Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

CA5 on Fact Finding, Withholding: Partial Remand to BIA, Santos-Zacaria - Published!

January 13, 2025 (2 min read)

Santos-Zacaria v. Garland

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES [598 U.S. 411 *; 143 S. Ct. 1103 **; 215 L. Ed. 2d 375 ***; 2023 U.S. LEXIS 1891 ****]

Before Clement, Richman, and Higginson, Circuit Judges.

"Per Curiam: On remand from the Supreme Court, we are tasked with reviewing petitioner Leon (Estrella) Santos-Zacaria’s remaining arguments in support of her petition for review. We grant the petition in part, deny the petition in part, and remand. ... After stating its conclusion, the BIA stated several supportive facts—some found by the IJ, others not. The BIA did not suggest that some facts were essential to its conclusion while others were merely confirmatory. Nor did the BIA indicate whether its conclusion was based on a fundamental change in circumstances or on Santos’s purported ability to relocate reasonably within Guatemala. “The grounds upon which an administrative order must be judged are those upon which the record discloses that its action was based.” The BIA’s decision reflects that it hinged its decision, in part, on disputed facts, engaging in prohibited factfinding. ... the Government contends that our prior panel opinion, which held that substantial evidence supported the BIA’s determination that Santos could reasonably relocate within Guatemala, is law of the case that forecloses relief. We disagree. Our decision today resolves Santos’s impermissible-factfinding argument—an argument we previously held we did not have jurisdiction to consider. That the BIA’s decision was “supported by record evidence” and “substantially reasonable” does not answer whether the BIA violated its regulations by impermissibly finding facts. Because the BIA violated its regulations by impermissibly finding facts, we, consistently with our sister circuits, remand to the BIA. ... Santos contends that the BIA further erred by failing to address her pattern-or-practice claim. ... The Government admits that the BIA “did not directly address Santos’s argument.” But the Government contends that the BIA did not need to address the pattern-or-practice claim because the BIA’s past persecution finding rendered the pattern-or-practice claim moot. We disagree. The central question is “whether the BIA’s decision ‘deprive[s] [us] of a reasoned basis for review.’” The BIA’s decision here did. ... “It is well-established that an agency’s action must be upheld, if at all, on the basis articulated by the agency itself.” Because the BIA said nothing about Santos’s claim, we remand it to the BIA. ... For the foregoing reasons, we GRANT the petition with respect to Santos’s application for withholding of removal under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b) and REMAND for further proceedings. We DENY the petition with respect to Santos’s CAT claim."

[Hats way off yet again to Paul W. Hughes, Sarah P. Hogarth and Benjamin Osorio!]