Matter of J-G-T-, 28 I&N Dec. 97 (BIA 2020)
From the EOIR PIO:
The Board of Immigration Appeals has issued a decision in the Matter of J-G-T-, 28 I&N Dec. 97 (BIA 2020)
(1) In assessing whether to admit the testimony of a witness as an expert, an Immigration Judge should consider whether it is sufficiently relevant and reliable for the expert to offer an informed opinion, and if it is admitted, the Immigration Judge should then consider how much weight the testimony should receive.
(2) In considering how much weight to give an expert’s testimony, the Immigration Judge should assess how probative and persuasive the testimony is regarding key issues in dispute for which the testimony is being offered.
PANEL: MALPHRUS, MULLANE, and CREPPY , Appellate Immigration Judges.
OPINION BY: MALPHRUS, Appellate Immigration Judge
In this case, the BIA sent an asylum grant well-supported by expert opinion back to the IJ for no particular reason other than the DHS didn’t like the result.
The message: The IJ should always look for reasons to disallow, disbelieve, or diminish the weight of the asylum applicant’s persuasive evidence. The IJ should always be looking for “any reason to deny” asylum applications because that’s what Billy wants from his wholly-owned. “judges.”
To quote my friend and Round Table colleague retired IJ Jeffrey S. Chase:
[The BIA], McHenry, and Barr are engaging in tag-team destruction of asylum. So this gives the signal to ignore country experts when their opinions support grants of asylum. Which was stated more explicitly in the proposed 161-page asylum regs. And then if the IJ relies on the DOS report, the Board or AG will say the quoted passage was too vague and generalized to support a finding of social distinction or nexus.
The good news is that a number of brigades of the NDPA are hard at work on comprehensive alternative expert country reports that are much more accurate and well-documented than current DOS propaganda. A number of Courts of Appeals already have “called out” the BIA for routinely ignoring evidence and expert opinions favorable to asylum applicants.
I certainly hope they will see through and expose this rather transparent attempt to further “game the system” against asylum applicants. Actually, under the U.N. Handbook asylum seekers are supposed to receive the “benefit of the doubt.” But, not from this scofflaw regime and their toadies masquerading as “judges.”
It’s also worth noting that this case has already been pending for almost a decade. Obviously, time is no object for EOIR when it comes to looking for ways to deny asylum.