“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?
A woman and her family challenged their asylum denial because the agency did not consider strong evidence of threats against her.
What happened in this case?
Loreny Alejandra Aguilar Maldonado and her family sought asylum from Guatemala because of threats against her in connection with her father’s murder and the government’s inability or unwillingness to “control her persecutors.” Both an immigration judge (IJ) and the Board of Immigration Appeals(BIA) denied asylum and the family petitioned for review in the Ninth Circuit.
In July, Trump judge Mark Bennett and Clinton judge Richard Tallman issued a 2-1 decision denying the petition. They maintained that “substantial evidence” supported the denial. Clinton judge Richard Paez dissented in the ruling in Maldonado v Blanche.
Why did Judge Paez dissent?
Based on his review of the record, Judge Paez Floyd explained that even if there was substantial evidence to support the decision below, that could not overcome the “reversible legal error” committed by the IJ and the BIA by “failing to consider highly probative evidence” connecting Maldonado’s father’s murder to the “threats made against her,” and concerning the Guatemalan government’s “inability and unwillingness” to control those who took action against and threatened her. Paez carefully explained the errors in the record and concluded that “the agency’s lack of analysis and affirmative misstatements of the record” showed that it “failed to consider all the evidence and constitute legal error warranting remand.”
Why is the decision harmful?
The decision made possible by Trump judge Bennett obviously harmed Loreny Alejandra Aguilar Maldonado and her family by denying them asylum despite strong evidence of persecution. It also sets a bad precedent concerning the proof necessary to warrant the granting of asylum, particularly in the Ninth Circuit, which includes California, Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. In addition, it illustrates the importance of our federal courts to health, welfare and justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench.