Miguel Rosiles-Camarena v. Eric Holder, Jr.
735 F.3d 534
| 7th Cir. | 2013Background
- Miguel Rosiles-Camarena, a Mexican national admitted as a U.S. permanent resident in 1977, was ordered removed after a felony conviction (aggravated felony), and applied for withholding of removal (8 U.S.C. §1231(b)(3)) and CAT relief.
- He is gay, HIV-positive, "out," plans to live openly in Mexico, and the IJ found his family had disowned him and he lacks local support—factors the IJ found increased his individual risk.
- The IJ granted both statutory withholding and CAT relief based on expert testimony and country-condition statistics showing murders and attacks on homosexuals in Mexico. The BIA initially remanded, the IJ reaffirmed, and the BIA then reversed.
- The BIA reviewed de novo the IJ’s prediction about the probability of future harm, treated the IJ’s findings of historical fact as accepted, but declined to adopt the IJ’s risk-assessment conclusion (viewing aggregated statistics as insufficient to show a clear probability of persecution for this individual).
- Rosiles-Camarena argued the BIA exceeded its regulatory scope by substituting its judgment for the IJ’s predictive factual findings; the government defended the BIA’s de novo review of the likelihood-of-harm question.
- The Seventh Circuit held that the BIA erred as a matter of law by treating IJ predictive findings as open to plenary substitution without first finding clear error under 8 C.F.R. §1003.1(d)(3)(i), and remanded for the BIA to apply the correct standard (it did not resolve whether the IJ’s findings were clearly erroneous).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the BIA may review de novo an IJ’s predictive findings about the likelihood of future persecution/torture | BIA cannot substitute its judgment for IJ’s predictive factual findings; regulation requires clear-error review of IJ facts | BIA may treat likelihood-of-harm as a mixed/legal question and review de novo to ensure consistent country-wide determinations | Court held BIA misapplied the regulation; predictive findings that rest on adjudicative facts require clear-error review and BIA cannot freely substitute judgment without finding clear error; remanded |
| Whether the petitioner's challenge based on insufficient evidentiary support is judicially reviewable given aggravated-felony bar | Rosiles-Camarena argued BIA decision lacks substantial evidence | Government argued removal decision not reviewable under §1252(a)(2)(C) except for legal questions | Court held claims about insufficient evidence are generally barred by §1252(a)(2)(C); but legal challenges to the scope of BIA review (interpretation of the regulation) are reviewable |
| Proper interpretive scope of 8 C.F.R. §1003.1(d)(3) concerning Board review of IJ findings | Regulation requires harmonizing clauses: facts reviewed for clear error; law/judgment de novo | BIA interpreted regulation to allow independent appellate factual assessments on predictive/legislative facts | Court agreed that BIA may overturn IJ on clear-error basis but rejected BIA’s wholesale substitution without clear-error finding; endorsed that some predictions can be factual and require deferential review |
| Whether appellate court should resolve the merits or remand | Petitioner asked for reversal | Government argued BIA’s legal approach justified affirmance | Court remanded to BIA to apply correct standard and determine whether IJ’s predictive findings were clearly erroneous; court did not decide the merits of persecution/CAT eligibility |
Key Cases Cited
- Kaplun v. Att’y Gen., 602 F.3d 260 (3d Cir. 2010) (holds IJ predictions about likelihood of future events are factual and subject to clear-error review)
- Rotinsulu v. Mukasey, 515 F.3d 68 (1st Cir. 2008) (upholds BIA authority to review mixed questions but recognizes limits of §1003.1(d)(3))
- En Hui Huang v. Att’y Gen., 620 F.3d 372 (3d Cir. 2010) (applies Kaplun to withholding claims and limits BIA’s ability to substitute its factual predictions for IJ findings)
- Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564 (1985) (articulates clear-error standard for appellate review of factual findings)
- Gonzales v. Thomas, 547 U.S. 183 (2006) (explains courts must remand when an agency commits a legal error rather than supply new grounds for agency action)