DOL, July 26, 2024 "On August 7, 2024, the Department of Labor will host a public webinar to educate stakeholders, program users, and other interested members of the public on the changes to the...
Atud v. Garland (unpub.) "Mathurin A. Atud petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings based on alleged ineffective...
Shen v. Garland "Peng Shen, a citizen of the People’s Republic of China, applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. An Immigration Judge ...
This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 07/25/2024 "On January 17, 2017, DHS published a final rule with new regulatory provisions guiding the use of parole on a case...
Lance Curtright reports: "After the 5th Circuit’s initial decision in Membreno, [ Membreno-Rodriguez v. Garland, 95 F.4th 219 ] my law partner Paul Hunker (a new AILA member!) reached out to...
Alvarez-Gomez v. Garland
"Gustavo Alexis Alvarez-Gomez, a citizen of El Salvador, petitions this court for review of the denial of his application for withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and reversal of withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Alvarez-Gomez has serious cognitive impairments, and while living in El Salvador he was recruited by gang members who attacked and threatened him when he refused to join. We deny in part, and grant in part, Alvarez-Gomez’s petition for review. ... The IJ ... denied Alvarez-Gomez’s withholding of removal claim pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A). However, the IJ granted Alvarez-Gomez CAT protection. ... The BIA sustained DHS’s appeal. The BIA concluded that the IJ clearly erred in finding that Alvarez-Gomez would more likely than not suffer torture in El Salvador and reversed the IJ’s decision to grant CAT protection. ... [W]e review “whether the Board provided sufficient justification for its determination” that the IJ clearly erred. Abdi Omar, 962 F.3d at 1064. “This means that the Board must adequately explain why it rejected the IJ’s finding and identify reasons grounded in the record that are sufficient to satisfy a reasonable mind that there was clear error.” Id. ... Upon careful review, we conclude that the reasons offered for rejecting the IJ’s findings are insufficient to satisfy a reasonable mind that the IJ clearly erred. ... In sum, the BIA did not provide sufficient justification for reversal, failing to identify reasons grounded in the record that are sufficient to satisfy a reasonable mind that the IJ clearly erred in its factual findings. ... We grant the petition for review with respect to Alvarez-Gomez’s application for withholding under the CAT. We deny Alvarez-Gomez’s petition for review in part and grant it in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion."
[Hats off to Timothy E. Wichmer!]