Non-precedential overturning Judge Ferlise and about the standard of review

Quick note on two non-precedential cases:
Azuakoemu v. Gonzales, No. 05-3590 (3d Cir. Sept. 12, 2006) (not precedential): http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/053590np.pdf The Third Circuit of course has the power and jurisdiction to review questions of law such as due process concerns, even for those who have committed certain types of criminal offenses. It is surprising the government made a futile argument suggesting otherwise in this case. On the merits, the Third Circuit gave enormous deference to the BIA, which ruled that Nigeria did not have an official policy of torturing prisoners or that prison conditions were essentially torture.

Chen v. Gonzales, No. 05-3404 (3d Cir. Sept. 9, 2006) (not precedential): http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/053404np.pdf The Third Circuit once again overturned both the BIA and IJ Ferlise for an improper ruling in an asylum case. Here, the rule of the case must be respected where there weren't any extraordinary circumstances. This means that the first IJ's ruling before changing venue must be followed by the new IJ. Here, the new IJ (Judge Ferlise) disregarded the first IJ's ruling that the asylum claim was made within one year of arriving in the US. Judge Ferlise also denied the asylum claim based on specific inconsistencies. But the Third Circuit overturned the BIA and Judge Ferlise, concluding that in some instances, the supposed inconsistencies were not inconsistencies at all and in other instances, the inconsistencies were irrelevant to the merits of the asylum claim.