Reid v. Bondi
20-3324
| 2d Cir. | Mar 14, 2025Background
- Everod Ray Anthony Reid, a Jamaican national, faced removal proceedings and sought relief under former INA § 212(c), adjustment of status, and deferral under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
- Reid has significant documented mental health issues, including schizophrenia and psychotic symptoms (delusions, auditory and visual hallucinations).
- His mental health impeded his ability to cooperate with counsel and participate in his removal defense, leading to concerns about his competency for the proceedings.
- The Immigration Judge (IJ) implemented certain safeguards (e.g., not requiring testimony, relying on objective evidence, modifying courtroom procedures) but failed to explain their adequacy in light of the severity and nature of Reid's disabilities.
- The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ’s decision, presuming the safeguards sufficient despite acknowledging the lack of a full competency determination.
- Reid petitioned for review, arguing that the protections mandated by the INA and constitutional due process were not satisfied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Adequacy of Safeguards for Incompetent Respondents | IJ failed to explain why safeguards were adequate given Reid's disabilities | Safeguards implemented were sufficient and what Reid requested | The IJ must explain the adequacy of safeguards in relation to the nature/severity of disability; record is insufficient for review, so remanded |
| 2. Requirement for Prejudice Showing | No requirement to show prejudice when fundamental regulatory rights are violated | Presumes prejudice must be shown for relief | No prejudice showing required; violation of core procedural protections mandates remand |
| 3. Specific Safeguards: Termination/Administrative Closure | Given Reid’s incompetency, only termination/administrative closure could safeguard rights | IJ has discretion, and none required here | IJ must consider full range of safeguards and explain reasoning; discretion must be exercised in view of facts |
| 4. Reviewability of IJ/BIA Decisions | IJ’s unexplained assertion of adequacy of safeguards is insufficient for review | Conclusory finding sufficient; thresholds met | Conclusory findings not reviewable; remand required for explanatory record |
Key Cases Cited
- Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292 (Supreme Court recognized due process rights of noncitzens in deportation)
- Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21 (Due process ensures full and fair hearing in immigration)
- Waldron v. INS, 17 F.3d 511 (Regulatory violations protecting fundamental rights mandate remand without prejudice showing)
- Montilla v. INS, 926 F.2d 162 (No prejudice requirement when agency fails to follow its own procedural rules relating to fundamental rights)
- Dong Gao v. BIA, 482 F.3d 122 (Courts do not defer to unreasoned or erroneous agency findings)