Edwin Romero Zambrano v. Jefferson B. Sessions III
878 F.3d 84
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Romero Zambrano, a Honduran and former soldier who aided police against gangs, was targeted by the 18th Street gang and repeatedly moved; he entered the U.S. in 2011.
- After immigration arrest in 2014, gang members intensified efforts to find him and assaulted/searched multiple family members in different Honduran cities in 2014.
- Romero applied for asylum after the 2014 incidents; asylum generally must be filed within one year of entry, but a "changed circumstances" exception can excuse delay.
- The IJ denied timeliness, holding that additional proof or intensification of pre-existing threats cannot constitute a "changed circumstance." The BIA affirmed, adopting the IJ's categorical rule.
- The Fourth Circuit reviewed whether that legal interpretation was erroneous and whether it had jurisdiction to review the BIA’s legal interpretation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether additional facts that strengthen a pre-existing asylum claim can qualify as "changed circumstances" excusing the 1-year filing deadline | Romero: New facts/heightened threats that materially increase risk or provide new proof can be a changed circumstance | Government: Additional proof or escalation of the same pre-existing claim does not as a matter of law constitute a changed circumstance | Court: Rejected the BIA’s categorical rule; intensification or new facts supporting a pre-existing claim can be changed circumstances |
| Whether the court has jurisdiction to review the BIA’s determination | Romero: Court can review a colorable question of law about statutory meaning | Government: Timeliness findings are discretionary and typically not reviewable | Court: Jurisdiction exists to review legal questions about the definition of "changed circumstances" under the REAL ID Act |
Key Cases Cited
- Vahora v. Holder, 641 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 2011) (changed-circumstances exception can include new information making an earlier weak claim meritorious)
- Weinong Lin v. Holder, 763 F.3d 244 (2d Cir. 2014) (BIA erred in categorically excluding altered facts driven by the same motive from constituting changed circumstances)
- Mandebvu v. Holder, 755 F.3d 417 (6th Cir. 2014) (incremental or strengthening changes to a preexisting fear can qualify as changed circumstances)
- Gomis v. Holder, 571 F.3d 353 (4th Cir. 2009) (discusses limits on review of discretionary asylum/BIA determinations and REAL ID Act jurisdiction)
- Barahona v. Holder, 691 F.3d 349 (4th Cir. 2012) (review principles when BIA adopts and supplements IJ decisions)