Category: Tairou v. Whitaker

Mocktar Tairou (“Tairou”) petitions this Court to review a final removal order by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his asylum and withholding of removal application and ordering his removal to Benin. Tairou contends that the BIA erred in finding that he was not subjected to past persecution and that he lacked a well- founded fear of persecution were he to return to Benin. Our binding precedent explicitly holds that a threat of death constitutes persecution. Because Tairou experienced multiple death threats in Benin, we hold Tairou established that he was subjected to past persecution. We therefore grant the petition for review and remand to allow the BIA to consider whether, in light of Tairou’s demonstrated past persecution, he has a well- founded fear of future persecution.

*******************************************

As I’ve pointed out before, beneath the hoopla and commotion caused by the direct assault on Due Process in Immigration Court conducted by the Trump Administration and Jeff Sessions, there is a deeper much more fundamental lingering problem. The BIA, a supposedly “expert tribunal,” consistently errors in the application of some of the most basic precepts of immigration law, particularly when it comes to recognizing and protecting the rights of asylum seekers. 

Also, even without a finding of past persecution, the threats shown in this case clearly should have been more than enough to show a “reasonable likelihood” (10% chance) of future persecution that fulfills the (supposedly) generous “well founded fear” standard for asylum enunciated by the Supremes in INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca and endorsed by the BIA in Matter of Mogharrabi.

In other words, the BIA’s analysis in this case contravenes what we used to teach in basic training of Immigration Judges and Judicial Law Clerks and would have earned a student “minimal credit” on my “Refugee Law and Policy” final exam at Georgetown Law. This clearly is a system where quality and fairness are not only “Not Job 1” but aren’t even on the charts! Astoundingly, we have Appellate Judges serving on the “highest immigration tribunal” who are less competent and knowledgeable than most second year law students!

Even before Sessions, many asylum seekers were wrongfully denied by intentionally skewed interpretations and careless work by a tribunal that had long ago lost sight of its supposed vision of “being the world’s best administrative tribunal, guaranteeing fairness and due process for all.” Folks with good lawyers, the wherewithal to appeal, and the luck of the “right panel in the right circuit” might eventually obtain justice. Others had their lives ruined or even ended by a system operating in contravention of normal judicial precepts and Constitutional Due Process. Sessions “doubled down” on bias and “worst practices.”

How many must suffer and die before this system is brought into even  minimal compliance with our laws, international conventions, and Constitution (let alone fulfilling its now mocked promise of becoming the “world’s best administrative tribunal guaranteeing fairness and Due Process for all”)?

Shame on those in Congress, the Executive Branch, and the Article III Judiciary who have either promoted or enabled this travesty of justice. And, shame on America for not holding all of these public officials accountable.

Join the New Due Process Army and fight to force all public officials to live up to their oaths of office!

PWS

12=07-18