杏十八新茶分享

 

Ridore v. Holder

Summarized by:

  • Court: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Archives
  • Area(s) of Law: Immigration
  • Date Filed: 10-03-2012
  • Case #: 08-71379
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Circuit Judge Fisher for the Court, Circuit Judge Rawlinson and District Judge Wu.

The Board of Immigration Appeals cannot disregard an Immigration Judge鈥檚 factual findings and substitute its own view of the facts. The BIA must either find clear error in the IJ鈥檚 factfinding, with an explanation of why; or, if critical facts are missing, it may remand to the IJ.

Jean Baptiste Ridore sought review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) vacating an immigration judge鈥檚 (IJ) grant of protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) and cancellation of removal. Throughout the proceeding the IJ made numerous factual findings. On appeal the BIA vacated the IJ鈥檚 decision despite his fact-based findings, concluding that, though prison conditions in Haiti are dreadful, 鈥渢he deportee had not carried his burden of showing they met the definition of torture under CAT.鈥 In this case, the Court found the BIA鈥檚 failure to address the majority of the IJ鈥檚 specific factual findings; failure to discuss the evidence underlying those finding; lack of mention of Ridore鈥檚 expert witness, 鈥渦pon whom the IJ extensively relied;鈥 and over reliance on facts laid out in precedential cases; cumulatively had 鈥淸t]he net effect of 鈥 apply[ing] an overall de novo review.鈥 Specifically, the Court stated, 鈥淭he BIA cannot, under a clear error standard of review, override or disregard evidence in the record and substitute its own version of reality.鈥 By making 鈥渃onclusory pronouncements,鈥 based on its own interpretation of the facts, without revealing any errors made by the IJ, the BIA鈥檚 opinion strayed from 鈥渃lear error鈥 review. The Court summarized the numerous errors the BIA made by stating, 鈥渢hroughout its CAT ruling the BIA failed to grapple with the evidentiary record in this case and to specifically address any clear errors the IJ made in his factual findings based on that evidence鈥︹ This Court held that the BIA applied the correct standard as to the cancellation of removal, but that the BIA 鈥渃ommitted legal error in vacating the IJ鈥檚 decision with respect to the CAT protection claim,鈥 and remanded to the BIA 鈥渢o review the IJ鈥檚 CAT findings applying the clear error standard.鈥 Petition for Review GRANTED and REMANDED.

Advanced Search


Back to Top