Not a Lexis+ subscriber? Try it out for free.

Immigration Law

CA1 on Evidence, Due Process: Molina-Diaz v. Wilkinson

Molina-Diaz v. Wilkinson

"After reviewing the record, we conclude that the IJ never gave Molina the necessary opportunity to explain why she did not provide corroborating evidence. ... Molina also argues that the BIA erred in finding that she did not adequately apply for relief under the CAT. We agree. The BIA contends otherwise because even though Molina checked the box on her Application to indicate that she "want[ed] to apply for withholding of removal under the [CAT]," her supporting affidavit did not specifically mention the CAT. This determination, however, is contrary to the BIA's own precedent as set forth in Matter of N-M-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 526 (BIA 2011). ... For the foregoing reasons, we grant the petition, vacate the removal order, and remand for the BIA, when considering Molina's withholding and CAT claims, to allow Molina to produce the required corroborating evidence or explain why she is unable to do so."

[Hats off to Nancy J. Kelly and John Willshire Carrera!]