Background
Trokon Diahn, a twenty-year-old noncitizen born in Cote dIvoire who has lived in the United States since age two, faced removal to Liberia. He was incarcerated in Pennsylvania during his proceedings and appeared pro se before the Immigration Judge. Diahn sought multiple forms of relief, including asylum, withholding of removal, and a waiver of inadmissibility. The Immigration Judge denied all relief, and the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed his appeal. Diahn petitioned the Fourth Circuit for review, arguing he did not receive a full and fair hearing.
The court’s reasoning
The court held that immigration judges have an affirmative statutory duty to develop the record, particularly for pro se litigants who lack legal knowledge. The court found that the Immigration Judge failed to adequately explain the legal standards for relief, failed to inform Diahn of his right to present witnesses, and failed to ensure relevant evidence submitted to the wrong court was considered. The court determined these failures were presumptively prejudicial and violated due process protections.
Immigration judges have a statutory duty to develop the record, particularly in cases involving pro se, detained noncitizens.
The dissent
What it means going forward
The removal order against Trokon Diahn is vacated, and the case is remanded to the Board of Immigration Appeals with instructions to remand to the Immigration Judge for further fact-finding. The petitioner is entitled to a new hearing where the judge must fulfill the duty to develop the record.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download