In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
____________________
No. 17‐1673
RICARDO SANCHEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III,
Attorney General of the United States,
Respondent.
____________________
Motion to Stay Removal Ordered by the
Board of Immigration Appeals.
No. A205‐830‐444.
____________________
SUBMITTED MAY 5, 2017 — DECIDED MAY 24, 2017
____________________
Before BAUER, POSNER, and FLAUM, Circuit Judges.
POSNER, Circuit Judge. Before us is a petition for review of
the refusal of the Board of Immigration Appeals to reopen its
order removing (i.e., deporting) the petitioner, Ricardo
Sanchez, and a motion by the petitioner to stay his removal
pending a definitive ruling on his petition, and finally a
statement by the Department of Justice opposing both the
petition and the motion.
2 No. 17‐1673
An illegal immigrant, Sanchez conceded his removability
at a hearing before an immigration judge, but applied for
cancellation of removal for nonpermanent residents. See 8
U.S.C. § 1229b(b). To obtain that relief he had to show that he
had been physically present in the United States for at least
10 years and that during that period he was a person of good
moral character. Id. He also had to establish that his removal
would result in “exceptional and extremely unusual hard‐
ship” to his U.S.‐citizen children. Id. (He has three children,
ages eight years, six years, and fifteen months, and lives with
them and his wife, who also lacks legal‐resident status.)
He testified that he was the primary breadwinner for his
family, having worked at the same pizza restaurant for the
past eighteen years, and that he feared that his removal
would wreak extreme hardship on his children because he
wouldn’t be able to provide for his family with the wages
that he would earn in Mexico. He admitted having been con‐
victed four times in the past sixteen years of driving under
the influence, and that he had twice violated conditions of
his bond.
The immigration judge concluded that because of the
DUI convictions Sanchez had failed to demonstrate good
moral character. The immigration judge also concluded that
Sanchez had failed to establish that his removal would result
in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship for his chil‐
dren, because he was unable to answer questions about
whether his family would follow him to Mexico. And so the
immigration judge denied the application for cancellation of
removal.
Sanchez appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals,
which, agreeing with the immigration judge, dismissed the
No. 17‐1673 3
appeal. Sanchez filed a timely motion with the Board to reo‐
pen his appeal; represented by new counsel, he argued that
his original counsel had failed to prepare him for his hearing
before the immigration judge. As a result he had failed to tes‐
tify that his two older children are native English speakers
who speak little Spanish; that his third child, who had not
yet been born at the time of the removal hearing, has been
diagnosed with delayed motor development, requiring three
months of weekly physical therapy; and that he had filed tax
returns for the preceding several years. Again the Board re‐
jected his appeal, precipitating the petition and motion now
before us for resolution.
There is a threshold question whether this court has ju‐
risdiction to review the denial of Sanchez’s motion to reopen,
given that we would not have jurisdiction over the underly‐
ing request for relief—cancellation of removal. 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i). But we do have jurisdiction to review
questions of law. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). And in Mata v.
Lynch, 135 S. Ct. 2150, 2155 (2015), the Supreme Court said
that “whenever the Board [of Immigration Appeals] denies
an alien’s statutory motion to reopen a removal case, courts
have jurisdiction to review its decision.” And the First Cir‐
cuit, citing Mata, has asserted jurisdiction over a motion to
reopen in a case where the petitioner, as in the present case,
was seeking a form of discretionary relief (a waiver under 8
U.S.C. § 1182(h)) from removal that would not otherwise be
reviewable by the court. Mazariegos v. Lynch, 790 F.3d 280,
285 (1st Cir. 2015). The government has not responded to
Sanchez’s invocation of Mata in the present case.
Assuming as we do that we have jurisdiction to review
the Board’s denial of Sanchez’s motion to reopen, we shall
4 No. 17‐1673
exercise it, and order Sanchez’s removal stayed pending our
review of the Board’s denial of his motion for reconsidera‐
tion. The Board noted that Sanchez had attached to his mo‐
tion new evidence in support of his ineffective‐assistance‐of‐
counsel claim, including affidavits from Sanchez and others,
information about his U.S.‐citizen children, and records per‐
taining to his criminal history. The Board concluded, but
without explanation, that none of the evidence “would have
likely altered the outcome of this case with regard to the
hardship that would accrue to his children.” Although the
Board is not required “to write an exegesis on every conten‐
tion” of an alien fighting removal, a blanket rejection of all
the alien’s evidence precludes meaningful review of its deci‐
sion. Ji Cheng Ni v. Holder, 715 F.3d 620, 625–30 (7th Cir.
2013).
The government also failed to respond to Sanchez’s ar‐
gument that he and his family will suffer irreparable harm if
he is removed to Mexico before his petition to reopen the
removal proceeding is resolved. See Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S.
418, 426 (2009). He is his family’s primary breadwinner, sup‐
porting his wife and their three young children. Sanchez ex‐
presses concern that he won’t be able to support his family,
who are expected to remain in Ohio, with whatever wage he
can make in Mexico, and that his youngest son will be unable
to continue with the therapy he needs if Sanchez’s wife is
forced to go back to work to support the family. He further
argues that his removal should not be a priority for the De‐
partment of Homeland Security because the decision to re‐
move him was not based on his criminal convictions.
Given the irreparable harm that Sanchez’s removal could
inflict on his minor U.S.‐citizen children, we have decided to
No. 17‐1673 5
stay the order of removal until we rule on his petition for
review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals
denying his motion to reopen.
So ordered.