Putu Indrawati v. U.S. Attorney General
779 F.3d 1284
| 11th Cir. | 2015Background
- Putu Indrawati, an ethnically Chinese Christian from Indonesia, obtained asylum in 2003 based on an I-589 and a ten-page attached Statement that included embellished and fabricated incidents.
- Asylum Officer Rodez interviewed Indrawati, made handwritten notes and red checkmarks on the Statement and I-589, and recommended asylum; USCIS later granted asylum.
- Years later, USCIS received information (a Texas Service Center memorandum recounting an interview with Indrawati’s mother) and evidence of an asylum-fraud ring involving the paid preparer Hans Gouw; USCIS terminated asylum in 2008.
- Removal proceedings followed; IJ Karden held a hearing where evidence included a photocopy of the check-marked Statement, the TSC memorandum, and a Fraud Verification Memo (FVM) based on Gouw’s statements. The IJ credited Rodez’s practice of checkmarking only during interviews and found Indrawati knowingly filed a frivolous asylum application.
- The BIA affirmed; Indrawati petitioned for review arguing (1) she lacked a sufficient opportunity to account for discrepancies (In re Y-L-), (2) admission/reliance on the photocopied Statement, the TSC memorandum, and the FVM violated due process, and (3) the BIA’s decision lacked reasoned consideration.
Issues
| Issue | Indrawati’s Argument | Government’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court may review claim that IJ denied a sufficient opportunity to account for discrepancies (Y-L- requirement) | Indrawati: IJ denied chance to explain inconsistencies and therefore Y-L- protections violated | Government: Indrawati failed to raise this specific claim to the BIA (no exhaustion) | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction (exhaustion failure) |
| Whether admission of the TSC memorandum violated due process | Indrawati: TSCM admission was unfair hearsay and she lacked chance to confront author | Government: Claim not raised to BIA; no exhaustion | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction (exhaustion failure) |
| Whether admission/use of photocopied check-marked Statement (without original) denied due process | Indrawati: original could show checkmarks were added after interview; photocopy admission was fundamentally unfair | Government: photocopy was authenticated; no plausible showing originals would differ or that claimant would be able to prove timing | Denied on merits — court finds argument speculative and no unfairness shown |
| Whether admission/use of FVM (double hearsay, author unavailable) denied due process or caused prejudice | Indrawati: FVM is multi-level hearsay, author not available for cross-exam, and it was prejudicial | Government: Even if admission was error, Rodez’s credible testimony and other evidence suffice — no substantial prejudice | Denied on merits — any error would be harmless because record (Rodez’s testimony, admissions, and other evidence) independently supports frivolousness finding |
| Whether the BIA’s decision lacked reasoned consideration | Indrawati: BIA failed to address key inconsistencies, weigh Conwell’s testimony properly, and relied on unreliable documents | Government: BIA and IJ considered the issues and evidence; no failure to explain that prevents review | Denied on merits — BIA’s opinion reflected adequate consideration and any contested factual issues are reviewed under substantial-evidence standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Rodriguez Morales v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 488 F.3d 884 (11th Cir.) (principle that when BIA issues its own opinion, review is of BIA decision)
- Ayala v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 605 F.3d 941 (11th Cir.) (de novo review of legal determinations; substantial-evidence test for facts)
- Tan v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 446 F.3d 1369 (11th Cir.) (remand where agency decision showed lack of reasoned consideration)
- Amaya-Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1247 (11th Cir.) (exhaustion requirement for BIA review)
- Cole v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 712 F.3d 517 (11th Cir.) (standard for reasoned consideration review)
- Lapaix v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 605 F.3d 1138 (11th Cir.) (substantial-prejudice standard for due process errors in immigration proceedings)
- Anim v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d 243 (4th Cir.) (due process concerns where IJ’s decision hinges on multi-level hearsay)
- Banat v. Holder, 557 F.3d 886 (8th Cir.) (limitations on evidence that is not probative or fundamentally fair)
- Cinapian v. Holder, 567 F.3d 1067 (9th Cir.) (disclosure and confrontation issues where government failed to make author available)
- Xiu Ying Wu v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 712 F.3d 486 (11th Cir.) (reversals where adverse credibility findings lacked record support)
- Tang v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 578 F.3d 1270 (11th Cir.) (reversal where IJ’s adverse credibility finding was speculative and unsupported)