Baidis v. Lynch
664 F. App'x 94
| 2d Cir. | 2016Background
- Petitioner Bassam Baidis, a stateless Palestinian, faced removal proceedings and was designated for removal to Turkey, with Jordan and Israel as alternatives.
- An Immigration Judge (IJ) granted Baidis withholding of removal with respect to Israel and the Occupied Territories, but ordered removal to Turkey (alternatively Jordan or Israel) and denied cancellation of removal.
- Baidis’s withholding application explicitly alleged fear of persecution in Israel/Occupied Territories; it did not expressly seek withholding to Turkey or Jordan.
- The IJ found Baidis more likely than not would be persecuted if returned to Israel, and also found Baidis had lied during his U.S. naturalization proceeding.
- The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ’s decision; Baidis petitioned for review to the Second Circuit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether withholding granted as to Israel requires withholding to Turkey/Jordan because those countries may return him to Israel | Baidis: IJ’s finding that Israel would likely persecute him means he cannot be removed to countries that will return him to Israel, so withholding should extend to Turkey and Jordan | Gov’t: Baidis did not apply for withholding as to Turkey/Jordan and record lacks showing that his life or freedom would be threatened in those countries | Court: Remanded to BIA to clarify whether IJ/BIA must assess likelihood Turkey/Jordan would return him to Israel and the legal consequences; declined to decide novel question now |
| Whether Baidis exhausted claim that IJ failed to give notice of intent to designate Turkey/Jordan and thus deprived him of opportunity to apply for withholding there | Baidis: IJ’s lack of notice prevented him from applying for withholding to Turkey/Jordan | Gov’t: Claim not raised to BIA; procedural default | Court: Declined to consider unexhausted notice argument (citing Lin Zhong) |
| Whether the IJ properly found Baidis gave false testimony to obtain naturalization, affecting cancellation eligibility | Baidis: Contested IJ’s credibility finding and asserted mitigating explanations | Gov’t: Pointed to inconsistent statements on naturalization forms and admissions at interview | Court: Upheld agency finding as supported by substantial evidence; false testimony disqualifies him from being of good moral character for cancellation |
| Whether court should resolve novel statutory interaction (Jama step 3 vs. withholding bar) now | Baidis: Argues statutory conflict requires relief | Gov’t: Urges deference to agency and procedural posture | Court: Declined to answer question of first impression; remanded for BIA factfinding/clarification |
Key Cases Cited
- Jama v. Immigration and Customs Enf’t, 543 U.S. 335 (discusses statutory steps for country-of-removal designation and absence of acceptance requirement for step 3)
- Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169 (withholding of removal is mandatory if alien shows life or freedom would be threatened on protected ground)
- Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 480 F.3d 104 (exhaustion of administrative remedies required)
- Medina v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 628 (substantial-evidence review of agency false-testimony findings)
- Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759 (false testimony for immigration benefits bars finding of good moral character)
- Yuanliang Liu v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 455 F.3d 106 (federal courts may but need not decide questions of first impression without administrative guidance)