Lin (not precedential): Remand Where BIA Unclear About Basis For Its Decision

Lin v. Holder
No. 08-1596
Not Precedential
June 11, 2009
http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/081596np.pdf

Judges Barry, Smith, and Hardiman. Per Curiam.

When deficiencies in the BIA's decision make it impossible to review meaningfully, the Third Circuit will vacate the decision and remand the case so that the BIA can further explain its meaning. Kayembe v. Ashcroft, 334 F.3d 231, 238 (3d Cir. 2003).

Here, the BIA did not offer a coherent rationale for affirming IJ Frederic Leeds's denial of an asylum-seeker's applications.

On the one hand, the BIA said the IJ's findings were not erroneous, which suggests it affirmed the IJ's credibility determination. On the other hand, the BIA said it believed one of the asylum-seeker's factual assertions, which suggests it did not completely find the asylum-seeker not credible. In addition, the BIA included analysis that would only matter if the BIA found the asylum seeker credible. The vagueness of the BIA's analysis is not resolved by the parties, because they also disagree about what the BIA meant.

The Third Circuit overturned the BIA and remanded for further proceedings. Let's hope the long delay for this to get resolved turns out well.