The H onorab le Ru ben C ast il lo, Un it ed Stat es D is tr ic t Court  f or the Northe rnDis t ri c tof Il l i noi s , Eas t er n Di vi s i on, s i t t i ng by des i gna t i on. 

## In the 

# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N o. 11

- 2576 C HE I KH L AM, P etitio ner, v . E R I C H. H OLDER, J R ., A tt or n ey G en er al ofthe U ni ted S tat es, Res pond e nt
.

Peti tionfor Revi ewof anOr de rof the B o ard of Immigration App eals

. No . A 076-765- 699

A RG UE D J AN UA RY 6, 2012

— D ECI DE D O CT OB ER 16, 2012

B efore M ANI ON an d W I L L I A MS, C ircu it Judges, an d C AST IL LO, D i s t r i ctJudg e .  W I L L I A MS, Cir cu i tJudg e . A fte r b ein g fou n d ina d m iss ible d ue to a 2 00 2 co nv i ct i o n fo rfr au d, Che i k h La m s o ug ht2 N o. 11

- 2576 a waiv ero fi nadm i ssibi l i ty und erse cti on 212( h)( 1) ( B) o f the I mm i g r a t i o n a nd Nat i o na l i t y Act ( “ I NA”) , 8 U. S

. C. § 1 182( h)( 1) (B ). That sect i on pro vi des thata nonci ti zen m ay obt ai n a wai veri fhe i s th e sp ou se, pare nt, so n, o r daught ero fa Uni te d S ta te s ci ti ze n o rl awfulpe r m an en t r e s i d e n t wh o wo u l d s u ffe r e x t r e me h a r d s h i p i ft he n o n c itiz en is re m ov ed . A t a h ea rin g, L am an d h is U n ite d Sta te s c itiz en w ife p re se n te d ev id en c e t h at h is wi fe su ffer ed fr o m de pr es si o n a nd a r g ue d th ats he w oul d fa ce e xtre m e ha rd sh i p i fhe were r em ove d to hi s na ti ve S en eg al

. La m was a l so a sk ed abo utthe eve nts l eadi ng to hi s 2 002 convi cti on. The I m m i gr ati on J ud ge ( “IJ ”) f ound that Lam had not shown that hi s wife would s ufferhar dship thatr eached the l eve l of“e xtrem e, ” a nd thathe f ai l ed to sho w r ehabi l i tati o n b ec au se hi s te st i m o ny c o nfl i ct ed wi tha do cum ent i n the r ec o r d r el at ed to a n i nv es ti g at i o n o fa n inc i den t at a ca r deal er shi p. Lam ’ s a tto rneyf ai l ed t o file a br i ef on ap p ea l, an d th e B oa rd o fI m m igr at ion A p p ea ls (“B IA ”) d ism iss ed th e a p p ea l. A fterLam obtai ned new co unsel, the BIA reinstat ed the appeal but dism i sse d i t after bri efi ng, fi nd i n g that th e IJ d id n ot err in h is h a r d s hip and cred ibi li ty d eterm inations
. Be cau se w e fin d that the IJand BIA overl oo ked m ate ri alev i dence r el ate d to Lam ’ s wife ’ s depre ssi o n a nd i m pr o per l y r el i ed o n a r epor t to de te r m i ne th at L am f ail ed to show reh a b ili tation, w e grant La m ’s pet i ti o n fo r revie w, v ac at e hi s r emov alo r der, a nd r emand to the a g en cyf o rr ec o ns i der at i o n.N o. 11

- 2576 3 I . B AC KGR OUND Ch ei kh L am , a nati ve and ci ti zen o fS enega l, fi rs t en te re d t h e U n ite d Sta te s o n a vis ito r’s vis a in 19 94 . In 19 95 , he ad j u st ed h is im m i g r a t i on st at u s t o th at of fu llti m e stude nt, a nd in 2 00 0, he a g ain a dj us te d h i s st atus to beco m e a l aw ful perm anent r esi dent ( “LPR ”) bas ed on his mar r i a g e t o a Uni t e d S t a t e s c i t i z e n. Hi s wi fe, M s. S ophia Li n, i s a n at u ral i zed ci ti zen o fTai w anese descent, and the coupl e has two yo un g U n ited S tat es ci ti ze n c hi l dr en . I n J a nu a r y 2 0 0 2 , La m pl e d gui l t y t o v i o l a t i ng1 8 U. S

. C. § 10 28 ( a) ( 7)

. The i ndi ct m en t ch ar ged La m wi thha ving “kno w i ngl y use d .

