Dan Kowalski reports from LexisNexis Immigration Community:
https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca9-on-persecution-nicaragua-flores-molina-v-garland-2-1
CA9 on Persecution, Nicaragua: Flores Molina v. Garland (2-1)
Flores Molina v. Garland
“Petitioner Mario Rajib Flores Molina (“Flores Molina”) participated in demonstrations against the ruling regime in his native Nicaragua, where he witnessed the murder of his friend and fellow protester by police and paramilitary members. Thereafter, he was publicly marked as a terrorist, threatened with torture and death by government operatives, and forced to flee his home. Flores Molina, however, was tracked down at his hideaway by armed paramilitary members, and was forced to flee for his life a second time. Flores Molina still was not safe. He was discovered, yet again, assaulted, and threatened with death by a government-aligned group. Flores Molina ultimately fled a third time— from Nicaragua altogether—out of fear for his safety. He eventually presented himself to authorities at the United States border and sought asylum and other relief. When Flores Molina sought asylum, withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) and the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) determined that his past experiences in Nicaragua did not rise to the level of persecution. They also determined that Flores Molina did not establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. The IJ and BIA denied all forms of relief and ordered Flores Molina’s removal to Nicaragua. Flores Molina petitions for review of the BIA’s denial of his appeal of the IJ’s decision, as well as of the BIA’s subsequent denial of his motion to reopen proceedings. Because the record compels a finding that Flores Molina’s past experiences constitute persecution and because the BIA erred in its analysis of the other issues, we grant the first petition and remand for further proceedings. Accordingly, we dismiss the second petition as moot.
[Hats off to Mary-Christine Sungaila (argued) and Joshua R. Ostrer, Buchalter APC, Irvine, California; Paula M. Mitchell, Attorney; Tina Kuang (argued) and Natalie Kalbakian (argued), Certified Law Students, Loyola Law School!]
*******************************
EOIR’s deadly, incorrect approach to sending refugees back to face persecution is legally incorrect, factually erroneous, and morally bankrupt. But, it does have one huge fan. Recently appointed Trump Ninth Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke:
In the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), Congress codified the highly deferential substantial evidence test and established what should be our court’s guiding star in the review of immigration decisions: that “administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” INA § 242(b)(4)(B) (codified as 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (emphasis added)). Congress later amended the INA by passing the REAL ID Act, further reining in our role and discretion as a reviewing court and stripping federal courts of jurisdiction to hear certain immigration claims. See Nasrallah v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1683, 1698 (2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). Over time, however, this court’s decisions have chipped away at these statutory standards—broadening the scope and standard of our review far beyond the limited and deferential posture that Congress unmistakably set out in the INA. See id.
To properly apply our deferential standard of review, we are supposed to scour the record to answer a single question: could any reasonable adjudicator have agreed with the agency’s result, or does the record as a whole compel a different conclusion? See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992) (explaining that substantial evidence review requires that we review “the record considered as a whole” and reverse the agency only if no reasonable factfinder could agree with its conclusion); see also Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 339 (9th Cir. 1995) (describing Elias-Zacarias as “the touchstone” and “definitive statement of ‘substantial evidence’ in the context of . . . factual determinations in asylum cases”). On its face, this is an exceptionally deferential standard of review. But there’s more.
“Scour the record” to defeat asylum claims that should have been granted below, huh? That clearly defective, biased, one-sided approach is “due process and fundamental fairness” for a “person” under our Constitution? Or maybe asylum seekers of color aren’t “persons” to VanDyke and his righty cronies? That’s how VanDyke would like the Constitution applied if his life were at stake?
He’d like to use legal mumbo-jumbo to allow refugees to have their lives ended or threatened by non-expert decision makers making it up as the go along to deny meritorious claims. Under his “standard of review,” judicial review would be no review at all. Just scour the record for any obscure reason to deny asylum or, failing that, just make one up. Doesn’t matter as long as the individual loses and gets removed! That’s pretty much what too many EOIR judges and BIA “panels” (which can be a single judge) are already doing. Why add another layer of intellectual dishonesty, moral corruption, and absence of judicial ethics to the mess?
