Supreme Court Sides With Government On Asylum Appeals Case

Speaker 1: 00:00 As thousands of asylum seekers await their chance to argue why they should be allowed to stay in the U S a unanimous decision by the us Supreme court today could impact the outcome of some of those cases. The ruling written by justice, Neil Gorsuch invalidated an earlier decision by California's ninth circuit court of appeals on what a judge could consider when reviewing an asylum appeal. Joining me now to discuss the decision is Dan Eaton, legal analyst and partner at the San Diego firm of seltzer Caplan McMahon. And Vitech Dan, welcome. Good to be with you, Jade. Remind us what was at stake with this decision? Well, there's a lot Speaker 2: 00:39 At stake. The question is, uh, whose facts, uh, kind of, uh, court of appeals, uh, decide is right. Do you consider the facts as they were found, uh, by the immigration law judge and the board of immigration appeals, uh, in finding against, uh, these two particular individuals. So one who is seeking relief from removal, the other of whom was seeking asylum, or do you consider the alternative facts that are offered by these individuals? And what the court of appeals said was, look, when we are looking at these questions, we have to deem as true, the alternative facts that are offered from those that are seeking either relief from removal or asylum, uh, for purposes of determining whether they are entitled to relief. And we are not going to give any deference to the alternative conclusions of the board of immigration appeals, opposite and explicit finding, uh, that the individuals seeking relief were not credible. Speaker 1: 01:41 The key points of justice Gorsuch's decision. Well, the key Speaker 2: 01:45 Points are basically this, that, uh, the, uh, ninth circuit got it wrong when it said that we are obligated under the, uh, immigration and nationality act to accept as true, the alternative stories of visa immigrants, without regard to the contrary findings of the immigration authorities, that's just a judge-made rule. Appeals courts are not well-equipped to decide the credibility of people that are petitioning for relief. And what judge Gorsuch said is what you should have decided the rule you should have decided and used is the one that generally applies when you're reviewing administrative decisions. And the issue is that if no reasonable adjudicator could, uh, find, uh, as the administrative agency found, then, uh, you can find in favor of the asylum seeker or the person seeking relief from removal. Otherwise you really have to defer to the administrative agency. And in this case, the administrative agency ruled against both the person seeking asylum was from China and the person seeking relief from removal who was from Mexico. Speaker 1: 03:01 You mentioned the two cases, this decision consolidated. Will you tell us more about those cases? Sure. Speaker 2: 03:07 The first one, uh, concerned a man, uh, by the name of, uh, Alcatraz Henriquez, who was captured, uh, for being in this country unlawfully from Mexico. He said, look, I am entitled to relief from removal of back to Mexico, because I'm afraid of, uh, for my life, if I'm re returned there, here's the problem. Uh, Congress has specifically said that you're not eligible for relief from removal. If you have been convicted of a serious crime. And in fact, uh, years before he had been convicted of a serious crime of, of battering a cohabited in this case, his girlfriend, uh, what, uh, Mr. [inaudible] and Rica said was, yeah, I know what the parole reports, what the probation report said in that case that I beat her and dragged her and so forth. But the fact is I was actually protecting my daughter, and that's why I am entitled to relief from removal. Speaker 2: 04:03 Ninth circuit said, well, we've got to consider that to be true in the case of the Chinese individual, Mr. Di, uh, Mr. Di said, I am concerned if that, if I'm returned, I'm going to be persecuted in China because my wife, uh, there were some issues with family planning and the Chinese authorities taking a particularly aggressive action. When my wife got pregnant with our second child, forcing her to have an abortion. And he had a, he had a different version of the, of the story. And, uh, basically the immigration authorities didn't, uh, said, no, there's not enough here for asylum on the one hand and relief from removal on the other. And basically what the ninth circuit said was that we have to believe the alternative facts being offered by these, the immigrants in the United States, Supreme court said, no, you actually don't. You should defer absent, uh, an indication that no reasonable adjudicator of facts of what have found as the immigration authorities. Speaker 1: 05:07 So now the ninth circuit will have to rehear the cases of Ming Dai and Cesar Al Karez. Enrique is based on the Supreme court decision. Is that right? Speaker 2: 05:16 We hear isn't quite right. They'll have to reconsider it certain way based on a standard that is very different from the one that they used. And that is a standard of deference to these administrative findings that went against both gentlemen. It means the bottom line is that it is making less frequently, less likely that these individuals are going to get the relief that they are seeking. And that the ninth circuit said they were entitled to nine circuit found, realized that Mr. Alvarez Enriquez was entitled to relief from removal. That is he could stay. And Mr. Dye was entitled to asylum. That is going to have to be reconsidered. And in light of the findings below in the administrative findings below, it is unlikely that these men will prevail not a possible, but unlikely. Speaker 1: 06:02 And I think the key question here is how will this ruling affect the thousands of people who are currently seeking asylum? I'm not Speaker 2: 06:09 Entirely clear because these cases are so fact-specific, which is the whole point. And when you're going through the process, your best shot is at the administrative stage before the immigration law judge. And before the board of immigration appeals, once it gets to the court of appeals, it's probably going to be too late. If there are adverse findings, because under the United States Supreme court ruling today, the court of appeals is going to have to defer to those lower administrative findings, absent, really an indication that there was no other way the case could have come out except in your favor. And that's a very tough thing for an appellate to show. Speaker 1: 06:48 I've been speaking with Dan Eaton, a legal analyst and partner at the San Diego firm of seltzer Caplan McMahon. And Vitech Dan, thank you so much for joining us. Thank you, Jason.