Public Realm
Here are about a week’s worth of reports from Dan Kowalski at LexisNexis Immigration Community on the continuing disintegration of justice in “Garland’s Courts:”
CA3 on Credibility, CAT: Njoka v. Garland
“[W]e conclude that the Board erred in affirming the IJ’s denial of CAT protection. The Board’s sole justification for that affirmance was the adverse credibility finding. The Board suggested that, under Fifth Circuit precedent, an adverse credibility finding defeats a claim for CAT protection. See Ghotra v. Whitaker, 912 F.3d 284, 289 (5th Cir. 2019). But under the law of this circuit, an adverse credibility finding is “not determinative” of a claim for CAT protection.1 Ibarra Chevez v. Garland, 31 F.4th 279, 288 (4th Cir. 2022); see Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 371 (4th Cir. 2004) (“Because there is no subjective component for granting relief under the CAT, the adverse credibility determination on which the IJ relied to deny [the petitioner’s] asylum claim would not necessarily defeat her CAT claim.”). The Board was thus obliged to also consider Njoka’s independent evidence in the context of his claim for CAT protection.2 See Camara, 378 F.3d at 371-72. Because the Board did not fulfill that duty, we will grant the petition for review in part and remand for the Board to do so.”
[Hats off to Rajan O. Dhungana!]
************************
CA9 on INTERPOL Red Notice, CAT: Gonzalez-Castillo v. Garland
“Petitioner Oscar Gonzalez-Castillo was found to be ineligible for withholding of removal by an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) because there were “serious reasons to believe that [he] committed a serious nonpolitical crime” in his home country of El Salvador. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(B)(iii). The government only presented one piece of evidence supporting application of the serious nonpolitical crime bar, however. It was an INTERPOL Red Notice, described at greater length below. The Red Notice accused Gonzalez-Castillo of committing “strikes” on behalf of the gang MS13, allegedly committed on a date when Gonzalez-Castillo was in the United States rather than in El Salvador, based on the date of entry found by the IJ. We conclude that substantial evidence does not support the IJ’s finding, affirmed by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), that Gonzalez-Castillo is ineligible for withholding of removal based on the serious nonpolitical crime bar. This court has long interpreted “serious reasons to believe,” the standard set by the statute for the serious nonpolitical crime bar, as equivalent to probable cause. In this case, the INTERPOL Red Notice cannot, by itself, establish probable cause. The allocation of the burden of proof in immigration proceedings does not change this outcome. We accordingly grant Gonzalez-Castillo’s petition for review in part and remand to the agency to consider whether Gonzalez-Castillo is eligible for withholding of removal. We also grant the petition as to his claim under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), because the record reflects that the agency failed to consider all of Gonzalez-Castillo’s testimony and statements about the harms he suffered in El Salvador at the hands of state actors, so we remand for more complete consideration of the CAT claim. We are not persuaded, however, by arguments in the petition for review challenging the evaluation of evidence that was discussed or by the argument that that the IJ failed sufficiently to develop the record. We dismiss the petition in part as to his claim for asylum, because the arguments Gonzalez-Castillo raises on appeal with respect to the one-year bar for asylum relief were not exhausted before the BIA.”
[Hats off to Amalia Wille (argued) and Judah Lakin, Attorneys; Nicole Conrad and Joya Manjur, Certified Law Students; University of California, Berkeley School of Law, Berkeley, California; for Petitioner, and John P. Elwood, Kaitlin Konkel, and Sean A. Mirski, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae Fair Trials Americas!]
****************************
CA9 on Credibility, Changed Conditions (Sikhs in India) – Singh v. Garland
“We have held that the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) may rely on a prior adverse credibility determination to deny a motion to reopen if that earlier finding factually undercuts the petitioner’s new argument. Greenwood v. Garland, 36 F.4th 1232, 1234 (9th Cir. 2022). But that does not mean the BIA can deny a motion to reopen just because that motion touches upon the same claim or subject matter as the previous adverse credibility finding. Here, Rupinder Singh submitted new evidence about religious persecution independent of the prior adverse finding. The BIA thus erred in holding that the earlier adverse credibility finding barred Singh’s motion to reopen. The BIA also erroneously concluded that Singh failed to show that the conditions for Sikhs in India changed qualitatively since his last hearing. Clear evidence shows the contrary. We thus grant the petition and remand.”
[Hats off to Garish Sarin!]
***************************
CA1 on Abuse of Discretion: Rivera-Medrano v. Garland
“Karen Elizabeth Rivera-Medrano, a citizen and native of El Salvador, has petitioned for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the denial of her request for withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c)–1208.18, and denying her motion to remand this case to the immigration judge (“IJ”) based on newly obtained evidence. We conclude that the BIA abused its discretion in denying her motion to remand. Accordingly, we grant the petition for review, vacate, and remand for further proceedings. … The BIA’s oversight is particularly significant here, where the credibility determination rested considerably on minor inconsistencies in what the IJ concluded was an otherwise credible presentation.”
[Hats off to SangYeob Kim, Gilles Bissonnette and Henry Klementowicz!]
*******************************
President Biden is correct that Trump and his MAGA GOP are the biggest threat to American democracy. But, “Dred Scottification,” systemic denial of due process, and racial injustice still running rampant in Immigration “Courts” under a Democratic Administration is right up there as an existential threat!
Additionally, I’ve been getting reports this week from practitioners in various locations that EOIR is embarking on yet another mindless, ill-informed round of “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” — guaranteed to increase backlogs, decrease effective representation, and spew out more unprofessional and unjust results.
Once more, this inane initiative appears to have been undertaken with neither advance input from, nor sufficient notice to, those most affected — respondents and their attorneys! Same old, same old! This must stop!
Enough, already! Why aren’t all the “movers and shakers” of American law lined up in front of Garland’s Office demanding that he end the assault on our Constitution, common sense, good government, and human decency that unfolds every day in the disgracefully dysfunctional parody of a “court” system that is his sole responsibility!
The bar and NGO communities have to fight Garland’s assault on due process and good government with every available tool!
🇺🇸Due Process Forever!
PWS
00-02-22