Nadim Hanna v. Eric Holder, Jr.
740 F.3d 379
6th Cir.2014Background
- Hanna, an Iraqi Chaldean Christian, sought asylum and withholding after removal proceedings following a Michigan felonious assault conviction under Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.82.
- Initially admitted removability via concession by his first attorney; later proceedings on remand contested removability, asylum, and withholding.
- Hanna’s 1996 Michigan assault conviction is considered under a potentially divisible statute, with questions whether it constitutes a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT).
- BIA and IJ determined Hanna’s asylum claim was foreclosed by firm resettlement in Canada before U.S. entry, and that his removability was supported by the prior concession.
- This Court previously recognized YTA dispositions as convictions under the INA, and raised issues about whether the Michigan statute is divisible and whether the particular offense is a CIMT.
- On appeal, the court granted relief by (a) relieving Hanna of the 2003 concession of removability, (b) remanding to determine if the specific offense is a CIMT, and (c) affirming in part the asylum denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2003 concession of removability binds Hanna | Hanna argues the admission was incorrect due to intervening law and record evidence. | Government contends the concession bindingly established removability. | Relieved from the 2003 concession; remanded to assess CIMT and removability independently. |
| Whether Hanna’s YTA conviction is a INA conviction and CIMT issue | Hanna contends YTA adjudication is not a conviction or CIMT; urges reexamination under newer cases. | Government maintains YTA is a conviction under INA, and CIMT issue remains. | Uritsky precedent controls; YTA remains a conviction;Judicial standard applied. |
| Whether Mich. § 750.82 is divisible and Hanna’s particular offense is a CIMT | Hanna argues the offense may not be a CIMT if the statute is divisible and the record shows apprehension, not injury. | Government treats the statute as possibly divisible; concedes CIMT could apply depending on facts. | Remand to determine if Hanna’s specific offense qualifies as a CIMT. |
| Whether Hanna is ineligible for asylum due to firm resettlement | Hanna argues exception to firm resettlement applies because post-resettlement asylum claims occurred later. | Government argues firm resettlement bars asylum under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(A)(vi). | Affirmed in favor of firm-resettlement bar; asylum denied. |
| Whether the four-step framework for firm resettlement should be adopted or deferred to the BIA’s interpretation | Hanna contends framework misapplied or inapplicable to record facts. | Government relies on the framework for prima facie evidence and rebuttal. | Court defers to agency interpretation but remands for CIMT determination; framework may be applied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Uritsky v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 728 (6th Cir. 2005) (YTA adjudications deemed convictions under INA; Chevron applies)
- Singh v. Ashcroft, 398 F.3d 396 (6th Cir. 2005) (Divisibility of Mich. § 750.82 and CIMT analysis remanded)
- Velasquez, 19 I. & N. Dec. 377 (BIA 1986) (Framework for egregious counsel admissions; binding admissions explained)
- Ali v. Reno, 237 F.3d 591 (6th Cir. 2001) (Firm resettlement evidence and third-country status considerations)
- Kellermann v. Holder, 592 F.3d 700 (6th Cir. 2010) (BIA interpretation of ambiguous CIMT provisions reviewed de novo)
- In re Silva-Trevino, 24 I. & N. Dec. 687 (A.G. 2008) (Agency guidance on evaluating CIMT qualifications under divisible statutes)