the Court applied a substantial evidence standard to the BIA's determination that Sanchez lacked good moral character. The record showed four DUI arrests in three states over 19 months, which the Court found were not an aberration. This evidence supported the conclusion that Sanchez failed to rebut the presumption of lacking good moral character. Third, the Court addressed the Fifth Amendment due process claim. Sanchez argued he was denied a full and fair hearing because the IJ excluded his wife and psychologist as witnesses. The Court held that to succeed on a due process claim, a petitioner must show substantial prejudice. Sanchez failed to demonstrate how the excluded testimony would have changed the outcome or provided information not already in the record. Therefore, the Court found no constitutional violation.
The petition for review is dismissed in part and denied in part. The dismissal of the asylum, withholding, and CAT claims means these issues cannot be raised in this Court and remain barred by the exhaustion requirement. The denial of the cancellation of removal claim confirms that multiple DUI convictions within the statutory period are strong evidence against good moral character, limiting eligibility for this form of relief. The decision reinforces that due process claims in immigration proceedings require a showing of substantial prejudice, not just the exclusion of evidence.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download