Citations for ILW.COM's Seminar
Advanced Removal Series
Session III held on May 1, 2014
Provided by Maris J. Liss
Rashid v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d. 438, 442-48 (6th Cir. 2008) (where BIA issued inconsistent unpublished decisions on the same issue, the Court denied the government's motion to remand the case for agency determination and rendered a decision on the merits).
Davila-Bardales v. INS, 27 F.3d 1, 5-6 (1st Cir. 1994) (nonpublication of a decision does not permit an agency to take a view of the law in one case that is contrary to the view it set out in earlier cases, without explaining why it is doing so) (cited in Perez-Vargas v. Gonzales, 478 F.3d 191, 194 n.3) (4th Cir. 2007)
Shardar v. Attorney General, 503 F.3d 308, 315 (3d Cir. 2007) (regardless whether decision is "precedential," agency must treat similarly situated individuals similarly).
Several courts have held that facts presented in a motion to reopen are to be accepted as true unless inherently unbelievable. See, e.g., Shardar v. Attorney General, 503 F.3d 308, 313 (3d Cir. 2007); Bhasin v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 977, 987 (9th Cir. 2005) (holding that the self-serving nature of a declaration supporting a motion to reopen is not an appropriate basis for discrediting its content); Limsico v. INS, 951 F.2d 210, 213 (9th Cir. 1991). Similarly, in Matter of Patel, 19 I&N Dec. 774 (BIA 1988), the Board, recognizing that a petitioner has a high burden to overcome a presumption of a fraudulent marriage, held that it should not be presumed that the petitioner's evidence is false or contrived. Id. at 784-85. Finally, the Board cannot rely on an IJ's adverse credibility finding to deny a motion to reopen when the finding was based on issues unrelated to the ground upon which the motion to reopen was based. Guo v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 556, 562 (3d Cir. 2004).
Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134, 140 (1944).
Matter of JJ, Interim Decision #3323, 21 I & N Dec. 976 (BIA 1997)
Matter of W-G-R-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 208 (B.I.A. 2014)
Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227 (B.I.A. 2014).
Quele-Navarro v. Holder, Nos. 09-72768 and 11-72430, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 4052, January 9, 2014, Resubmitted, San Francisco, California, March 4, 2014, Filed
Perkovic v. INS, 33 F.3d 615, 620 (6th Cir. 1994)
Matter of Avetisyan, 25 I&N Dec. 688 (BIA 2012)
8 CFR 1103.1(e)(6)