SHOCKING NEWS: Seventh Circuit — IJ “cared little about the evidence and instead applied whatever rationale he could muster to justify a predetermined outcome”

Criticism of the work of the immigration courts will come to no surprise to immigration practitioners.  However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (Judges Posner, Kanne, and Sykes), which has frequently been tough on the Board of Immigration Appeals and immigration judges (see, e.g., here), was particularly candid in its assessment of the IJs’ work in a recent case:

“Without commenting on the merits of Castilho de Oliveira’s claim, we conclude that he did not receive a fair hearing before a neutral immigration judge. The IJ repeatedly interrupted the testimony to ask irrelevant and sometimes inflammatory questions, refused to consider important evidence, and decided the case without seriously engaging with the evidence in the record. Indeed, so troubling are some of these lapses that we are left with the impression that the IJ “cared little about the evidence and instead applied whatever rationale he could muster to justify a predetermined outcome.” . . . . Accordingly, we grant Castilho de Oliveira’s petition for review, vacate the decision of the BIA, and remand for a new hearing.” Castilho de Oliveira v. Holder, May 8, 2009 (emphasis added).

Recall that a Bush administration official admitted that partisan  political considerations influenced selction of IJs and BIA members.

KJ