Hamid Sow v. U.S. Attorney General, 949 F.3d 1312

Hamid Sow, a Guinean national who is gay, applied for asylum upon entry to the U.S. in December 2016, alleging past and threatened persecution in Guinea (including the brutal killing of his partner, Alpha).
Sow was detained and represented by private counsel Joseph Gurian, with whom Sow (a French speaker) had frequent communication problems because Gurian did not secure a French interpreter.
Gurian refused or failed to let Sow review evidence gathered on his behalf, submitted inconsistent affidavits (notably two conflicting affidavits from the same witness, Djibril), and demonstrated unfamiliarity with basic case facts at the merits hearing.
The Immigration Judge denied asylum solely on an adverse credibility finding based on those evidentiary inconsistencies, stating that he would have granted asylum if he found Sow credible.
Sow, with new counsel, appealed to the BIA and moved to remand for ineffective assistance of counsel (attaching affidavits explaining inconsistencies). He also later filed a motion to reopen with a Guinean arrest warrant as new evidence.
The BIA denied both motions; the Eleventh Circuit held the BIA abused its discretion by denying the ineffective-assistance remand, found counsel’s performance deficient and prejudicial, vacated the BIA decision, and remanded to the BIA with instructions to remand to the IJ for reconsideration of asylum.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether BIA abused discretion in denying motion to remand for ineffective assistance of counsel	Sow: Gurian failed to communicate in Sow's language, refused to let Sow review evidence, failed to prepare for hearing, and submitted flawed affidavits — constituting deficient performance that prejudiced the outcome	Government/BIA: Gurian reasonably relied on evidence provided by Sow and friends; submitting that evidence was not ineffective assistance	Court: BIA abused discretion; counsel was deficient (no interpreter, lack of review, unfamiliarity with record) and prejudice established because IJ would have granted relief if Sow were found credible; remand ordered
Whether BIA erred in denying motion to reopen based on new Guinean arrest warrant	Sow: Warrant and police affidavit show objective danger and should reopen the record	BIA: New evidence did not address the adverse credibility grounds and thus would not change the outcome	Court: Did not reach merits of motion to reopen because relief granted on ineffective-assistance ground

Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262 (11th Cir. 2001) (standard for reviewing motions to reopen/remand)
Ali v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 443 F.3d 804 (11th Cir. 2006) (abuse-of-discretion review of BIA motion-to-reopen denials)
Jiang v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 568 F.3d 1252 (11th Cir. 2009) (review when BIA adopts IJ reasoning)
Dakane v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 399 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir. 2005) (elements for ineffective assistance of counsel in removal proceedings)
Fadiga v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 488 F.3d 142 (3d Cir. 2007) (competent counsel would avoid evidentiary inconsistencies)
Figeroa v. I.N.S., 886 F.2d 76 (4th Cir. 1989) (counsel must act in client's best interests and prepare adequately)