Baljinder Kaur v. Jefferson Sessions
702 F. App'x 583
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Baljinder Kaur and Gurbir Singh (petitioners) sought asylum, withholding, and CAT relief after overstaying visas; IJ denied their 2005 asylum application based on credibility findings about Kaur’s past statements (father's death, arrests).
- In 2012 petitioners moved to reopen removal proceedings with new evidence: Kaur’s signed statement and an affidavit from her sister Balraj alleging a 2011 police raid in India that sought Kaur and detained/warned Balraj.
- The BIA denied the motion to reopen, reasoning the new statements were not persuasive changed circumstances and treating the new assertions as variants of the previously rejected Khalistani-based claim.
- The BIA discounted Balraj’s affidavit as a copy from an interested witness, not in an envelope, and speculative.
- The Ninth Circuit held the BIA erred by making new credibility determinations about facts not before the IJ, improperly extending the IJ’s prior credibility finding to new, unadjudicated statements and to Balraj’s affidavit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the BIA must accept as true new factual allegations on a motion to reopen unless inherently unbelievable | Kaur: BIA must accept new facts as true (Najmabadi) and cannot impose prior IJ credibility findings on new allegations | Government: Prior IJ credibility findings about related claims justify rejecting new but related statements | Held: BIA abused discretion by imposing prior IJ credibility findings on new facts not adjudicated by the IJ; must accept new allegations unless inherently unbelievable |
| Whether BIA may impute IJ’s adverse credibility finding as to Kaur to her sister’s affidavit | Kaur: Balraj’s affidavit is independent and must be accepted as true unless inherently unbelievable | Government: Prior credibility problems with Kaur taint related affidavits; Balraj is an interested witness and affidavit is unreliable | Held: BIA had no basis to impute Kaur’s prior credibility rejection to Balraj and improperly discounted the affidavit for being from an interested witness |
| Whether procedural defects cited by BIA (copy not original, not in envelope, speculative) justify denying reopening | Kaur: Those reasons are legally insufficient; originals not required and envelope form irrelevant; affidavit was factual | Government: Such defects undermine reliability of the affidavit | Held: BIA’s stated reasons were legally insufficient to reject Balraj’s affidavit |
| Whether BIA properly considered evidence in totality when denying motion to reopen | Kaur: BIA failed to accept new evidence as true and overstepped by making credibility findings | Government: BIA may interpret prior evidence and consider totality | Held: Although BIA may consider prior evidence, here it overstepped by making new credibility findings and blocking consideration of new, unadjudicated facts |
Key Cases Cited
- Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 2010) (motion-to-reopen affidavits must be accepted as true unless inherently unbelievable)
- Yan Rong Zhao v. Holder, 728 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 2013) (BIA must consider evidence in its entirety; procedural guidance on reopening)
- Limsico v. INS, 951 F.2d 210 (9th Cir. 1991) (BIA may consider prior hearing evidence and interpret it, but not make new credibility findings on new facts)
- Shouchen Yang v. Lynch, 822 F.3d 504 (9th Cir. 2016) (BIA erred by applying an IJ’s adverse credibility finding to unrelated claims on reopening)
- Bhasin v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 977 (9th Cir. 2005) (credibility determinations are generally inappropriate on motions to reopen)