Madiagne Diop v. Loretta Lynch
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 20878
| 4th Cir. | 2015Background
- Madiagne Diop, a Senegal native, overstayed a B-2 visa and was placed in removal proceedings after a 2012 arrest following a psychotic episode; he pled guilty to three counts of second-degree assault.
- After the arrest he received a psychiatric evaluation diagnosing psychosis and was prescribed antipsychotic medication; those records were from days after the incident.
- Diop appeared before an IJ five times between Nov. 2012 and May 2013; the IJ held a separate competency inquiry and questioned Diop directly about his mental history and ability to communicate with counsel.
- Diop’s counsel represented she had no reason to believe Diop had an ongoing medical problem; more recent mental health records submitted during proceedings indicated cooperation with treatment and no ongoing psychiatric concerns.
- The IJ found Diop competent and refused an independent psychological evaluation; the IJ granted voluntary departure (or alternatively ordered removal). The BIA affirmed, rejecting Diop’s due-process and withholding-of-removal arguments as procedurally deficient or unsupported.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether IJ violated due process by refusing continuance/independent mental evaluation | Diop: IJ should have administratively closed or continued to obtain a psychological evaluation to assess competency | Gov't: IJ properly exercised discretion; no sufficient indicia of incompetency; IJ conducted competency inquiry and relied on recent records | Court: No due-process violation — substantial-evidence supports IJ’s finding of competency and refusal to order additional evaluation |
| Whether there were sufficient indicia of incompetency to trigger further measures under M-A-M | Diop: post-arrest psychosis records and history required independent evaluation | Gov't: a single, earlier psychotic episode did not show current incompetency; more recent records and testimony showed competence | Held: Earlier records were not dispositive; IJ permissibly relied on current evidence and demeanor |
| Whether IJ failed to follow required M-A-M procedures | Diop: IJ should have ordered evaluation as a precaution | Gov't: M-A-M gives IJ flexible, case-by-case discretion; no mandatory checklist | Held: IJ complied with M-A-M by presuming competence, asking questions, and considering medical evidence |
| Whether BIA should have remanded for withholding-of-removal claim | Diop: Mental incompetency might support withholding claim; BIA should remand | Gov't: Diop failed to present or preserve withholding claim before IJ or show prima facie eligibility | Held: BIA correctly declined remand—claim was not raised below or supported by an application/ prima facie showing |
Key Cases Cited
- Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292 (procedural due process applies in removal proceedings)
- Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99 (competency is a factual determination dependent on demeanor)
- Maggio v. Fulford, 462 U.S. 111 (trial court’s advantage in assessing witness credibility and demeanor)
- Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162 (no fixed signs of incompetency; broad manifestations inform inquiry)
- Rusu v. United States Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 296 F.3d 316 (due process protections in immigration proceedings)
- Anim v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d 243 (prejudice and fundamental unfairness standards for due-process challenges)
- Haoua v. Gonzalez, 472 F.3d 227 (substantial-evidence standard for competency findings on review)
- Munoz-Monsalve v. Mukasey, 551 F.3d 1 (competency assessments may distinguish feigned confusion from genuine incapacity)