Manuel Valdez-Rodriguez v. Eric Holder, Jr.
Per Curiam OPINION filed : We deny Valdez-Rodriguez s petition for review, decision not for publication pursuant to local rule 206. Danny J. Boggs, Circuit Judge; Ronald Lee Gilman, Circuit Judge and Bernice Bouie Donald, Circuit Judge.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 12a0900n.06
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
MANUEL CARMELO VALDEZRODRIGUEZ,
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Aug 14, 2012
LEONARD GREEN, Clerk
ON PETITION FOR REVIEW
FROM THE UNITED STATES
BOARD OF IMMIGRATION
BEFORE: BOGGS, GILMAN, and DONALD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM. Manuel Carmelo Valdez-Rodriguez petitions for review of an order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that affirmed an immigration judge’s (IJ) order of removal.
Valdez-Rodriguez is a native and citizen of Mexico. In April 2000, he entered the United
States without being admitted or paroled after inspection. In 2008, the Department of Homeland
Security initiated removal proceedings against him. Valdez-Rodriguez conceded removability, but
moved the IJ to continue or stay his removal proceedings pending the adjudication of an I-130 visa
petition that was to be filed on his behalf by his five-year-old son, who is a United States citizen.
The IJ denied the request and ordered Valdez-Rodriguez removed from the country, concluding that,
under 8 U.S.C. § 1151(b)(2)(A)(i), a child must be at least twenty-one years old to file an I-130 visa
petition on behalf of a parent. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision, declining to address ValdezRodriguez’s constitutional challenge to § 1151(b)(2)(A)(i) as beyond its power of review.
Valdez-Rodriguez v. Holder
On appeal, Valdez-Rodriguez asserts two arguments: (1) his removal from the country and
his minor son’s inability to file an I-130 visa petition on his behalf violate their rights under the
United States Constitution and international law; and (2) the age requirement in § 1151(b)(2)(A)(i)
has no rational basis. When the BIA issues its own opinion rather than summarily adopting the
findings of the IJ, we review the BIA’s decision as the final agency determination. Bi Xia Qu v.
Holder, 618 F.3d 602, 605 (6th Cir. 2010). We review legal conclusions de novo and factual
findings under the substantial-evidence standard. Zhao v. Holder, 569 F.3d 238, 246 (6th Cir. 2009).
The IJ’s order of removal did not violate the constitutional rights of either Valdez-Rodriguez
or his United States citizen son. See Payne-Barahona v. Gonzales, 474 F.3d 1, 2-3 & n.1 (1st Cir.
2007); Newton v. INS, 736 F.2d 336, 342-43 (6th Cir. 1984); Hernandez-Rivera v. INS, 630 F.2d
1352, 1356 (9th Cir. 1980). Further, Valdez-Rodriguez has not identified any specific violation of
international law, and “[i]t is the role of Congress, not courts, to ensure that immigration laws
comport with family, societal, and other values.” Ukpabi v. Mukasey, 525 F.3d 403, 408 (6th Cir.
2008) (citation omitted). Finally, the age requirement in § 1151(b)(2)(A)(i) is not irrational because
it prevents individuals from entering the country illegally and promptly having children to avoid
deportation. Hernandez-Rivera, 630 F.2d at 1356.
Accordingly, we deny Valdez-Rodriguez’s petition for review.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?