Cruz Rendon v. Holder (9th Cir. 2010)

In a harsh rebuke to a sitting immigration judge, the 9th Circuit ruled that the judge’s conduct deprived an applicant for cancellation of removal a full, fair, and impartial hearing.

The applicant, Cruz Rendon, was a citizen of Mexico who entered the United States illegally in 1990.  In 2004, the government initiated removal proceedings against her.   She applied for cancellation of removal as her form of discretionary relief.  Her qualifying relative was her four year old son, whom she was raising as a single parent.  Her son suffered from Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD).  Cruz Rendon submitted a psychological report which documented her son’s condition.  The report indicated that if he were separated from his mother or forced to relocate to Mexico, the resultant emotional distress would worsen his problems.  To qualify for cancellation of removal, Cruz Rendon had to establish that her son would suffer “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” if she were removed from the U.S.

Cruz Rendon was unable to present her case because the IJ denied her the opportunity to present any evidence relating to her son’s condition.  Anytime she attempted to discuss her son’s condition, the IJ cut her off, stating that the information had already been addressed in the psychologist’s report.  The IJ also cut off Cruz Rendon when she tried to describe the school system in Mexico, which she believed to be inadequate to deal with her son who had special needs.  The IJ stated that Cruz Rendon did not present sufficient evidence that the Mexican school system was inadequate.  Cruz Rendon requested a continuance to provide the evidence.  The IJ denied the request.  Cruz Rendon pointed out that her evidence was lacking because she only had one month to prepare her case.  The IJ was unsympathetic and said that she had had ample time to present her evidence.  The IJ denied Cruz Rendon’s application and issued a written decision the same day as the merits hearing.  Cruz Rendon appealed, asserting that she had been denied a full and fair hearing.

Cruz Rendon’s appeal received a receptive forum in the 9th Circuit, which agreed with her and remanded the case for further proceedings.  In its opinion, the court reiterated the longstanding principles that “an alien is entitled to a full and fair hearing that meets the requirements of due process.”  The IJ’s conducted prevented Cruz Rendon from introducing significant testimony which would have established the hardship her son would face if she were removed to Mexico.  The IJ denied Cruz Rendon the opportunity to discuss fully her son’s medical and education needs.  The IJ also wrongfully denied her the necessary continuance to provide additional evidence.  The court agreed with Cruz Rendon that one month is insufficient time to marshal significant evidence to support her case.  It was unreasonable for the IJ to deny the continuance request.

Finally, the court wrote that it was “deeply troubled” by the IJ’s conduct in the case, and the IJ exhibited a fundamental disregard for the rights of individuals.  The court noted that it had issued negative written opinions of the same judge on five other occasions, and reminded the IJ that judges are required to be impartial.  This case illustrates the fundamental difficulty with the immigration court system.  Although it was designed to produce fair and humanitarian results, its purposes may sometimes be thwarted by human biases and prejudices with the system.  Luckily, the appellate courts may act as counterweights in situations where the process was unfair.