Edwin Campos Mejia v. Jefferson Sessions
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 16509
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Edwin Eduardo Campos Mejia, a native of Guatemala, entered the U.S. without inspection and became removable; removal proceedings began in 2004.
- He filed an I-589 in 2011 seeking asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection; he has a history of serious mental illness (major depression with psychotic features, hallucinations, bipolar tendencies) and past DUIs and prison time.
- At hearings in 2012–2013 Petitioner testified he was off medication, experienced psychotic symptoms, had difficulty following questions, and later did not testify at the final hearing; his parents testified about his condition.
- The IJ denied asylum and withholding based on Petitioner’s DUI convictions being "particularly serious crimes" and denied CAT relief for failure to show government acquiescence to torture.
- The BIA affirmed those rulings, acknowledged Petitioner’s mental illness and that he was off medication, but declined to remand for competency procedures, reasoning existing safeguards (counsel, witnesses) were sufficient.
- Petitioner petitioned for review; the Ninth Circuit held the BIA abused its discretion for failing to require the IJ to evaluate and articulate competency under governing BIA precedent and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether IJ had duty to assess competency when petitioner showed indicia of incompetency | Campos Mejia: signs of mental illness and testimony problems triggered IJ duty under In re M-A-M- to determine competency and apply safeguards | Government/BIA: no remand needed because counsel, testimony, and witnesses provided sufficient protections | Court: IJ (and BIA) erred by not articulating competency determination; remand required for compliance with In re M-A-M- |
| Whether BIA adequately justified denying remand despite noting mental illness | Campos Mejia: BIA failed to explain why IJ could ignore In re M-A-M- requirements | BIA: cited presence of counsel and testimonial evidence as adequate safeguards | Court: BIA abused discretion by departing from its precedent without explanation; remand ordered |
Key Cases Cited
- Alphonsus v. Holder, 705 F.3d 1031 (9th Cir.) (agency abuses discretion by clearly departing from its own standards)
- Dhital v. Mukasey, 532 F.3d 1044 (9th Cir.) (defining standard for CAT relief requiring likelihood of torture by or with government acquiescence)