Paul Kiorkis v. Eric Holder, Jr.
634 F.3d 924
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- Kiorkis, a Lebanese Assyrian Christian, obtained lawful permanent residence in the U.S. as part of his family in Illinois.
- In 2003 Kiorkis pleaded guilty to unauthorized possession of a controlled substance and received probation.
- In 2007 DHS placed Kiorkis in removal proceedings after discovering the prior drug conviction during naturalization review.
- Kiorkis conceded removability and sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection, which the IJ denied after merits hearings.
- The BIA remanded once for review due to indiscernible transcript notations, then affirmed the IJ’s denial on remand, and Kiorkis appealed to the Seventh Circuit.
- Kiorkis alleged errors in failing to consider Hezbollah-related persecution, non-religious future persecution grounds, and evidentiary standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the BIA and IJ failed to consider Hezbollah-related persecution claims | Kiorkis argues Hezbollah persecution was ignored. | Kessler and BIA understood and weighed the claims; they did not ignore them. | Not reversible error; EI considered Hezbollah claim with other evidence. |
| Whether non-religious future persecution grounds were properly considered | Kiorkis contends his Americanized identity and family history were ignored. | Court considered Westernized identity and family claims; ethnicity claim not properly raised below. | Claims considered; some grounds not asserted earlier are not reviewable, but issues were addressed. |
| Whether the immigration court and BIA applied correct evidentiary standard | They allegedly weighed evidence in isolation and focused on a single factor. | Record shows totality of circumstances and integrated consideration. | No error; decision weighed totality as reflected in the opinions. |
| Whether the court may review legal errors despite INA §1252(a)(2)(C) limits | Allege legal errors not barred by jurisdictional provision. | Some issues are barred; others constitute questions of law and are reviewable. | Legal-error claims reviewable under the law‑of‑the‑case framework; others restricted by statute. |
Key Cases Cited
- Raghunathan v. Holder, 604 F.3d 371 (7th Cir. 2010) (basis of review when BIA and IJ align; framework for review)
- Iglesias v. Mukasey, 540 F.3d 528 (7th Cir. 2008) (agency must address arguments; lines between legal and factual review)
- Mansour v. INS, 230 F.3d 902 (7th Cir. 2000) (agencies must respond to arguments; discretion not exercised to ignore claims)
- Khan v. Filip, 554 F.3d 681 (7th Cir. 2009) (limits of reviewing discretionary determinations under INA)
- Li Fang Huang v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 618 (7th Cir. 2008) (review of legal questions with deference on ambiguous statutory interpretation)
- Aguilar-Mejia v. Holder, 616 F.3d 699 (7th Cir. 2010) (scope of review for legal errors under §1252(a)(2)(D))