In re Monreal-Aguinaga
Board of Immigration Appeals
23 I. & N. Dec. 56 (2001)
- Written by Eric DiVito, JD
Facts
Francisco Javier Monreal-Aguinaga (plaintiff) was a native and citizen of Mexico who entered the United States in 1980 at the age of 14. Monreal-Aguinaga was the father of three children—an infant, an eight-year-old, and a 12-year-old. The older children were fluent in Spanish. Monreal-Aguinaga’s wife voluntarily departed to Mexico shortly before Monreal-Aguinaga’s immigration hearing, taking their infant with her. Monreal-Aguinaga’s parents had lawfully immigrated to the United States and did not require Monreal-Aguinaga’s care. Monreal-Aguinaga also had seven siblings who lawfully resided in the United States. Monreal-Aguinaga had been employed at his uncle’s company since he arrived in the United States and was the sole financial support for the older children. Monreal-Aguinaga also periodically sent money to support his wife and infant in Mexico. In 1998, Monreal-Aguinaga conceded at immigration proceedings that he was removable from the United States. Monreal-Aguinaga applied for cancellation of removal under § 240A(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). An immigration judge denied Monreal-Aguinaga’s application and granted his request for voluntary departure. Monreal-Aguinaga appealed the denial of his application to the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Holmes, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.