The en banc Ninth Circuit reversed the BIA’s denial of asylum to a homosexual citizen of Mexico, finding that the petitioner had shown that Mexican officials were unable or unwilling to protect him from harm by private individuals due to his sexual orientation, and thus that he had established past persecution. The court also concluded that the petitioner was entitled to a presumption of future persecution, and remanded for the BIA to consider whether that presumption was rebutted, and also to consider the petitioner’s claims for withholding of removal and CAT protection, taking into account new evidence of the petitioner’s HIV diagnosis.
(1) An untimely application for asylum may be found frivolous under section 208(d)(6) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(6) (2012). Luciana v. Att’y Gen. of U.S., 502 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 2007), distinguished. Matter of X-M-C-, 25 I&N Dec. 322 (BIA 2010), followed.
(2) The respondent’s asylum application is frivolous because he deliberately made a false statement postdating by more than 2 years his date of entry into this country, which is a material element in determining his eligibility to seek asylum given the general requirement to file the application within 1 year of the date of arrival in the United States.
On October 31, 2016, former Immigration Judges and BIA members sent a letter to DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson to express concern and disappointment regarding the dramatic increase in the numbers of men, women, and children detained by ICE, stating, “On the basis of our experiences as immigration jurists, we know this expansion comes at the expense of basic rights and due process.”
In a precedent decision issued today, the BIA held that the crime of endangering the welfare of a child in violation of §260.10(1) of the New York Penal Law, which requires knowingly acting in a manner likely to be injurious to the physical, mental, or moral welfare of a child, is categorically a “crime of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment” under INA §237(a)(2)(E)(i).
The Fourth Circuit held that the BIA erred in concluding that the petitioner was an aggravated felon who was ineligible for cancellation of removal under INA §240A(a)(3), finding that a conviction for receipt of embezzled property under 18 USC §659 is not an aggravated felony under the categorical approach
The Ninth Circuit granted the petition for review of the BIA decision, finding the petitioner ineligible for cancellation of removal or voluntary departure because he lacked good moral character as a “habitual drunkard.” The court remanded, holding that the petitioner could bring an equal protection challenge because there is no rational basis to classify persons afflicted by chronic alcoholism as innately lacking good moral character.