Buddhi v. Holder

Citation: 344 F. App'x 280Docket: No. 09-1598

Court: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; September 14, 2009; Federal Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Kotasubbarao Buddhi, an Indian citizen, acknowledges overstaying his allowed time in the United States but asserts that a federal magistrate judge's order in his son Vikram's criminal case necessitated his continued presence. The magistrate's order placing Vikram in Buddhi's custody is argued to obligate Buddhi to stay in the U.S. However, both an Immigration Judge (IJ) and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) rejected this argument, affirming Buddhi's removability. Buddhi came to the U.S. in June 2006 with permission to stay until September 6, 2006, which he exceeded by several months. After Vikram's indictment on multiple charges related to threatening government officials, Buddhi requested an extension of his stay in April 2007, citing the need to attend Vikram's trial. This request was denied because it was made after the authorized stay had expired without adequate explanation. The IJ ruled that the magistrate's order did not extend Buddhi’s legal stay, and the BIA upheld this decision, finding no procedural errors. Buddhi's claim regarding his visa expiration date was deemed moot since removal proceedings began after this date. His subsequent motion to reconsider the BIA's decision was denied, with the BIA reiterating that the government's denial of his stay extension was unreviewable and confirming no errors in its prior ruling.

Buddhi seeks review of the BIA's denial of his motion to reconsider, which was his first and timely filed motion, unlike the motion in Johnson v. Mukasey, where the petitioner's third motion was denied as untimely. While the court generally lacks jurisdiction over BIA's discretionary decisions, it retains jurisdiction to review issues involving pure legal errors or constitutional rights. Buddhi argues that the BIA misinterpreted a magistrate judge's order regarding custody of his son, asserting that it overrode his departure date. However, this claim is based on a misunderstanding of immigration law, which grants federal political branches the authority to determine immigration status, limiting judicial review. Buddhi fails to identify any legal basis for the magistrate judge to extend his stay through a bond order related to his son, and the judge's order does not imply such authority. Buddhi mistakenly believes that leaving the country would violate the magistrate judge's order, when in fact, it was his son who would have faced potential violation, which could have been addressed by seeking a modification of the bond order. Additionally, Buddhi's challenge to the denial of his request to extend his stay is outside the jurisdiction of both the court and the BIA. His misconception about the significance of his visa expiration date and departure date highlights that the border agent's discretion in granting a stay did not obligate them to allow him to remain until his visa expired. The visa issuance and the actual admission to the U.S. are separate processes governed by different agencies, and the expiration of his authorized stay invalidated his request to extend it. Ultimately, the BIA and IJ lacked authority to review CIS's decision on Buddhi's extension request.

Buddhi had the option to request reconsideration from CIS under 8 C.F.R. 103.5; however, no appeals to the Department of Justice are allowed from CIS decisions, which are statutorily assigned to the Secretary of Homeland Security as per 8 U.S.C. 1184(a)(1) and 6 U.S.C. 202, 557. Consequently, 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) precludes judicial review of this matter. Buddhi contends that his detention from August 21 to August 28, 2007, hindered his ability to request reconsideration by the August 29 deadline, but the court found that his custody did not render the request impossible. Additionally, Buddhi raised concerns about the arrest's manner and alleged selective prosecution; however, these claims are outside the court's jurisdiction. While Buddhi asserted that the Immigration Judge (IJ) was biased and restricted him from fully presenting his case, the court determined that the IJ's actions were appropriate and aimed at maintaining the hearing's efficiency. Buddhi failed to demonstrate any specific arguments or evidence that he was barred from presenting, and any potential errors by the IJ were deemed non-prejudicial. Therefore, the court dismissed Buddhi's petition regarding CIS's decision, his detention, and prosecution, while denying other aspects of the petition. Importantly, the court clarified that the responsibility for nonimmigrant admissions had been transferred to the Secretary of Homeland Security, as mandated by the Homeland Security Act of 2002.