Sumaira Urooj v. Eric Holder, Jr.
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 22516
9th Cir.2013Background
- Urooj and Turk, Pakistani nationals, entered on non-immigrant visas (2002, 2003); visas expired in 2005.
- Urooj's 2004 asylum application was granted in 2004; Turk was a derivative beneficiary.
- DHS interviewed Urooj in August 2005 and prepared a sworn statement admitting to fabricating parts of her story.
- DHS failed to provide advance notice of proposed witnesses/exhibits under the local operating procedures (LOP) before the removal hearing.
- At the hearing, DHS presented documents for impeachment; Urooj objected to LOP compliance; she refused to answer questions.
- IJ terminated asylum, found the asylum application frivolous, and ordered removal; BIA affirmed; petition for review followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DHS satisfied the preponderance standard using impeachment evidence alone. | Urooj argues impeachment evidence alone cannot meet the burden. | DHS contends impeachment evidence can contribute to the showing. | No; impeachment alone cannot establish grounds for termination. |
Key Cases Cited
- Matter of Guevara, 20 I. & N. Dec. 238 (BIA 1990) (adverse inferences from silence may be used but not as sole proof)
- Duvall v. Attorney General of the United States, 436 F.3d 382 (3d Cir. 2006) (illustrates terminating proceedings when the government fails to prove burden)
- Navia-Duran v. Immigration and Naturalization Serv., 568 F.2d 803 (1st Cir. 1977) (recognizes adverse inferences from silence but cautions against overreliance)
- Gordon v. United States, 383 F.2d 936 (D.C. Cir. 1967) (impeachment evidence is limited to credibility, not substantive proof)
- United States v. Webster, 734 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1984) (highlights distinction between impeachment and substantive evidence)
- Abebe v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir. 2005) (review of IJ/BIA decisions when adopted on appeal)