Vahora v. Holder
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 6867
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Vahora, an Indian national, applied for asylum in the U.S.; IJ denied as untimely under 8 C.F.R. § 208.4(a)(2) with no changed circumstances found.
- Vahora claimed changed country conditions after arrival materially affected eligibility for asylum.
- RIOTS and persecution in Gujarat (2002) and family harm occurred after his entry; destruction of home, disappearance of brother Karim, arrest of Husman.
- BIA remanded for further proceedings; on remand IJ granted withholding and CAT but denied asylum due to timeliness; BIA affirmed.
- This Ninth Circuit held changed circumstances excused untimely filing and remanded to consider asylum merits; dissent warned against expanding the one-year deadline.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether changed circumstances excused untimely asylum filing | Vahora shows country changes materially affect eligibility | IJ/BIA found no material change to eligibility | Yes; changed circumstances existed to excuse lateness |
| Whether the court may review the changed circumstances ruling | Court has jurisdiction to review merit of changed circumstances | Changed-circ. determinations are discretionary | Yes; jurisdiction exists to review merits |
| Whether the changed circumstances standard should be broad | Changed circumstances may include worsened conditions post-arrival | Standard should be narrow to preserve one-year deadline | Yes; standard must account for substantial effect on eligibility |
| Whether remand for asylum merits is proper | Remand allows proper consideration of asylum claim | Remand unnecessary if timeliness unresolved | Remand proper to consider merits |
| Policy effect of the one-year deadline | Deadline should accommodate meritorious late claims | Deadline prevents backdoor asylum abuse | Remand, not collapse of deadline, preserves balance |
Key Cases Cited
- Dhital v. Mukasey, 532 F.3d 1044 (9th Cir. 2008) (changed circumstances review; mixed questions of fact and law)
- Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646 (9th Cir. 2007) (agency application of changed circumstances; mixed questions of law and fact)
- Jarbough v. Att'y Gen. of the United States, 483 F.3d 184 (3d Cir. 2007) (discretionary nature of changed-circ. decisions)
- Toj-Culpatan v. Holder, 612 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 2010) (parallel extraordinary-circumstances; per curiam)
- Fakhry v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 2008) (changed circumstances may affect eligibility even with ongoing fear)
- Singh v. INS, 134 F.3d 962 (9th Cir. 1998) (withholding vs asylum standards; strong precedent on eligibility)