Bazile v. Garland
76 F.4th 5
1st Cir.2023Background:
- Petitioner Jean Bazile, a Haitian national and lawful permanent resident in Massachusetts since 1997, was convicted in Massachusetts state court in 2016 of firearm and related offenses.
- DHS filed a Notice to Appear in 2019 designating the Boston Immigration Court; removal proceedings ran virtually from 2020–2022 with Bazile detained in Massachusetts.
- The merits hearing on CAT relief was held virtually on April 13, 2022; the presiding IJ participated from Fort Worth, Texas, but the removal order was filed and docketed in Boston.
- The IJ found Bazile ineligible for asylum and withholding as a result of a "particularly serious crime," leaving only the CAT deferral claim based on alleged risk tied to his father's 1980s Lavalas affiliation.
- The IJ and BIA found the evidence speculative, largely secondhand, and not sufficiently particularized to show it was more likely than not Bazile would be tortured if returned to Haiti; Bazile petitioned for review, raising venue and the CAT denial.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Venue: where IJ "completed the proceedings" for 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(2) | Bazile: venue is the Boston court (where the NTA was filed and the order was docketed) | Gov't: venue should lie where the IJ was physically located (Fort Worth/Texas) or otherwise where the decision was rendered | Court: Venue aligns with administrative venue — where proceedings commenced and the removal order was filed/docketed (Boston/First Circuit) |
| CAT deferral: whether petitioner showed more-likely-than-not risk of torture | Bazile: risk of torture due to family (father’s Lavalas affiliation) and current country conditions in Haiti | Agency: evidence speculative, secondhand, uncorroborated, and not particularized to Bazile | Court: Denial upheld — substantial evidence supports agency conclusion that risk was speculative and petitioner failed to meet CAT burden |
Key Cases Cited
- Herrera-Alcala v. Garland, 39 F.4th 233 (4th Cir. 2022) (adopted rule that venue turns on IJ's physical location)
- Sarr v. Garland, 50 F.4th 326 (2d Cir. 2022) (held venue based on where charging document designated proceedings to commence)
- Plancarte Sauceda v. Garland, 23 F.4th 824 (9th Cir. 2022) (venue at designated hearing location absent formal change of venue)
- Ramos v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 948 (7th Cir. 2004) (venue tied to where the court is located and where filings/orders are entered)
- Bonnet v. Garland, 20 F.4th 80 (1st Cir. 2021) (describes CAT burden: more-likely-than-not standard)
- Garland v. Ming Dai, 141 S. Ct. 1669 (2021) (agency may find testimony credible yet insufficient to meet legal burden)
- Alvizures-Gomes v. Lynch, 830 F.3d 49 (1st Cir. 2016) (generalized or secondhand testimony may be insufficient without corroboration)
- Mendez-Barrera v. Holder, 602 F.3d 21 (1st Cir. 2010) (country reports are useful but rarely dispositive without particularized proof)