Matter of A-M-R-C- (agency decision, June 17, 2020)

Plain-English summary

The Attorney General directed the Board of Immigration Appeals to refer its decision in the respondent's case for review. The order asked the parties and interested amici to brief whether the delayed referral would prejudice the respondent, whether the Board correctly evaluated the serious-nonpolitical-crime bar, whether the persecutor bar applied to the asylum claim, and whether the respondent's in absentia trial satisfied due process. The order set briefing deadlines and filing instructions. It did not decide those questions or resolve the respondent's underlying immigration claims.

Decision snapshot

• Cited authorities: 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(A)(iii); 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.1(h)(1)(i) and 1208.13(c)(2)(i)(E)
• Outcome: The case was referred to the Attorney General for review, briefing was ordered, and no merits issue was resolved in this order.
• Key point: This order framed the issues for Attorney General review and invited briefing, but it did not decide the respondent's asylum or due-process claims.

Full text (BIA official public release)

Cite as 28 I&N Dec. 7 (A.G. 2020) Interim Decision #3986

                 Matter of A-M-R-C-, Respondent
              Decided by Attorney General June 17, 2020

                      U.S. Department of Justice
                     Office of the Attorney General


             BEFORE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(h)(1)(i), I direct the Board of Immigration

Appeals (“Board”) to refer this case to me for review of its decision. To assist me in my review, I invite the parties to this proceeding and interested amici to submit briefs on points relevant to the disposition of this case, including:

1. Would the delay in my referral of this case cause the respondent to suffer any
   “prejudice from any inability to prove his defenses,” Costello v. United States, 365
   U.S. 265, 283 (1961), or otherwise prevent me from reviewing the Board’s
   decision in this matter?

2. Did the Board err in determining as a matter of its discretion that there was not
   probable cause that the respondent had committed a “serious nonpolitical crime”?
   8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(A)(iii). In making such a determination, did the Board
   correctly conclude that the crime of which the respondent had been convicted in
   absentia was not “disproportionate to the objective” or “of an atrocious or
   barbarous character”? Deportation Proceedings for Joseph Patrick Thomas
   Doherty, 13 Op. O.L.C. 1, 23 (1989) (internal citation omitted).

3. Did the Board err in determining that the persecutor bar at 8 C.F.R.
   § 1208.13(c)(2)(i)(E) did not apply to the respondent’s asylum claim?

4. Did the Board apply the correct legal standard in concluding that the respondent’s
   in absentia trial suffered from due process problems even though the Department
   of State had found that the trial had satisfied due process?

The parties’ briefs shall not exceed 15,000 words and shall be filed on or before July 17, 2020. Interested amici may submit briefs not exceeding 9,000 words on or before July 31, 2020. The parties may submit reply briefs not exceeding 6,000 words on or before July 31, 2020. All filings shall be accompanied by proof of service and shall be submitted electronically to [email protected], and in triplicate to:

                                       7

Cite as 28 I&N Dec. 7 (A.G. 2020) Interim Decision #3986

                  United States Department of Justice
              Office of the Attorney General, Room 5114
                    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
                         Washington, DC 20530

All briefs must be both submitted electronically and postmarked on or before the pertinent deadlines. Requests for extensions are disfavored.

                                8