Not Precedential: Overturning BIA's Cursory Statement

In "C.R." v. Gonzales, No. 04-4762 (3d Cir. July 24, 2006) (not precedential) (http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/044762np.pdf), the Third Circuit overturned and remanded a case because the BIA offered no rationale for its conclusion. The BIA stated with no explanation that health care professionals are not a particular social group that may qualify for asylum protection. But because the BIA offered no explanation for how it got to that conclusion, the Third Circuit overturned and remanded the case. It was impossible for the Third Circuit to review the BIA's ruling.

And if the BIA does not say a word about an issue, the Third Circuit will remand those cases too. In "Z.K." v. Gonzales, No. 05-3188 (3d Cir. July 13, 2006) (not precedential), the asylum-seeker submitted a great deal of new evidence as part of her BIA appeal. The BIA's ruling did not say whether or not it considered the new evidence, so the Third Circuit remanded for the BIA to state what it thought of the new evidence.

"G.P." v. Gonzales, No. 05-2228 (3d Cir. July 19, 2006) (not precedential) (http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/052228np.pdf): overturning asylum decision because IJ was impatient, abrupt, and belligerant during the hearing, constantly berating and interrupting the asylum-seeker when questioning him. The Third Circuit did not name the immigration judge in the case.

"J.M." v. Gonzales, No. 05-4449 (3d Cir. July 14, 2006) (not precedential) (http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/054449np.pdf): overturned Judge Garcy because claim that someone was persecuted because he is homosexual cannot be cast aside by portraying persecution as based on personal choice to visit discos which ultimately result in being attacked by bigots. The Third Circuit ruled that being homosexual is the crux of the claim, not any distinction that he was engaging in certain acts (visiting a disco) that is somehow distinct from homosexual status.