Lafortune v. Garland, 110 F.4th 426

Fesnel Lafortune, a native and citizen of Haiti, overstayed a U.S. visa, later pleading guilty to conspiracy to commit bank fraud and aggravated identity theft, resulting in a combined 31-month sentence and a restitution order.
DHS charged Lafortune as removable for both lack of lawful status and an aggravated felony involving fraud exceeding $10,000.
Lafortune, primarily representing himself, sought withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), citing fear of harm if returned to Haiti due to his family’s political activities and threats to his family.
Requests for continuances to secure counsel were repeatedly denied by the immigration judge (IJ); after remand from the BIA to allow time for counsel, further continuances were denied, and his claims were again denied.
The BIA ultimately dismissed Lafortune’s appeals, affirming denial of both withholding of removal and CAT protection, and Lafortune petitioned for review to the First Circuit.

Issue	Plaintiff’s Argument	Defendant’s Argument	Held
Whether the agency sufficiently identified which conviction was a particularly serious crime	IJ did not specify which conviction was at issue, preventing meaningful review	The bank fraud conspiracy was clearly identified as the basis	IJ sufficiently specified the bank fraud conspiracy as the particularly serious crime
Whether the agency was required to make an explicit, elements-only analysis before Frentescu factors	N-A-M- requires explicit step-wise analysis—elements first, then facts	The analysis need not be so rigid; implicit consideration is sufficient	No explicit elements-only step required before factual analysis
Whether agency abused discretion in weighing Frentescu factors (nature of conviction, mitigating facts, danger to community)	IJ failed to account for crime being against property, not persons, and failed to weigh mitigating facts	Agency properly considered nature, mitigating evidence, and danger	No abuse of discretion; agency properly considered circumstances and evidence
Whether agency erred in denying CAT relief and failing to consider relevant evidence and country conditions	Agency ignored key evidence of risk and did not consider State Dept. Report or develop record	Evidence was considered, no particularized risk shown, and general conditions insufficient	No error; evidence considered, no particularized risk or acquiescence shown

Gomez-Medina v. Barr, 975 F.3d 27 (1st Cir. 2020) (standard for reviewing BIA and IJ decisions as a unit)
Ahmed v. Holder, 611 F.3d 90 (1st Cir. 2010) (deference to agency’s factual findings in immigration cases)
Valerio-Ramirez v. Sessions, 882 F.3d 289 (1st Cir. 2018) (upholding Frentescu analysis for withholding of removal)
Lin v. Mukasey, 521 F.3d 22 (1st Cir. 2008) (agency must consider all relevant evidence but need not discuss each piece)
Seng v. Holder, 584 F.3d 13 (1st Cir. 2009) (agency may disregard non-credible testimony)
Telyatitskiy v. Holder, 628 F.3d 628 (1st Cir. 2011) (BIA not required to provide exhaustive reasoning if path is clear)