“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 from Guatemala along with her daughter sought asylum in the US.
What happened in this case?
Guatemala citizen Santa Jeronimo de Ramos, along with her daughter, sought asylum in the US. An Immigration Judge (IJ) and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denied her request, finding her not credible in claiming persecution of indigenous women in Guatemala. She appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
Trump Ninth Circuit judges Ryan Nelson and Daniel Collins issued a 2-1 decision in August that rejected the appeal and affirmed the administrative ruling in Santa Jeronimo deRamos v Blanche. They claimed that “substantial evidence” supported the decision. Clinton judge Marsha Berzon dissented
Why did Judge Berzon dissent?
Judge Berzon maintained that there was not “substantial evidence” to support the administrative determinations and that the IJ’s adverse credibility findings should have been specifically reviewed by the BIA. She carefully reviewed each of the findings at issue. For example, she criticized the agency for claiming that Ramos’ testimony that she did not know much Spanish was inconsistent with the fact that she was interviewed extensively by a psychologist in Spanish, since the record showed that the interview occurred a year after she came to this country and she had testified “she became more familiar with Spanish” after then. Similarly, Berzon criticized the agency’s claim that Ramos’ decision to leave her two sons behind was “implausible,” when the record showed that she did not have the money to bring all three children and there was evidence of “risk of persecution in Guatemala of indigenous women.”
Why is the decision harmful?
The decision by Trump judges Nelson and Collins obviously harms Santa Jeronimo de Ramos by denying her attempt to get asylum in the US for herself and her daughter. The ruling also sets a bad precedent concerning evaluation of the credibility of immigrants’ claims especially in the Ninth Circuit, which includes California, Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington The case 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.