Nemmy Matiru v. Jefferson B. Sessions, III
705 F. App'x 476
| 8th Cir. | 2017Background
- Matiru, a Kenyan citizen, petitions for review of BIA orders dismissing his appeal and denying reconsideration; jurisdiction lies under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
- IJ found Matiru removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(G)(ii) for failing to fulfill a marital agreement purported to procure his admission as an immigrant, and ordered removal to Kenya.
- BIA dismissed Matiru’s appeal and denied his motion for reconsideration.
- Matiru argues the DHS must prove removability with clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence and that his due-process rights were violated by the IJ’s rulings and potential bias, plus mischaracterization of his motion as a reconsideration and a recusal issue under Williams v. Pennsylvania.
- The Eighth Circuit held the BIA applied the correct clear-and-convincing standard under § 1227(a)(1)(A), citing Maric v. Sessions.
- The court also held no due-process violation occurred, recusal was not required under Williams, credibility determinations were properly supported, and the motion was properly treated as a request for reconsideration and was untimely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper removability standard applied | Matiru contends DHS must prove facts with clear, unequivocal, convincing evidence. | Matiru argues the standard was misapplied; BIA should adopt a different standard. | BIA correctly applied the clear-and-convincing standard. |
| Due process and recusal | Williams requires IJ recusal due to prior contact with DHS personnel. | No recusal required; no meaningful impartiality questions. | No due-process violation; no recusal required. |
| Motion to reopen vs. reconsideration | BIA mischaracterized his filing and erred in handling it as a reconsideration. | BIA correctly treated it as a motion to reconsider and timely handling mattered. | BIA correctly treated as reconsideration and it was untimely. |
| IJ credibility determinations | IJ’s credibility rulings were not properly explained and may be biased. | Credibility determinations were properly explained and entitled to deference. | Credibility determinations properly explained and entitled to deference. |
Key Cases Cited
- Maric v. Sessions, 854 F.3d 520 (8th Cir. 2017) (applies clear-and-convincing standard to certain removability grounds)
- United States v. Norwood, 854 F.3d 469 (8th Cir. 2017) (recusal and due-process considerations in similar context)
- Williams v. Pennsylvania, 136 S. Ct. 1899 (Supreme Court 2016) (recusal principles in light of prior associations)
- Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994) (bias claims require deep-seated and unequivocal antagonism)
- Gomez-Gutierrez v. Lynch, 811 F.3d 1053 (8th Cir. 2016) (motion to reconsider vs reopening standards)
- Loulou v. Ashcroft, 354 F.3d 706 (8th Cir. 2004) (defers to IJ credibility determinations when supported by reasons)