27 F.4th 25
1st Cir.2022Background
- Adekunle Adeyanju, a Nigerian national, entered the U.S. on a B-2 visa in 2013, married U.S. citizen Miranda Raymond, and obtained conditional resident status; USCIS later issued a notice of intent to deny and then denied the joint I‑751 on indicia of marriage fraud.
- Multiple 2014–2015 police reports documented alleged "creepy" approaches to young women; in 2019 Adeyanju was arrested and indicted on kidnapping and sexual‑assault charges supported by DNA evidence and a police report that he initially lied to police.
- An IJ granted Adeyanju adjustment of status, finding him credible and that positive equities outweighed negatives; the IJ treated earlier 2014–2015 incidents as "creepy," not criminal, and found his explanation for visa statements reasonable.
- DHS appealed; the BIA reversed the IJ, reweighed record evidence de novo, treated the immigration/visa indicia and alleged dishonesty as negative equities, and ordered removal; Adeyanju filed motions to reconsider and reopen, which the BIA denied.
- Adeyanju petitioned for review in the First Circuit, arguing the BIA violated 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(i) by engaging in de novo factfinding rather than applying clear‑error review, and that the BIA should have remanded or deferred decision while an I‑751 waiver was pending.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the BIA impermissibly engaged in de novo factfinding instead of applying clear‑error review to IJ factual findings | BIA reversed IJ factual findings and reweighed facts without finding clear error | BIA may reweigh undisputed record facts and assign discretionary weight de novo; only new or disputed facts require remand | BIA may weigh undisputed record facts de novo, but when it reverses explicit IJ factual findings it must apply and explain clear‑error review; the court found two clear‑error violations and remanded for reconsideration |
| Whether the BIA must remand to the IJ after finding clear error | If BIA finds IJ's factual finding clearly erroneous it must remand so IJ can reassess discretion | No automatic remand; BIA may resolve appeal if the existing record suffices; remand required only when further factfinding is necessary | No categorical remand required; remand depends on need for further factfinding; here court remanded to the BIA to address identified clear‑error issues but did not require immediate remand to the IJ |
| Whether the BIA erred by issuing a final removal order while a separate I‑751 waiver was pending | BIA should have remanded or stayed proceedings pending I‑751 adjudication or allowed continuances | IJ lacked jurisdiction over the I‑751 while USCIS had not issued a final decision; BIA could decide removal | BIA's later explanation that the IJ lacked jurisdiction rendered the earlier silence moot; because USCIS later issued a final denial, the court directed the BIA on remand to consider the effect of that final denial and Adeyanju's I‑751 prima facie claims |
| Whether the BIA gave an adequate explanation for denying reopening on I‑751 prima facie eligibility | BIA's one‑line statement that Adeyanju failed to show prima facie eligibility is too terse to permit review | BIA's conclusion was correct | Court remanded because the BIA's minimal explanation did not permit review of the prima facie eligibility determination |
Key Cases Cited
- Chen v. Holder, 703 F.3d 17 (1st Cir. 2012) (IJ is primary factfinder; BIA reviews IJ factual findings for clear error but may analyze the record)
- Rotinsulu v. Mukasey, 515 F.3d 68 (1st Cir. 2008) (clear‑error rule does not prohibit BIA from weighing and evaluating evidence in the existing record)
- Pérez‑Trujillo v. Garland, 3 F.4th 10 (1st Cir. 2021) (departures from BIA's settled adjudication course can present reviewable legal questions)
- Peulic v. Garland, 22 F.4th 340 (1st Cir. 2022) (jurisdictional limits over discretionary relief and review of legal errors)
- Díaz‑Alarcón v. Flández‑Marcel, 944 F.3d 303 (1st Cir. 2019) (choosing another plausible interpretation of evidence is factfinding subject to clear‑error constraints)
- Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564 (1985) (framework for reviewing factual findings and when findings are "illogical or implausible")
- Padmore v. Holder, 609 F.3d 62 (2d Cir. 2010) (BIA cannot rely on disputed material facts the IJ did not resolve)
- Wallace v. Gonzales, 463 F.3d 135 (2d Cir. 2006) (adjustment of status is discretionary; BIA may weigh equities)
- Delgado‑Reynua v. Gonzales, 450 F.3d 596 (5th Cir. 2006) (BIA may note additional negative factors not emphasized by the IJ)
- Zhou Hua Zhu v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 703 F.3d 1303 (11th Cir. 2013) (BIA may not reverse IJ factual findings by cloaking the action as mere reweighing)