Due Process

Holding that district courts have jurisdiction to review immigration determinations when they constitute a collateral challenge in a criminal proceeding and declining to reach whether a collateral challenge to a Temporary Protected Status (TPS) determination in a criminal proceeding is permissible because the Petitioner failed to assert a due process violation that would render the 2002 adjudication of his TPS application fundamentally unfair.

Holding that the agency abused its discretion when it failed to consider all of the In re Hashmi factors in denying a non-citizen's motion for a continuance due to DHS's delay in adjudicating an I-130 petition filed by the non-citizen's husband.

Declining to apply full exclusionary rule to immigration proceedings and upholding agency's denial of Petitioner's motion to suppress statements he made to police officers and ICE agents admitting that he was without status because Petitioner failed to establish an egregious Fourth Amendment or due process violation.

Holding that, following remand, the agency properly denied Petitioner's application for an INA § 216a(c)(4)(B) good faith marriage waiver because (1) the Court lacked jurisdiction to consider the agency's adverse credibility determination and weighing of evidence, (2) Petitioner failed to submit sufficient evidence to satisfy the statutory standard for a good faith marriage, and (3) the Immigration Judge did not violate Petitioner's due process rights at the merits hearing.

Holding that the Immigration Judge did not abuse his discretion or violate due process in denying a continuance after Petitioner retained new counsel, and upholding the Immigration Judge's denial of Petitioner's application for an 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(c)(4)(B) good faith marriage waiver because (1) the Court lacked jurisdiction to review the agency’s weighing of evidence, (2) the Board applied the correct standard of review, and (3) Petitioner’s evidence failed to satisfy the statutory standard for a good faith marriage.