First Circuit Court of Appeals Remanded a Dismissal
The First Circuit Court of Appeals in Shul-Navarro v. Holder (No. 13-2271, August 11 2014) remanded a dismissal issued by BIA (the Board of Immigration Appeals). THe court ruled that BIA failed to provide adequate explanation for its dismissal of Mr. Shul-Navarro’s case was inadequate. Circuit court only ruled on the inadequate reasoning offered by both the Immigration Judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). On remand, BIA should offer adequate explanation for the Board of Immigration Appeals’ rationale behind the decision by showing reasoning based on all relevant evidence on the record.
This case pivots on the residency and physical presence requirement for “temporary protected status” for El Salvadorans. All El Salvadoran applicants for temporary protected status pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §1254(a) must reside in the U.S. before March 9, 2001, the designated date set by the Attorney General.
Circuit court’s rationale is simple. The dismissal was remanded because immigration officials did not address all evidence that appear relevant to the critical issue, if the basis of their denial relates to such evidence. Mr. Shul-Navarro claimed to have entered the U.S. in 1999, without inspection. Thus, the date was unconfirmed. His best evidence was an acceptance letter of his healthcare plan application along with his card in 2000. Both Immigration Judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals did not address this letter, while claiming Mr. Shul-Navarro failed to meet the burden of proof by offering unreliable information. Thus, the Court found the reasoning without discussion of the letter issued by a healthcare provider in 2000 inadequate.
Mr. Shul-Navarro applied for temporary protection status in May of 2001 while his first appearance in court was 2009. The moral of this story is—regardless of the outcome, petitioners in complicated cases of the kind should be mentally prepared for the long-haul.