In Matter of Ramirez-Peyro, an unpublished decision dated March 18, 2010, the BIA finalized a grant of Convention Against Torture relief for a Mexican drug informant, Guillermo “Lalo” Ramirez-Peyro. The BIA held:
In the absence of a showing that the Mexican government has succeeded in its efforts to curtail corruption in law enforcement, the respondent has proven that he more likely than not would be tortured upon removal by or with the acquiescence of a public official of the Mexican government.
Of the successful outcome, Ramirez-Peyro’s attorney, Jodi Goodwin, writes:
Guillermo Ramirez-Peyro
The BIA FINALLY dismisses the DHS’ appeal. The matter was remanded for the purpose of updating law enforcement/ security checks and the entry of an order. The decision does not leave open any further fact finding and finally is a determination by the BIA of the Department of Justice that Lalo should be granted Convention Against Torture protection. This is a super-huge victory that has been 5 long years in the making. At this point, Lalo is protected from being removed to Mexico where he will be tortured and killed. The next step in Lalo’s legal plight will be to attempt to force the government to finally release him from the solitary confinement he has endured for 5 long years. Lalo was happy to hear of the decision today when I spoke with him, however does not understand the ultra-huge legal victory as it pales in comparison to the suffering he has endured at the hands of the [United States] government in solitary confinement over these years.
Asylum in the United States is meant to be a confidential process. However, it is not uncommon for the BIA and the federal circuit courts to identify asylum seekers by name in their decisions, and to describe the applicants’ claims of persecution. We lawyers sometimes wonder whether anyone in the home country ever learns about such cases.
In a recent example from the Ninth Circuit, a Cambodian couple was denied asylum before the Immigration Judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals. They filed a petition for review with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which was denied. See Kin v. Holder, No. 05-73079 (9th Cir. Feb. 18, 2010). Someone in Cambodia was paying attention, and the case recently appeared in the English language Phnom Penh Post:
Two Sam Rainsy Party (SRP) members who say they were tortured by authorities after participating in a 1998 political rally have had their bid for political asylum in the United States blocked by an appeal court there. In a legal opinion filed on Thursday, Judge Richard C Tallman of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld an earlier ruling by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) rejecting the pair’s asylum requests, saying their asylum claim was riddled with inconsistencies.
The article goes on to identify the couple by name, and to describe their claims of persecution in detail. The article concludes:
Senior CPP [Cambodian People’s Party – the ruling party of Cambodia] lawmaker Cheam Yeap could not confirm or deny the validity of the allegations raised by Kin Sambath and Prak Bunnary, but stated that peddling falsehood was not uncommon for the opposition. “It is characteristic of the SRP that they raise untrue issues because they want to live in a third country,” he said.
Now that the Ninth Circuit’s decision has exposed the names and stories of the two asylum seekers and a “Senior CPP lawmaker” is aware of their claims, they may have an argument to reopen their case in the U.S.: Even if their initial stories were not credible, the Cambodian government has become aware that they applied for asylum in the United States. The very fact that they made this application–and accused the Cambodian government of persecuting them–might result in the government punishing them upon their return. And that may be enough to support a new claim for asylum.
Among lawyers (like me) who practice in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, there has been ongoing speculation about whether the conservative court is moving to the left. AILA’s Immigration Slip Opinions discusses several positive asylum decisions from the last few months, including my case, Baharon v. Holder, 588 F.3d 228 (4th Cir. 2009). The one common factor in these cases is Judge Gregory, who seems to favor a more expansive judicial review of asylum cases than many of his colleagues. The Fourth Circuit has traditionally been considered very conservative when it comes to immigration cases in general, and asylum cases in particular, but that may be changing. The newest judge, Barbara Milano Keenan, confirmed last week may further tip the balance. And there are currently four more vacancies on the Court. We’ll see if the new appointments make the Fourth Circuit friendlier terrain for asylum seekers.
