Trump Judge Casts Deciding Vote to Allow Deportation of Immigrant Without In-person Review of Immigrant’s Testimony
“Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears” is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on Americans’ rights and liberties. It includes judges nominated in both his first and second terms.
.
What’s at stake in this case?
.
An immigrant appealed administrative denial of relief based on findings that immigrant was not credible based only review of cold transcript
What happened in this case?
Rodolfo Pena Estrada is a native of Cuba who sought relief from deportation. An Immigration Judge (IJ) held a hearing, and then a different IJ reviewed the transcript and found Estrada not credible and denied him any relief. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and a district court agreed, and an appeal went to the Ninth Circuit.
Trump judge Patrick Bumatay and George W Bush judge Consuelo Callahan issued a 2-1 ruling that affirmed the ruling against Estrada and ruled that the adverse credibility findings were permissible although based solely on a cold transcript. Clinton judge Richard Paez dissented from the June decision in Estrada v Blanche.
Why did Judge Paez dissent?
According to Judge Paez, both the due process clause and the REAL ID Act “prohibited” the second IJ from “making an adverse credibility determination based solely on a cold transcript.” The Act requires, Paez went on, that such a determination must be made based on “the totality of the circumstances” and “all relevant factors,” including judgments of in-person credibility. The IJ’s view that Estrada’s answers were “vague” and “nonresponsive” based solely on a cold transcript, Paez wrote, was unacceptable and contradicted precedent. Paez concluded that the case should have been sent back to the agency to consider holding another hearing or providing other relief.
Why is the ruling harmful?
The decision made possible by Trump judge Bumatay clearly harms Rodolfo Pena Estrada and his effort to get relief from deportation. It also sets a bad precedent concerning reliance solely on transcripts to support credibility determinations in immigration cases, particularly in the Ninth Circuit, which includes California, Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington. It also illustrates the importance of our federal courts to health, welfare and justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench.