CA4 on 'Clear and Convincing Evidence' - Mauricio-Vasquez v. Whitaker

Mauricio-Vasquez v. Whitaker - "We consider a single question: Whether the Immigration Judge and the Board correctly determined, by clear and convincing evidence, that Mauricio-Vasquez was admitted to the United States in 2008. ...  In our view, any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude that DHS failed to prove Mauricio-Vasquez was admitted in 2008.  He is therefore not removable on the ground alleged by DHS. ... Although the ordinary practice is to remand to the agency for further proceedings consistent with our disposition, we conclude that such proceedings “would serve no purpose” here. Medina-Lara v. Holder, 771 F.3d 1106, 1118 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Karimi v. Holder, 715 F.3d 561, 565 (4th Cir. 2013)). The Board remanded this case once before, after the Immigration Judge determined that DHS had failed to satisfy its burden of proof. Yet despite being allowed to fully develop the record on remand, DHS has again failed to carry its burden. Under the circumstances, we decline to give DHS a “third bite at the apple.” Id. (quoting Siwe v. Holder, 742 F.3d 603, 612 (5th Cir. 2012)). We therefore vacate the order of removal, and remand to the agency with instructions to grant Mauricio-Vasquez’s motion to terminate removal proceedings."

[Hats way off to the pro bono team of Madeline Cohen, P. Nicholas Peterson and Adina Appelbaum!]