Ojo v. Garland, 2d C ir., 02-09-22, published
PANEL: CHIN, BIANCO, AND MENASHI, Circuit Judges.
OPINION: JOSEPH F. BIANCO, Circuit Judge
DISSENTING OPINION: MENASHI, Circuit Judge
SUMMARY BY COURT:
Olukayode David Ojo, a native of Nigeria, seeks review of a September 27, 2019 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming an April 15, 2019 decision of an immigration judge, which denied asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. See In re Olukayode David Ojo, No. A088-444-553 (B.I.A. Sept. 27, 2019), aff’g No. A088-444-553 (Immigr. Ct. N.Y.C. Apr. 15, 2019).
We grant Ojo’s petition for review and vacate the agency’s denial of Ojo’s claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection because those determinations were permeated with several legal and procedural errors. First, insofar as Ojo’s request for asylum was rejected as untimely, the agency applied the wrong legal standard to his claim of changed circumstances and the agency’s alternative discretionary determination failed to indicate the requisite examination of the totality of the circumstances. Second, with respect to Ojo’s application for withholding of removal, the agency erred when it incorrectly categorized his federal conviction for wire fraud and identity theft as “crimes against persons,” and concluded that they fell within the ambit of “particularly serious crimes” without evaluating the elements of the offenses as required under the agency’s own precedent. Finally, with respect to his CAT claim, the agency erred in concluding that Ojo lacked a reasonable fear of future persecution or torture in Nigeria due to his status as a criminal deportee without even addressing the declaration of his expert supporting his claim.
Accordingly, the petition for review is GRANTED, the BIA’s decision is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
JUDGE MENASHI dissents in a separate opinion.
*****************************
The majority opinion is 51 pages; Judge Menashi’s dissent another 35 pages. That’s 86 pages of Article III time trying to straighten out the BIA’s sloppy work and mis-application of basic legal concepts.
It would be in everyone’s best interests if Garland jettisoned his “Miller Lite holdover BIA” and replaced them with real appellate judges — experts in human rights and asylum law with reputations for careful practical, due-process-focused scholarship — Judges like his sole BIA appointment to date, Judge Andrea Saenz.
It’s painfully obvious that the out of control problems in immigration law will NOT be solved with the BIA currently in place. They lack the expertise, temperament, and background to get “the retail level of our justice system” back on track.
As this case, among others, illustrates, Garland’s failure to institute long overdue personnel and quality control reforms at EOIR is continuing to “bleed over” into the Article IIIs, occupying an increasing amount of their time. It also creates astounding inconsistencies among Circuits and among panels in the same Circuit. Garland’s “personal court system” is dysfunctional on multiple levels and is sowing more dysfunction throughout our justice system!
Garland and his lieutenants, including “above the fray” Solicitor General Liz Prelogar, also should take a look at the OIL “defense” in this case. It’s basically this:
“The respondent is a bad guy. So, it doesn’t matter if the BIA applies the wrong legal standards because they have discretion to deport any bad guy for any reason or even for the wrong reason. Even if the BIA didn’t do its job, you, Court of Appeals, should do it for them because, as we said, this is one bad dude who needs deporting. Did we mention that he’s a bad guy?”
The combined abysmal performance of EOIR and OIL, enhanced by the lack of leadership and engagement from Garland and his senior managers, is eroding the foundations of the U.S. legal system at an alarmingly rapid rate!
The majority was written by Judge Joseph F. Bianco, a recent Trump appointee; the dissenter, Judge Steven Menashi, is also a Trump appointee whose rise from right-wing “campus troll” to the Federal Bench was controversial. See, e.g., https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/9/12/20858813/steven-mensashi-ethnonationalism-trump-nominee.
I will say that at least he thought about, analyzed, and explained his views in much greater detail than the so-called “subject matter experts” at the BIA.
The answer is to replace the ongoing “EOIR Clown Show” 🤡 with real expert judges, at both the trial and appellate levels, who will consistently get these right in the first (or second) instance. That would “move” dockets (without violating rights), reduce the burdens on the Article IIIs, and promote (rather than actively undermine) consistency. It would also produce a consistent body of judicial scholarship on due process, racial justice, and best judicial practices in immigration, human rights, and fundamental Constitutional law that would help guide and solve systemic problems in the overall Federal legal system.
Why not bring in the talent and creative problem solving to turn a disgraceful, deadly, resource-wasting failure into a model judiciary? It’s a question that Garland has yet to answer!
🇺🇸Due Process Forever!
PWS
02-10-22