Being forced to concede relief may violate due process

Suarez-Diaz v. Holder, No. 13-3605 (6th Cir. Apr. 30, 2014) (unpublished)

In this case, the court criticized the practice of pressuring respondents to give up claims for relief to receive a continuance or some other benefit. However, it is not a per se due process violation. The court found no due process violation on the facts of this case.

The court also found no abuse of discretion in denying a sixth request for a continuance. The respondent sought a continuance to pursue an administrative appeal of the denial of his Cuban Adjustment Act application. There is no indication in the court's decision as to the status of that appeal.

Sixth Circuit defers to Matter of Y-L-

Luambano v. Holder, No. 13-3881 (6th Cir. Apr. 30, 2014) (unpublished)

In this decision, the court deferred to the AG's decision in Matter of Y-L-, 23 I&N Dec. 270 (AG 2002), which found that drug trafficking convictions are presumptively particularly serious so as to bar an applicant from withholding of removal.

It is unclear why the petitioner conceded that his conviction for delivery of marijuana is an aggravated felony drug trafficking offense, when he could have argued otherwise.

6th Cir on review of CAT claims, denial of venue change

Mendoza-Rodriguez v. Holder, No. 13-4357 (6th Cir. Apr. 25, 2014) (unpublished).

In this case, the court affirmed the denial of CAT relief to a convicted drug dealer who feared retaliation by a Mexican drug cartel due to his perceived cooperation with law enforcement.

The court concluded that most of the issues were immune from review because of his criminal history. Under the limited scope of review, the court could not reweigh the evidence. The court affirmed the denial of his motion to change venue because it did not affect the proceedings or render them fundamentally unfair.

It is not clear if the petitioner pursued relief under the Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime.