https://x.com/dilanesper/status/2090522889334534259?s=20
OK, so I did a
random search- I searched Westlaw for 2024 asylum cases in the 9th Circuit. I
chose 2024 because that way you can't argue this was due to the Trump
Administration's restrictive policies. These were Biden era cases. And I just
chose the first 10 cases returned.
I didn't ask for
reversals or affirmances. Just for cases that involved review of asylum claims.
And I just took the first 10 that came up. I didn't stack the deck in any way.
And remember, these were the appeals that asylees CHOSE to bring.
So this should be
a somewhat biased sample towards cases with a decent shot of reversal. Because
some litigants facing an obvious loss won't appeal. So let's go through these.
1.
Echeverria
de Leon v. Garland (9th Cir. Jul. 5, 2024) is our first case. Echeverria was
harassed because she would not join a gang. She conceded she had no evidence
that she was ever persecuted because of her membership in a group. Asylum
denied.
2.
.Betancourt v. Garland (9th Cir. Apr. 9, 2024)
comes next. Betancourt said criminals attempted to kidnap her, offering a fake
job at Walmart. However, she "stated that she did not know why she was
targeted and that the criminals attempted to kidnap both men and women"
Denied.
3.
Ayala v. Garland (9th Cir. Dec. 13, 2024) is
next. Ayala "testified that he received no threats or harm since
2007". He conceded he was never personally harmed or threatened in Mexico.
Asylum denied.
4.
Castillo-Lopez v. Garland (9th Cir. Aug. 28,
2024) is next up. Castillo-Lopez actually asserted a claim that would qualify
for asylum if true. He said the FMLN targeted him for participating in a
mayoral campaign. The problem is his story fell apart when he testified. His character witnesses said actually he
participated in the presidential campaign, not the mayoral campaign, and he
couldn't explain the discrepancy. And he changed his story as to whether his
attackers were FMLN members or gang members and who they were. Asylum denied.
5.
Aleman-Belloso v. Bondi (9th Cir. Nov. 13, 2024,
amended Feb. 18, 2025) is next. This has Pam Bondi in the caption because the
opinion was modified (non-substantively) later. But it's still a Biden-era
decision. Aleman-Belloso won his appeal.
(Notice, I am not stacking the deck. If there's a reversal I will tell you
about it.) Aleman was a member of a group of church leaders targeted by the
FMLN. The immigration authorities
misconstrued his position and incorrectly ruled this wasn't a protected social
group. This case got remanded. The opinion reads like he was likely to win his
case on remand, and absolutely should.
6.
Next is Guzman v. Garland (9th Cir. Jun. 11,
2024). Guzman was robbed of her cell phone on the street in 2014, and claimed
this was due to her being a woman. But she admitted she had no idea why the
attacker robbed her. Asylum denied.
7.
Recinos-Orozco v. Garland (9th Cir. Dec. 9,
2024) is our next case. Recinos-Orozco contended throughout her dealings with
USCIS that she had been targeted because she was part of a group of women who
opposed gang violence, but abandoned that claim on appeal. Asylum denied.
8.
He v. Garland (9th Cir. Apr. 5, 2024) comes
next. He was found not to be credible. I'll quote the court on this one.
"She testified that the church she attended in China both did and did not
keep attendance records.... Undated and
unnotarized letters from Petitioner's mother arrived both from mainland China
and from Taiwan, even though Petitioner testified that her mother has never
been to Taiwan.... And Petitioner's
documentary evidence related to her membership in a Los Angeles church included
information that contradicted Petitioner's testimony." "Despite providing a written declaration
stating that she had been... beaten up by the police, Petitioner testified...,
after she was arrested in China, her only contact with the police was when they
released her and that “nothing” happened to her while in custody." Asylum denied.
9.
Calmo-Geronimo v. Garland (9th Cir. Oct. 29).
Calmo didn't even try to win her case. She gave up her argument there was any
nexus between her alleged persecution and membership in a group, and also
didn't challenge the finding that she was lying on her application. Denied.
10.
. Finally, Simonian v. Garland (9th Cir. Dec.
5). Simonian sought asylum even though there was ample evidence his home
government actively investigated the two attacks he alleged (allegations the
immigration officials found not credible anyway). No fear of persecution.
Denied.
So asylum appellees went 1 for 10. A couple ere found on
very credible evidence to be liars. The others were clearly making arguments
about generalized violence and had no basis for claiming credible fear of
persecution based on any group membership. That's the state of asylum. But even more telling is that several of
these people didn't even press their arguments of persecution based on group
membership on appeal. I am an appellate lawyer and I can tell you this is VERY
uncommon in other areas of the law.
Because remember, these people almost certainly were paroled
and got work permits-- almost everyone in the asylum system did. That's the
point of asylum fraud. You might get to stay in the US for several years and
work, until the jig is up. You're just running the clock out.
The
Aleman-Beloso's of the world. Their meritorious cases and appeals take forever
because the courts are clogged with people who just wanted to lie or file a
phony claim to get into the country and get a work permit and make some money.
No comments:
Post a Comment