Basic HTML Version

|  | Table of Contents |  | View Full Version

Page 34 - The Indian EYE 102425
P. 34

    IMMIGRATION                                                         OCTOBER 24, 2025  |      The Indian Eye 34

               Board of Immigration Appeals Allows Immigration

                            Judges to Disregard Party Stipulations

            BY CYRUS MEHTA             plementing the Convention  ten application and be believ-  adjudicating an asylum or  dent judgment and discretion
                                       Against Torture. The IJ re-  ably presented.  The Board,   adjustment application.  Stip-  and may take any action con-
                  he Board of Immigra-  jected the stipulation and set  however, held that Matter of   ulations indeed encourage ef-  sistent with their authorities
                  tion Appeals in Matter  the case for hearing to take  Fefe is no longer binding pre-  ficiency and allow the parties  under the Act and regulations
            Tof J-H-M-H held on  testimony. The respondent  ceded as it predated the en-      to focus on the essential aspect  that is necessary or appropri-
            October 7, 2025 that even if  did not testify in support of  actment of INA 240(b)(4)(B)   of the case. Under the Trump  ate for the disposition or al-
            the parties in a case – the non-  the claim and sought to rely  in 1996. This provision allows   administration, an IJ may not  ternative resolution of such
            citizen respondent and the  on the contents of the appli-  noncitizens to examine evi-  want to go along with a stip-  cases.” However, this regula-
            government – have stipulated  cation, the personal state-  dence against them, present   ulation out of fear that he or  tion does not preclude a stip-
            to certain aspects of the case,  ment and the stipulation. The  evidence on their own behalf   she may get fired. Or a newly  ulation from being consid-
            Immigration Judges exercise  IJ denied relief under CAT.  and to cross-examine witness-  appointed military judge in-  ered binding on the parties.
            independent  judgment  and     In  their  appeal,  the  es. Yet,  the Board recently   experienced in immigration   The BIA in Matter of
            are not required to  accept  respondent relied on the  held in September 2025 in   law who may not be favorably  J-H-M-H has unfortunately
            party stipulations. In this case,  Board’s 1989 decision in  Mat-  Matter of H-A-A-V- that an   inclined to grant relief or ben-  empowered IJs to disregard
            the respondent and the DHS  ter of Fefe, which held that at  IJ may pretermit  an  asylum   efits  may  want  to  override  a  stipulations, which in turn
            submitted a joint memoran-  a minimum an asylum appli-  application without a full   stipulation.            would  undermine  efficiency
            dum  in October 2023 before  cant take the stand, be placed  evidentiary  hearing  on  the   Stipulations are espe-  and result in more backlogs.
            the Immigration Judge stip-  under oath and be questioned  merits of the claim and also   cially critical in protecting  If there is no case or contro-
            ulating that the respondent  whether the information in  held that Matter of Fefe is no   vulnerable clients with men-  versy  between  the  govern-
            identified  as  a  transgender  the written application  is  longer binding precedent. It   tal competency issues. They  ment and  the respondent,
            woman, that the testimony  complete, and that the exam-  is paradoxical that the Board   could include both children  the IJ ought not be playing
            would be consistent with the  ination of the respondent will  affirmed an IJ’s insistence to   and adults with diminished  any role. This decision pro-
            written materials submitted,  be brief only where the parties  hold a hearing despite a joint   capacity. If they risk facing  motes more inefficiency and
            and that the respondent was  have stipulated that the appli-  stipulation in Matter of J-H-  substantial harm, a joint stip-  backlogs in an already dys-
            eligible for deferral of remov-  cant’s oral testimony would  M-H–  but  affirmed  an  IJ’s   ulation where the parties can  functional system.   Immi-
            al under the regulations im-  be consistent with their writ-  ability to pretermit an asylum   agree to the respondent’s  gration practitioners must be
                                                                      application in Matter of   eligibility for asylum and re-  prepared to go through a full-
                                                                      H-A-A-V- without a full   lated relief can serve as an  fledged hearing  even if there
                                                                      evidentiary hearing on   adequate protective mea-  has been a stipulation in case
                                                                      the merits of the claim.  sure if the respondent may  an IJ insists on a full hearing.
                                                                          What does this case   be unable to testify due to  On the other hand, under
                                                                      mean for future cases?   diminished capacity.  A law-  Matter of H-A-A-V-, as IJ’s
                                                                      We often stipulate with   yer who represents a client  have the power to pretermit
                                                                      the DHS attorney on     with diminished capacity is  asylum  applications without
                                                                      various aspects of the   required to seek protective  a full evidentiary hearing,
                                                                      case. For example, there   action  if  the client will  face  practitioners must submit
                                                                      could be a stipulation   harm under ABA Model Rul  comprehensive applications
                                                                      on the bona fides of the   1.14, and a stipulation would  to ensure that the respondent
                                                                      marriage in a review of   be one way to protect the cli-  can establish prima facie eli-
                                                                      the I-751 petition in im-  ent with diminished capacity.  gibility, and in the event of

                                                                      migration court. The       The Board cited the reg-  a  pretermination,  there is
                                                                      parties may stipulate that   ulation at 8 CFR 1003.10(b)  a  sufficient  basis  in  the  re-
                                                                      allegations made by a for-  to uphold the IJ disregard-  cord to appeal the decision.
                                                                      eign government through   ing the stipulation in Matter   [This blog is for
                                                                      an Interpol Red Notice   of J-H-M-H:  “In  deciding   informational purposes only
                                                                      against the respondent   the individual cases before   and should not be considered
                                                                      have no basis and should   them…immigration  judges   as a substitute for legal advice]
                                                                      not be considered when   shall exercise their indepen-
                         m of                                         ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
              CYRUS D. MEHTA & PARTNERS PLLC                          Cyrus D. Mehta, a graduate of Cambridge University and Columbia Law School, is the Managing Partner of
                                                                      Cyrus D. Mehta & Partners PLLC in New York City. Mr. Mehta is a member of AILA’s Administrative Litigation
                                                                                                 Task Force; AILA’s EB-5 Committee; former chair of AILA’s Ethics Committee; special counsel on immigration

                 matters to the Departmental Disciplinary Committee, Appellate Division, First Department, New York; member
                                                                      of the ABA Commission on Immigration; board member of Volunteers for Legal Services and board member of

                                New York Immigration Coalition.  Mr. Mehta is the former chair of the Board of Trustees of the American Immi-

                        gration Council and former chair of the Committee on Immigration and Nationality Law of the New York City

                                                                       Bar Association. He is a frequent speaker and writer on various immigration-related issues, including on ethics,
                                                                      and is also an adjunct professor of law at Brooklyn Law School, where he teaches a course entitled Immigration
                                                                      and Work.  Mr. Mehta received the AILA 2018 Edith Lowenstein Memorial Award for advancing the practice of
                                                                      immigration law and the AILA 2011 Michael Maggio Memorial Award for his outstanding efforts in providing
                                                                      pro bono representation in the immigration field. He has also received two AILA Presidential Commendations in
                                                                      2010 and 2016.  Mr. Mehta is ranked among the most highly regarded lawyers in North America by Who’s Who
              2              6th Floor                                Legal – Corporate Immigration Law 2019 and is also ranked in Chambers USA and Chambers Global 2019 in

                    immigration law, among other rankings.

                                                                   www.TheIndianEYE.com

| 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 |