Bridget Walters v. Attorney General United States
20-2543
| 3rd Cir. | Sep 23, 2021Background:
- Bridget Walters, a Jamaican national, was ordered removed after immigration proceedings; she alleges sex- and labor-trafficking and prolonged physical and emotional abuse by her lawful-permanent-resident husband.
- Walters filed a VAWA self-petition and then moved to reopen removal proceedings about six months after the BIA’s final removal order (outside the usual 90-day window).
- VAWA provides a one-year filing window for battered spouses who submit a VAWA self-petition and were physically present in the U.S.; Walters submitted a self-petition and was present, and although she cited the citizen-spouse provision, her husband is an LPR, which still qualifies her.
- Walters has an extensive criminal history: more than twenty convictions over nearly two decades (mostly theft-related), including a pending charge from 2018 within three years of her February 2020 VAWA petition.
- The BIA denied her motion to reopen as untimely and on the merits, finding her criminal history undermined the good-moral-character requirement and that she failed to show prejudice from alleged ineffective assistance of counsel; she appealed to the Third Circuit.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness under VAWA exception | Walters: VAWA’s 1-year exception applies because she submitted a VAWA self-petition and was physically present; qualifies as spouse of an LPR despite mislabeling | BIA: Denied as untimely (did not assess VAWA exception) | Court: Motion was timely under VAWA; BIA failed to assess but court finds Walters satisfies VAWA timeliness requirements |
| Prima facie eligibility: good moral character | Walters: Facts and abuse history support VAWA relief; convictions may be waivable | BIA/AG: Walters’ extensive, recent convictions make good moral character unlikely; no nexus shown tying convictions to abuse | Court: BIA didn’t abuse discretion; criminal record undermines prima facie showing of good moral character |
| Waiver of convictions (nexus requirement) | Walters: Convictions resulted from coercion/abuse and should be waived under 8 U.S.C. §1154(a)(1)(C) | BIA: No showing of causal/logical link between specific convictions and abuse; some statements contradict coercion claim | Court: Walters failed to establish required nexus for waivers for her many convictions; BIA’s skepticism reasonable |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel / prejudice | Walters: Prior counsel abandoned VAWA claims; counsel’s failures prejudiced her because proper advocacy could have secured reopening/relief | BIA/AG: Even with better counsel, Walters unlikely to obtain relief given convictions; no reasonable probability of a different outcome | Court: No substantial prejudice shown; even if convictions were waived, BIA may still deny relief in its discretion; ineffective-assistance claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Liem v. Attorney General, 921 F.3d 388 (3d Cir. 2019) (standard of review: abuse of discretion for motions to reopen)
- Darby v. Attorney General, 1 F.4th 151 (3d Cir. 2021) (prima facie requirement for motions to reopen)
- Shardar v. Attorney General, 503 F.3d 308 (3d Cir. 2007) (prima facie showing needed for reopening)
- Franjul-Soto v. Barr, 973 F.3d 15 (1st Cir. 2020) (VAWA self-petition pending requires prima facie case)
- Fadiga v. Attorney General, 488 F.3d 142 (3d Cir. 2007) (ineffective assistance: substantial prejudice standard)
- Sanchez v. Keisler, 505 F.3d 641 (7th Cir. 2007) (counsel ineffective for abandoning VAWA theory warrants scrutiny/remand)
- I.N.S. v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12 (2002) (appellate courts should not substitute their judgment for agency discretion; remand for agency factfinding preferred)