Ruiz-Del-Cid v. Holder, No. 13-3663 (6th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseRuiz unsuccessfully applied for asylum in 1993 and was interviewed by an asylum officer in 2007. DHS initiated removal proceedings. Ruiz and his wife, who were in the country illegally, applied to cancel removal and, in 2011, appeared before an Immigration Judge. On direct examination Ruiz confessed that his asylum application contained an untrue statement and that he repeated the lie at his interview. He testified that a notary public had written his application because Ruiz could not then read or write English. Ruiz learned later that the notary had written that Ruiz had been threatened by guerillas in Guatemala. He had not. The government may only cancel removal if the applicant “has been a person of good moral character” during his time in the U.S. 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)(1)(B), which excludes a person who “has given false testimony for the purpose of obtaining any benefits under this chapter.” There is an exception under the doctrine of retraction. The IJ did not consider whether Ruiz had timely retracted his prior testimony, but found a “clear violation.” The BIA concluded that the exception did not apply because retraction was not timely. The Sixth Circuit vacated and remanded: timeliness is determined by whether the falsehood was retracted before it was or was about to be exposed. Ruiz chose, to his own detriment, to retract his statement at his first opportunity to testify after his interview and with no evidence that his lie would have been exposed. Ruiz should not be prejudiced by the BIA’s backlog.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.