Adeyanju v. Garland (2022)

Moreno v. Garland, 51 F.4th 40, 46 (1st Cir. 2022) (quoting Adeyanju v. Garland, 27 F.4th 25, 51 (1st Cir. 2022)).

See id. (noting that "we have no jurisdiction to consider a petition for review challenging" the BIA's decision - 9 - denying adjustment of status, "except to the extent that the petition raises constitutional claims or questions of law." (citation modified)); Adeyanju, 27 F.4th at 37 (emphasizing that "if the BIA failed to appropriately apply clear-error review . . . then we would retain jurisdiction."); see Peulic v. Garland, 22 F.4th 340, 346 (1st Cir. 2022) (claims that …

Moreno v. Garland, 51 F.4th 40, 46 (1st Cir. 2022) (quoting Adeyanju v. Garland, 27 F.4th 25, 51 (1st Cir. 2022)).

Adeyanju v. Garland, 27 F.4th 25, 33 (1st Cir. 2022) (cleaned up).

Cf. Adeyanju v. Garland, 27 F.4th 25, 33 (1st Cir. 2022) (pausing to explain the intricacies of immigration procedure and review).

That standard is a tough one to meet and requires deference unless -- "after whole-record review -- [the BIA] ha[s] 'a strong, unyielding - 18 - belief' that the [IJ] stumbled." Adeyanju, 27 F.4th at 33 (second alteration in original) (quoting United States v. Rivera-Carrasquillo, 933 F.3d 33, 42 (1st Cir. 2019)).

See, e.g., Zheng v. Ashcroft, 332 F.3d 1186, 1194 (9th Cir. 2003) ("Congress made its intent clear that actual knowledge, or willful acceptance, is not required for a government to 'acquiesce' to the torture of its citizens."); Silva-Rengifo v. Att'y Gen., 473 F.3d 58, 67 (3d Cir. 2007) ("A brief review of the Convention's implementing legislation confirms that Congress intended that relief under the Convention not be limited to situations where public officials have actual …

Cf. Adeyanju v. Garland, 27 F.4th 25, 49 (1st Cir. 2022) (explaining that the Board “has the authority to review the undisputed facts in the entire record”); Hammerschmidt v. Garland, 54 F.4th 282, 290 (5th Cir. 2022) (rejecting Petitioner’s impermissible-fact-finding argument because she did not allege, and the Board decision did not show, that the Board “developed a record, gathered new information, or chose between disputed facts”).

Adeyanju v. Garland, 27 F.4th 25, 31 (1st Cir. 2022) (citing Martínez-Pérez v. Sessions, 897 F.3d 33 , 37 n.1 (1st Cir. 2018)).

In September 2021, two armed Gulf Clan members wearing motorcycle helmets descended on Castano's bakery and warned 2 "We draw the relevant facts from the administrative record," including "testimony before the IJ . . . [that] the IJ found to be credible and corroborated." Barnica-Lopez v. Garland, 59 F.4th 520 , 525 n.1 (1st Cir. 2023) (citing Adeyanju v. Garland, 27 F.4th 25, 31 (1st Cir. 2022)). 3 In his petition for review, Castano explains that his legal name is "Jhon," …

See Adeyanju v. Garland, 27 F.4th 25, 51 (1st Cir. 2022) ("Where the BIA's explanation is too thin to allow us to evaluate the claims of error, we may find an abuse of discretion and remand to the BIA for further explanation."); Tillery, 821 F.3d at 186-87 (vacating and remanding where neither the BIA's citations nor the underlying administrative record "illuminate[s] the BIA's rationale").

Barnica-Lopez v. Garland, 59 F.4th 520 , 525 n.1 (1st Cir. 2023) (citing Adeyanju v. Garland, 27 F.4th 25, 31 (1st Cir. 2022)). - 3 - three-year-old husband and Ferreira's uncle, and Ferreira's cousin.

Espinoza-Ochoa recognized the cow because he had branded it with his initials. 1 "We draw the relevant facts from the administrative record," including "testimony before the IJ . . . [that] the IJ found to be credible and corroborated." Barnica-Lopez v. Garland, 59 F.4th 520 , 525 n.1 (1st Cir. 2023) (citing Adeyanju v. Garland, 27 F.4th 25, 31 (1st Cir. 2022)). - 3 - Once again, he called the police for help, and they said they would arrive within forty minutes.

Adeyanju v. Garland, 27 F.4th 25, 31 (1st Cir. 2022) (citing Martínez-Pérez v. Sessions, 897 F.3d 33 , 37 n.1 (1st Cir. 2018)).

