Background
Petitioners sought review of decisions by the Immigration Judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals to pretermit their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture relief. The Board affirmed the Immigration Judge’s decision citing Burbano.
The court’s reasoning
The court reviewed the Immigration Judge’s decision as if it were the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals. The court found that the Immigration Judge never ordered the petitioners to complete biometrics by a certain date and only required them to file proof of active pursuit. Furthermore, the Immigration Judge communicated all directions through counsel without an interpreter, failing to inform the petitioners directly of their obligations. The court concluded that the Immigration Judge abused its discretion by pretermitting the applications without adequate notice.
The IJ failed to provide Petitioners with adequate notice of their obligations to complete biometrics.
What it means going forward
The case is remanded to the Board of Immigration Appeals for further proceedings, allowing the petitioners to pursue their asylum and related relief applications with proper notice of biometrics requirements.