Mr. Flores-Molina is not buy any means the only one subjected to Judge VanDyke’s loony right-wing legal nonsense. You can “meet” the judge right here:
https://newrepublic.com/article/165169/lawrence-vandyke-judge-ninth-circuit-appeals-trump-bonkers-opinions
“The Rude Trump Judge Who’s Writing the Most Bonkers Opinions in America.”
One might legitimately ask why already vulnerable asylum seekers and their courageous lawyers are being subjected to such judicial abuse at all levels of our system. Why doesn’t Garland just appoint “real, expert, fair EOIR Judges” who will do the right thing at the “retail level” without having to enter the “appellate circus” 🤡 that Trump and the GOP have created?
**************************************************
https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca1-on-credibility-reyes-pujols-v-garland
CA1 on Credibility: Reyes Pujols v. Garland
Reyes Pujols v. Garland
“[T]he BIA upheld an adverse credibility determination that the IJ reached in part based on an inconsistency in Reyes’s story that simply was not an inconsistency. Nor can we say that absent the adverse credibility finding, Reyes’s CAT claim would necessarily fail. We therefore must vacate the BIA’s ruling affirming the IJ’s denial of that claim. … Reyes’s petition for review is granted, the ruling of the BIA is vacated, and we remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
[Hats off to Ethan Horowitz!]
***********************
REALITY CHECK:
Here’s a key sentence from the preamble to the L.A. Declaration on Migration and Protection:
We are committed to protecting the safety, dignity, human rights, and fundamental freedoms of all migrants, refugees, asylum seekers, and displaced and stateless persons regardless of their migratory status.
So I’d like to know how the following fit within our solemn commitment to “protecting the safety, dignity, human rights, and fundamental freedoms of all migrants, refugees, asylum seekers?”
- Falsely finding that systematic assaults, death threats, being driven from your home, and being tracked down after fleeing, carried out by a Nicaraguan Government so repressive that it wasn’t even invited to the L.A. Conference, do not constitute persecution; and
- Inventing a bogus inconsistency in an asylum seeker’s testimony and using it to wrongfully deny asylum.
Clearly they don’t! And, this kind of official misconduct goes on somewhere at EOIR on both levels every day! Just ask any experienced asylum practitioner! So, why hasn’t Garland replaced the EOIR judges who are not qualified to be deciding asylum claims with readily available expert talent?
Asylum seekers face systematically unfair treatment by “judges” who serve at Garland’s pleasure. Many of those judges, particularly at the BIA, were appointed or “elevated” by Garland’s openly xenophobic, virulently anti-asylum predecessors during the Trump regime. Yet, inexplicably, they continue to inflict bad decisions and sloppy, legally defective, morally vapid work on the most vulnerable? Why?
What if we had an expert, due-process-oriented Immigration Court that uniformly interpreted asylum law correctly and actually granted much-needed and well-deserved protection? What if asylum seekers didn’t have to enter the “Circuit Court crap shoot” — or deal with bad “no review is judicial review” judges like Judge VanDyke — to get life-saving justice? What if the rule of law and human rights were honored and advanced in Immigration Court rather than being mocked and disparaged? What if Immigration Courts modeled good judicial behavior instead of operating as a shockingly dysfunctional parody of due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices?
Wouldn’t it be better for everyone?
Perhaps there is some modest movement in the right direction. I’ve received reports from at least two Immigration Courts that unqualified Trump-era appointees have been removed over over the past week. That’s a start! But, it will take lots more “removals or reassignments” and a complete “redo” of the mal-functioning BIA to get due process, expertise, fundamental fairness, and best (as opposed to worst) judicial practices back on track at EOIR!
🇺🇸Due Process Forever!
PWS
06-16-22