"For petitions for review of BIA decisions, our jurisdiction is circumscribed by statute." Adeyanju v. Garland, 27 F.4th 25, 36 (1st Cir. 2022).

While the BIA must remand if additional factfinding is necessary, see Alimbaev v. Att’y Gen., 872 F.3d 188, 196 (3d Cir. 2017), it “has the authority to review the undisputed facts in the entire record,” Adeyanju v. Garland, 27 F.4th 25, 49 (1st Cir. 2022); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1 (d)(3)(iv)(A)(4).

We review the BIA's denial of Moreno's motion to remand "under the 'highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.'" Adeyanju v. Garland, 27 F.4th 25, 51 (1st Cir. 2022) (quoting Tay-Chan v. Barr, 918 F.3d 209, 212 (1st Cir. 2019)).

The law in our circuit is clear that - 28 - "[w]here the BIA's explanation is too thin to allow us to evaluate the claims of error, we may find an abuse of discretion and remand to the BIA for further explanation." Adeyanju v. Garland, 27 F.4th 25, 51 (1st Cir. 2022).

June 10, 2020 BIA Decision Our review of the BIA's denial of Garcia Sarmiento's motion to reopen is "under the highly deferential abuse-of- discretion standard." Adeyanju v. Garland, 27 F.4th 25, 51 (1st Cir. 2022) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Tay-Chan v. Barr, 918 F.3d 209, 212 (1st Cir. 2019)).

The record before the Court tells a different story.2 2 The Court may take judicial notice of immigration proceedings and agency actions. , 27 F.4th 25, 52 (1st Cir. 2022).

Id. § 1003.1(d)(3)(i); see Adeyanju v. Garland, 27 F.4th 25, 33 (1st Cir. 2022) (further detailing the clear-error standard applied by the BIA).

See Adeyanju v. Garland, 27 F.4th 25, 31 (1st Cir. 2022).

See Adeyanju v. Garland, 27 F.4th 25, 31 (1st Cir. 2022).

See Adeyanju v. Garland, 27 F.4th 25, 31 (1st Cir. 2022) (citing Martínez-Pérez v. Sessions, 897 F.3d 33 , 37 n.1 (1st Cir. 2018)).

Whether the BIA followed its own regulations is a "question[] of law" which we have jurisdiction to review. 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (a)(1), (a)(2)(D); see Lumataw v. Holder, 582 F.3d 78, 85 (1st Cir. 2009); see also Adeyanju v. Garland, 27 F.4th 25, 36-37, 51 (1st Cir. 2022).

See 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (a)(2)(D) (permitting "review of . . . questions of law"); see also Cortes v. Garland, 105 F.4th 124, 132-33 (4th Cir. 2024) (exercising jurisdiction to consider whether the agency ignored key evidence put forth to establish "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship"); Mendez v. Holder, 566 F.3d 316, 322-23 (2d Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (same). "[W]e review preserved claims of legal error (that is, claims that turn on pure questions of law) de novo." Unit…

See, e.g., Adeyanju v. Garland, 27 F.4th 25 , 49 n.25 (1st Cir. 2022) (pointing out that petitioner failed to cite any precedential BIA decisions but going on to address the trend in unpublished cases); Thompson, 959 F.3d at 486-89 (considering the BIA's published and unpublished decisions).

See Adeyanju v. Garland, 27 F.4th 25, 37 (1st Cir. 2022); Peulic, 22 F.4th at 346 (noting that whether the agency applied the "wrong legal standard" is a question of law). - 22 - persecution analysis, then [we] do[] not need to reach his future persecution claim." We agree.

See Adeyanju v. - 23 - Garland, 27 F.4th 25, 38-39 (1st Cir. 2022).

See Adeyanju v. Garland, 27 F.4th 25, 31 (1st Cir. 2022) (citing Martínez-Pérez v. Sessions, 897 F.3d 33 , 37 n.1 (1st Cir. 2018)).

See Adeyanju v. Garland, 27 F.4th 25, 33 (1st Cir. 2022) ("To demonstrate clear error, one 'must do more than show that the finding is "probably wrong," for [a court] can reverse on clear-error grounds only if -- after whole-record review -- [it] ha[s] "a strong, unyielding belief" that the judge stumbled.'" (quoting United States v. Rivera-Carrasquillo, 933 F.3d 33, 42 (1st Cir. 2019))); Mashilingi v. Garland, 16 F.4th 9At oral argument, counsel for Murillo Morocho also ref…

See Adeyanju v. Garland, 27 F.4th 25, 31 (1st Cir. 2022).

See Adeyanju v. Garland, 27 F.4th 25, 38 (1st Cir. 2022).