Toribio-Chavez v. Holder

Filing 920100708

Opinion

var gAgent = navigator.userAgent.toLowerCase()
var gWindows = ( (gAgent.indexOf( "win" ) != -1 ) || ( gAgent.indexOf( "16bit" ) != -1 ) )
var gIE = ( gAgent.indexOf( "msie" ) != -1 )
var bInlineFloats = ( gWindows && gIE && ( parseInt( navigator.appVersion ) >= 4 ) )
var floatwnd = 0

var WPFootnote1 = ' The IJ also denied Toribio\'s request for voluntary\
departure; however, he has not appealed this ruling.\
'

var WPFootnote2 = ' At the time of these proceedings, Toribio and Potter\'s\
marriage had been annulled. Potter had primary custody of the\
couple\'s two minor children, and Toribio had visitation rights.\
Kucharski had custody of Toribio\'s two minor children with her, and\
he had visitation rights. Toribio provided financial support for\
these four children. He did not support his three children with\
Chavez as they were adults. \
'

var WPFootnote3 = ' On March 1, 2003, the functions of the Immigration and\
Naturalization Service were transferred to the Department of\
Homeland Security. See 6 U.S.C. § 291(a); see also 6 U.S.C. § 542\
(setting forth the transfer of functions in the accompanying\
Reorganization Plan). \
'

var WPFootnote4 = ' In Toribio\'s brief to this court, he indicates that after\
his 2002 immigration interview he requested documentation from\
Mexican authorities regarding his annulment and learned from them\
that his marriage to Chavez was never annulled. \
'

var WPFootnote5 = ' Additionally, Toribio asserts that one of the issues in this\
case is whether the initial IJ who first found Toribio removable\
committed an error of law and due process violation when she\
referenced the existence of a 204(c) bar in her oral decision. \
This reference appears to relate to § 204(c) of the INA, which\
pertains in part to marriage fraud. (Codified at 8 U.S.C. §\
1154(c)). After identifying this issue, however, Toribio neglected\
to address it again in his brief, setting forth no argument as to\
why it was an error and violation. Consequently we will not\
address it. See Seale v. I.N.S, 323 F.3d 150, 152 n.1 (1st Cir.\
2003) ("A party who fails to a raise a particular claim or defense\
on appeal normally waives the right for it to be considered."); see\
also Ryan v. Royal Ins. Co., 916 F.2d 731, 734 (1st Cir. 1990)\
("[I]ssues adverted to on appeal in a perfunctory manner,\
unaccompanied by some developed argumentation, are deemed to have\
been abandoned.").\
'

var WPFootnote6 = ' As an alternate basis for her holding, the IJ found that\
inconsistencies in Toribio\'s annulment petition and his\
misrepresentation of his marital status to obtain immigration\
benefits supported a finding that he was not a person of good moral\
character. To the extent Toribio argues that the IJ\'s alternate\
finding that she would not exercise her discretion to grant\
cancellation was error, we lack jurisdiction to review his claims.\
See Elysee v. Gozales, 437 F.3d 221, 223 (1st Cir. 2006).\
'

var WPFootnote7 = ' In the end the IJ did not find the photograph persuasive\
because in her letter Potter never denied knowledge of Toribio\'s\
oldest children, just knowledge of his marriage to their mother. \
'

var WPFootnote8 = ' The IJ who made the final decision only presided over the\
final two hearings, which took place on September 26, 2006 and\
December 27, 2006. \
'

function WPShow( WPid, WPtext )
{
if( bInlineFloats )
eval( "document.all." + WPid + ".style.visibility = 'visible'" );
else
{
if( floatwnd == 0 || floatwnd.closed )
floatwnd = window.open( "", "comment", "toolbars=0,width=600,height=200,resizable=1,scrollbars=1,dependent=1" );
floatwnd.document.open( "text/html", "replace" );
floatwnd.document.write( "\r\n" );
floatwnd.document.write( " p { margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:1px; } \r\n" );
floatwnd.document.write( "\r\n" );
floatwnd.document.write( WPtext );
floatwnd.document.write( 'Close');
floatwnd.document.write( "