Cile Precetaj v. Jefferson B. Sessions, III
907 F.3d 453
6th Cir.2018Background
- Çile Preçetaj, an Albanian national, entered the U.S. unlawfully in 2000, applied for asylum, and was ordered removed after an IJ found her testimony not credible; the BIA and this court previously affirmed.
- She filed multiple motions to reopen; the present (second) motion, filed in 2017, invoked the changed-country-conditions exception to the one-motion bar.
- Evidence submitted with the 2017 motion: a psychological report (children), her updated asylum statement describing threats to family after Socialist Party electoral victories, and a 14‑page expert affidavit (Prenk Camaj) alleging widespread violence and political targeting in Albania.
- The Government relied on State Department country reports and argued Preçetaj raised chiefly changed personal circumstances and submitted uncorroborated assertions about family targeting.
- The BIA denied the motion in a three-paragraph, single‑member order stating Preçetaj’s evidence did not show materially changed country conditions or prima facie eligibility, without substantive analysis.
- The Sixth Circuit concluded the BIA’s brief, conclusory ruling failed to articulate reasons permitting meaningful appellate review and thus abused its discretion; the court reversed and remanded for further explanation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the BIA abused its discretion by denying the motion to reopen without adequate analysis of changed country conditions | Preçetaj: BIA’s order is conclusory; it failed to explain why her evidence (personal statement and expert affidavit) did not show materially changed country conditions or prima facie eligibility | Gov’t: Evidence shows changed conditions claims are mostly personal; State Dept. reports contradict expert’s characterizations; any BIA brevity is harmless because record does not support reopening | Held: BIA abused its discretion by issuing a conclusory denial that did not analyze the evidence; remanded for reasoned explanation |
| Whether any BIA error was harmless such that remand is unnecessary | Preçetaj: Lack of articulation prevents meaningful review; error not harmless | Gov’t: Even if explanation lacking, remand would be pointless because BIA likely would reach same result | Held: Error not harmless; court cannot affirm on independent grounds and remands for substantive consideration |
| Whether Preçetaj’s submissions amounted to materially new evidence excusing the one‑motion bar | Preçetaj: Expert affidavit and recent allegations about political targeting show changed country conditions | Gov’t: Evidence is uncorroborated and reflects personal circumstances; State Dept. reports undermine claim | Held: Court did not decide substance; remanded for BIA to assess whether evidence is material and previously unavailable |
| Standard of review for BIA denial of motion to reopen | Preçetaj: BIA must explain grounds so court can meaningfully review | Gov’t: BIA has broad discretion; short orders can be adequate if result is supported | Held: Abuse‑of‑discretion standard applies; BIA must provide sufficient reasoning and may not act arbitrarily or summarily |
Key Cases Cited
- Trujillo Diaz v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 244 (6th Cir. 2018) (standard for reviewing BIA motions to reopen and requirement that BIA articulate reasons)
- Daneshvar v. Ashcroft, 355 F.3d 615 (6th Cir. 2004) (courts may consider only the basis articulated by the BIA)
- Lindor v. Holder, [citation="317 F. App'x 492"] (6th Cir. 2009) (BIA’s cursory or conclusory statements are inadequate)
- Zhang v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 851 (6th Cir. 2008) (identifies independent grounds the BIA may use to deny a motion to reopen)
- Hanna v. Mukasey, [citation="290 F. App'x 867"] (6th Cir. 2008) (one‑paragraph BIA denials can be arbitrary and preclude meaningful review)
- Allabani v. Gonzales, 402 F.3d 668 (6th Cir. 2005) (BIA’s denial is an abuse of discretion if made without rational explanation)
- Movsisian v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir. 2005) (when BIA fails to provide specific, cogent reasons, meaningful review is impossible)