Arefin Samsul v. U.S. Attorney General
21-11272
| 11th Cir. | Mar 15, 2022Background
- Arefin Samsul, a Bangladeshi national, entered the U.S. in June 2019 and passed a credible-fear interview based on political persecution for BNP membership and past beatings/abduction.
- DHS placed him in removal proceedings; retained counsel Zubaida Iqbal, who filed an I-589 and submitted corroborating affidavits and country reports one day late.
- At the merits hearing the IJ excluded the late-filed documentary evidence; Samsul’s live testimony was the only evidence admitted.
- The IJ found Samsul not credible based on several minor inconsistencies and omissions and denied asylum, withholding, and CAT relief; the BIA affirmed.
- Samsul moved to reopen alleging ineffective assistance of counsel (failure to timely submit evidence, poor preparation, lateness, failure to request continuance, etc.); the BIA denied the motion, finding no prejudice.
- The Eleventh Circuit granted the petition in part: it vacated and remanded the BIA’s denial as to counsel’s failure to timely obtain/submit documentary evidence for lack of reasoned consideration, and denied review as to other ineffectiveness claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BIA adequately considered claim that counsel’s failure to timely submit documentary evidence prejudiced outcome | Samsul: affidavits and records would have corroborated his account and likely changed credibility/outcome | BIA: even assuming ineffective assistance, the supporting evidence wouldn’t overcome credibility problems or independently establish the claim | Court: BIA failed to give reasoned consideration; vacated and remanded as to this claim |
| Prejudice standard for ineffective-assistance-based reopening | Samsul: but for counsel’s errors, reasonable probability of different result | Government: no reasonable probability of different outcome given adverse credibility and legal issues | Court applied the usual prejudice test but found BIA didn’t explain why documentary evidence wouldn’t create a reasonable probability of a different result |
| Whether counsel’s lateness and inadequate preparation prejudiced Samsul | Samsul: counsel’s lateness and lack of preparation undermined his testimony and chance for relief | BIA/Gov: no showing that on-time counsel would have produced a different credibility finding or outcome | Court: BIA reasonably denied reopening on these points; petition denied as to these claims |
| Whether allowing Samsul to continue testifying while ill and omissions on I-589 prejudiced him | Samsul: continuing while ill and uncorrected omissions harmed his credibility | BIA/Gov: Samsul confirmed the I-589 was accurate and elected to continue; speculative that a continuance would change outcome | Court: BIA did not abuse discretion rejecting these claims; petition denied as to these claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Sow v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 949 F.3d 1312 (11th Cir. 2020) (abuse-of-discretion review for motions to reopen; prejudice requirement for ineffective-assistance claims)
- Jeune v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 810 F.3d 792 (11th Cir. 2016) (agency must give reasoned consideration; court may remand when BIA's explanation is insufficient)
- Forgue v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2005) (adverse credibility finding does not relieve agency of duty to consider other corroborating evidence)
- Mejia v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 498 F.3d 1253 (11th Cir. 2007) (corroborating evidence can support asylum relief despite credibility issues)