Amazing StoriesArtist Unknown, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/06/21/18-72786.pdf
Kaur v. Garland, 9th Cir., 06-21-21, published
PANEL:Mary M. Schroeder and Marsha S. Berzon, Circuit Judges, and Salvador Mendoza, Jr.,* District Judge.
OPINION BY: Judge Mendoza
STAFF SUMMARY:
Granting Ravinder Kaur’s petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, and remanding, the panel held that the Board erred in concluding that Kaur failed to establish material changed circumstances to warrant an exception to the time limitation on her motion to reopen, and in concluding that she failed to establish prima facie eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under the Convention Against Torture.
Kaur sought to reopen her removal proceedings based on a combination of changed personal circumstances – the death of her abusive husband and his family’s threats that they would kill her if she returned to India because she was responsible for his death, and changed country conditions – including worsening conditions in India for women and widows.
The panel held that the Board mischaracterized the record and erred in concluding that Kaur presented evidence of only changed personal circumstances in support of reopening. The panel explained that while a self-induced change in personal circumstances does not qualify for the changed circumstances exception, that principle cannot apply rigidly when changed circumstances in the country of origin, while personal to the petitioner, are entirely outside her control, as was the case here. The panel further
** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.
KAUR V. GARLAND 3
explained that even where any change in personal circumstances is voluntary and did not originate in the country of nationality, the changed circumstances exception applies where changes in personal circumstances are made relevant due to changes in country conditions. The panel wrote that Kaur’s husband’s death, and his family’s death threats, were made relevant by increased violence in India against women, and in particular against widows. The panel further wrote that, contrary to the Board’s determination that Kaur provided evidence of only generalized conditions, Kaur presented evidence demonstrating that the prevalence and severity of human rights violations against women and widows had materially worsened in many respects.
The panel held that the Board also erred in concluding that Kaur failed to establish prima facie eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal relief. First, the panel concluded that the Board erred in determining that Kaur failed to establish that a protected ground, including her membership in a family social group, would be one central reason, or a reason, for the harm she fears. The panel wrote that a person may share an identity with a persecutor, and if a member of a particular social group is persecuted by other members of that same group because those members perceive the applicant as being “insufficiently loyal or authentic” to that group, she has been persecuted on account of a protected ground. Second, the panel concluded that the Board erred by requiring Kaur to show that her similarly situated family members had been mistreated. The panel explained that the safety of similarly situated members of the family who remained in the country of origin may be pertinent to a claim of future persecution, but does not itself disprove it, and in this case, the Board relied on the safety of Kaur’s daughter, who was not similarly situated. Third, the
4 KAUR V. GARLAND
panel concluded that the cultural context and Kaur’s evidence established more than a mere personal vendetta.
The panel held that the Board erred in concluding that Kaur failed to establish prima facie eligibility for CAT protection. First, the panel held that the Board erred in applying a “more likely than not” standard, rather than requiring Kaur to show a “reasonable likelihood” of meeting the statutory requirements for CAT protection. Moreover, the panel concluded that the Board abused its discretion in determining that Kaur did not meet the government consent or acquiescence requirement. The panel pointed out that Kaur presented evidence that her husband’s family is wealthy and has the means of carrying out their threats, that India suffers from widespread corruption, and that officials respond ineffectively to crimes, especially those against women. Based on that evidence, the panel concluded that the Board did not have substantial evidence to dismiss Kaur’s fears as speculation.
***********************
This is outrageous! In addition to raising issues about Garland’s failure to replace the “Killer BIA” with real progressive judges who are experts in human rights, due process, and immigration law, as almost every expert recommended, it raises serious concerns about Associate AG Vanita Gupta’s inexplicable failure to bring in litigation competence at OIL. Presenting and defending this mess as acceptable performance by DOJ quasi-judicial officials raises very serious ethical questions about both the “judges” and the attorneys defending their obviously defective, bias-based, anti-asylum, anti-female work product.
As many of us have been saying ever since the election, the “thorough housecleaning” at DOJ can’t wait! There is plenty of evidence to get the government lawyers participating in this mockery of justice out of leadership and decision-making positions, at a minimum! The fact that this case was argued under the Trump regime does not change the unethical performance at OIL or the incompetence of the BIA. Folks who “go along to get along” with violations of law and ethics, particularly in support of a White Nationalist agenda, should not be holding responsible Government legal positions. PERIOD!
Every individual and group who believes in due process, equal justice, gender fairness, good government, humanity, racial justice, and legal ethical norms should be demanding that Garland, Monaco, Gupta, and Clarke change leadership at EOIR, immediately relieve and replace (even if on a temporary basis) the BIA, and bring ethics, expertise, and competence to OIL.
Kristen Clarke, some the most outrageous “civil rights abuses” in America here taking place right at the DOJ — at EOIR and OIL! Others are “hidden in plain sight” at DHS, particularly in their “New American Gulag.” You’re NOT going to solve voting rights, police misconduct, or any other civil rights problem in America without first getting the DOJ’s house in order. And, that means standing up to your dawdling and, to date, remarkably ineffective “political bosses” and demanding immediate change!
It’s YOUR REPUTATION, along with the lives of refugee women like Ms. Kaur, that are on the line here!
🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!
PWS
06-21-21