Laura Luis Hernandez v. John Ashcroft
345 F.3d 824 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), 'extreme cruelty' can include non-violent psychological and manipulative acts that are part of a larger pattern of domestic violence. Specifically, an abuser's actions during the 'contrite phase' of the cycle of violence to lure a victim from safety in the U.S. back into an abusive relationship constitutes extreme cruelty occurring 'in the United States' for the purposes of suspension of deportation.
Facts:
- Laura Luis Hernandez and Refugio Acosta Gonzalez married in Mexico in 1990.
- After the marriage, Refugio, a legal permanent resident of the U.S., began drinking heavily and subjected Hernandez to severe physical and verbal abuse in Mexico, including breaking a chair across her back and smashing a fan on her head.
- Fearing for her life, Hernandez fled from Mexico to her sister's home in Los Angeles, California.
- While Hernandez was in Los Angeles, Refugio repeatedly called her, cried, begged for forgiveness, and promised to stop the abuse and seek marriage counseling if she returned to Mexico.
- Believing his promises of remorse, Hernandez agreed and returned to Mexico with him.
- Upon their return to Mexico, Refugio refused to see a counselor and his severe physical abuse resumed, culminating in an attempt to stab her with a knife.
- Hernandez fled to the United States for a second time to escape Refugio.
- During their marriage, Refugio had filed an I-130 petition for permanent residency on Hernandez's behalf.
Procedural Posture:
- The INS initiated deportation proceedings against Laura Luis Hernandez.
- Hernandez appeared before an Immigration Judge (IJ), a trial-level administrative court, conceded deportability, and applied for suspension of deportation under VAWA and for adjustment of status.
- The IJ denied both applications, finding Hernandez lacked credibility and had failed to prove she was a victim of domestic violence in the U.S.
- Hernandez, as appellant, appealed the IJ's decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), an administrative appellate body.
- The BIA reversed the IJ's negative credibility finding but affirmed the denial of both applications, concluding Hernandez had not been subjected to 'extreme cruelty in the United States' and that the nonviability of her marriage was a valid discretionary reason to deny adjustment of status.
- Hernandez, as petitioner, filed a petition for review of the BIA's final order with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an abusive spouse's non-violent, manipulative behavior in the United States, which is part of a recognized 'cycle of violence' and successfully lures a victim from safety back to an abusive relationship in another country, constitute 'extreme cruelty in the United States' under the Violence Against Women Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Paez, Circuit Judge
Yes. An abuser's behavior during the 'contrite' phase of domestic violence may, and in these circumstances does, constitute 'extreme cruelty.' The court interpreted 'extreme cruelty' by looking to clinical understandings of domestic violence, which recognize a 'cycle of violence' consisting of a tension-building phase, an acute battering phase, and a contrite phase. Refugio's actions in Los Angeles—crying, making false promises, and begging Hernandez to return—represented this contrite phase, which is a psychologically crucial part of maintaining a batterer's control. The court deferred to an INS regulation defining extreme cruelty to include acts that 'may not initially appear violent but that are a part of an overall pattern of violence.' Against the backdrop of prior severe abuse, Refugio's manipulative actions in the U.S. fit this definition, as they lured Hernandez from safety back into a deadly relationship. The court also held that the BIA erred in denying Hernandez's adjustment of status, finding that the nonviability of a marriage is an impermissible basis for a discretionary denial, as established by prior BIA precedent.
Analysis:
This decision significantly expands the legal definition of 'extreme cruelty' under VAWA for immigration purposes, moving beyond physical acts to include psychological manipulation and coercive control. It establishes that actions occurring during the 'remorseful' or 'contrite' phase of the domestic violence cycle are legally cognizable as cruelty, reflecting a more sophisticated understanding of the dynamics of abuse. This creates a critical precedent for battered immigrants, allowing them to establish eligibility for relief even if the physical violence occurred outside the U.S., so long as a key component of the psychological control pattern took place within the U.S. The ruling also reinforces that an agency's 'discretionary' decisions are not immune from judicial review when they contradict established law or precedent.
Unlock the full brief for Laura Luis Hernandez v. John Ashcroft