ILNews

7th Circuit tackles 'novel' U visa review request

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled it does not have jurisdiction to review immigration orders denying a specialized visa to a non-citizen trying to stay in the country after assisting in an investigation or prosecution.

The appellate court’s ruling came today in Juan Gabriel Torres-Tristan v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Nos. 10-14-11, 10-2532 and 10-333, a case involving three petitions for review on orders from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

Petitioner Juan Gabriel Torres-Tristan entered the U.S. illegally from Mexico as a minor in 1993, and he served an Illinois sentence on robbery and aggravated battery because of his involvement with the Latin Kings gang. The U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service ordered his removal, and that happened in July 2001. Despite not being able to re-enter without prior approval from the U.S. attorney general, Torres-Tristan re-entered without permission three months later and returned to the Chicago area. He was assaulted in late 2002 and sustained substantial injury. He worked with police investigating the assault to pinpoint the attackers, though that was not successful.

He remained in the Chicago area for seven years, becoming engaged and having a child without any official attention to his illegal immigration status. In January 2010, DHS officials arrested him and reinstated the prior removal order from 2000. While in federal custody awaiting removal, Torres-Tristan filed a petition with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services seeking a U visa that would grant him temporary lawful status based on his cooperation in the police investigation of the 2002 attack.

Because his previous removal order from 2000 was in effect at the time of the attack and before the police cooperation, federal officials determined he wasn’t eligible for a U visa and denied his visa and waiver petitions, as well as a later request for reconsideration. Those actions are what Torres-Tristan sought to have reviewed by the federal courts.

In a 22-page order, the 7th Circuit denied his requests. Judge David Hamilton wrote for the unanimous panel that also included Judges Daniel Manion and Diane Wood.

With regard to judicial review of the DHS’s reinstatement of the 2000 removal order, that was the only petition the court found it has jurisdiction over. The court denied the request on the merits.

“The second and third petitions seek to create a novel route to obtain, apparently for the first time in the circuit courts of appeals, judicial review of orders by (USCIS) that denied petitioner the ‘U Visa’ he sought to prolong his unlawful stay in the United States,” Judge Hamilton wrote, later delving into language in the U visa regulations issued in recent years and generally addressed in caselaw.

Describing this as “an unprecedented expansion of our very limited judicial review of the reinstatement,” Judge Hamilton described why the court was rejecting the argument. He wrote that a Supreme Court ruling from 1983 allowing orders to be cancelled “by operation of law” and similar provision in the U visa regulation is an unlikely means for accomplishing the result Torres-Tristan wants.

This petition review request was a collateral matter for the DHS, something the federal courts aren’t allowed to review, he wrote.

Denying the first petition, the appellate panel dismissed the others for lack of jurisdiction without reaching the merits.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT