9th Circuit: BIA Should Consider Evangelical Christians Separately From All Christians In Assessing Deportation Risk

In Nababan v. Garland, (9th Cir., Nov. 23, 2021), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals remanded to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) a petition by two Indonesians who are members of the Seventh Day Adventist Church who are seeking asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture.  In order for the BIA to reopen petitioners' case, they would need to show changed conditions in Indonesia since the earlier denial of their petitions. In a 2-1 decision, the appeals court held that the BIA had committed legal error in finding no material change of conditions. The majority said in part:

[The BIA] failed, ... to account for Petitioners’ status as evangelical Christians or the evidence they presented indicating that evangelical Christians have experienced a particular increase in violence and persecution, beyond that experienced by Indonesian Christians in general.

Judge VanDyke dissented, saying in part:

The majority’s emphasis on the term “evangelical Christian” is not just absurdly fussy, it’s also inherently fuzzy. The majority latches onto the term, but never defines what it means. Does the majority mean that “evangelical Christians” are a subgroup of Christianity, akin to the commonly used distinction between, say, Catholics and Protestants? Or does the majority simply mean that “evangelical Christians” refers to any “Christians” who evangelize? If the latter, this broad categorization encompasses the vast majority, if not all, Christians....

Supreme Court Says Druze Immigrant Can Appeal Factual Findings Under Convention Against Torture

Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that factual findings relating to relief under the Convention Against Torture can be appealed from the Board of Immigration Appeals to the federal circuit courts. In Nasrallah v. Barr, (Sup. Ct., June 1, 2020), a member of the Druze religion claimed he would likely be tortured by Hezbollah if he returned to Lebanon. In a 7-2 decision, in an opinion written by Justice Kavanaugh, the Court said in part:

It would be easy enough for Congress to preclude judicial review of factual challenges to CAT orders, just as Congress has precluded judicial review of factual challenges to certain final orders of removal. But Congress has not done so, and it is not the proper role of the courts to rewrite the laws passed by Congress and signed by the President.

Justices Thomas and Gorsuch dissented. The Hill reports on the decision.