CA8 on Reasoned Decision-Making: Davis v. Garland

Davis v. Garland

"The BIA erred in affirming the IJ. The entirety of the BIA’s analysis about the motion to reopen was that Davis “has not established that evidence of his mental health issues and of his past and feared harm if returned to Liberia are new, previously unavailable, or would likely change the result in his case.” This one sentence alludes to the elements of a motion to reopen, but does not explain how they apply to Davis’s case. Neither the IJ nor the BIA met the requirements of reasoned decision-making. ... Without an adequate explanation, this Court cannot conduct a meaningful review of the BIA’s September 30, 2022 order. ... This Court grants Davis’s petition for review in case no. 22-3262, denies the petition for review in case no. 23-1229, and remands for further proceedings consistent with this opinion."

[Hats off to Colleen Mary Cowgill, Joseph N. Glynn, Elaine Janet Goldenberg, Keren Hart Zwick, Zachary Scott Buckheit, Golnaz Fakhimi, David R. Fine, Kira Michele Geary, Haarika R. Reddy, Cynthia Louise Rice and Kate Thorstad!]