. . the n am e a nd so ci alse curi ty n u m b er of an in d ivid u al .

. . w ith th e in te n t t o c om m it . .
. for ge ry ” a n d st at ed th at th e c on d u c t t oo k p lac e in Oak Par k, I l l i noi s. Lam was se n te nced to thre e y ear s o f proba ti on a nd o rder ed to pay a $ 2, 000 fi ne. I n Decem ber20 04, Lam r etur ned to Ch i cago fro m a trip a b r o a d , and i m m igrati on offi cials at O’H are I nt ernati onalA i rpor t, m ade aw ar e of hi s co nvi cti on, defer re d his i nspecti on. In M ar ch 200 5, the Dep ar tm ent o f H om el and Secur i ty ( “DH S”) f or m all y par ol ed Lam i nto the Unite d Sta tes, a n d ser ved hi m with a N oti ce t o A pp ear, ther eby pla ci ng hi m i n re m ova lpro ceedi ngs. Lam w as de si g na te d a s anLPR se ek i nga dm i ss i o n t o the U ni te d State s a nd was char ged with i nadm i ssibi l i ty f o rc o mm i s s i o n o fa c r i me i nv o l v i ngmo r a ltur pi t ud e un d e rs e c t i o n 2 1 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( A) ( i ) ( I ) o fth e I NA , 8 U
. S

. C. § 1182 (a)( 2)(A )( i) (I ). L am hired Gu y C roteau to represe nt him before th e IJ. A m as te rc al en d ar h earingwas he l d i n May 20 05 , a nd4 N o. 11

- 2576 th e IJ g r an te d La m a c o ntinu an ce a nd s eta de adl i ne ofS e pt e mbe r2 0 , 2 0 0 5 , b y wh i c h a p r e - he a r i ngs tat em ent with evi dence ofLam ’ s e l i gibi l i ty f orr el i effro m r emov alha d t o b e fi l ed wi ththe c o ur t. No s tatem en t w as eve r fi l ed. On October4, 20 05 , L am , thr ough c o u n s e l, c o n t e s t e d th a t h i s c o n v i c t i o n w a s f o ra c r i me i nvol vi ng m or altur pitud e. Lam ’ s co unselalso i nfo rm ed the c ourtthatdespi te not havi ng fi l ed a s tat em ent with th e cou rt, La m w ou ld seek r eli ef un d er I N A § 212(h)(1)( B ), 8 U
. S. C. § 1 1 8 2 ( h) ( 1 ) ( B) , u nd e rwh i c h a n o nc i t i z e n m ay obt ai n a wai ve r i fhe i s the spouse , pare nt, so n, o r d au gh te r of a U n ite d Sta te s c itiz en or L P Rw h o w ou ld s uffe r“ e xt r e me ha r ds hi p” i fthe n o nc i t i z e n i s r e mov e d. Aft e ra n u mb e ro fc o n t i n u a n c e s , th e n e x the ar i ng too k pl ace i n A pri l20 07. A t that he ar ing, Cro tea u i nfo rm ed the cour t th at h i s cl i ent woul d not a pp ear b ec au se C ro te au fa i led to rev iew w ith L am a c h an ge in the he ar i ng date. The IJ not ed t hat Cro tea u appeared to h av e com m i tte d “a s er i ous der el i cti on o fduty” b y failin g t o c om m u n ica te th e c or re c t h ea rin g d a te to h is c lien t. N eve rthel ess , the IJ waive d Lam ’ s a pp ear ance for th e h ea rin g a n d fou n d th at th e c h ar ge of in ad m iss ibi l i t y wa s e s t ab l i s h e d b e c a u s e L a m’ s c o n v i c t i o n c o nsti tuted a cri m e invol vi ng m or altur pitud e. The IJ r em arked th a t L am ap p eared prim a facie el igible f or a § 212(h ) wai ve ra nd c ar r i ed th e ca se o ve rf o rc o nside ration of that form of reli ef. At a he ar i ngi n J un e 2 008, La m was pr es en t, b ut hi s co uns elwas not
. La m was i nf o r m ed afte rc al l i ngN o. 11

- 2576 5

T h e IJ conti nued the cas e f or t w o w eeks and inst ructe d 1 C ro teau ’ s o ffi c e to p ro v id e a d octo r’ s letter reg ard ing his a bs e nc e . Atthe n e x the a r i ngda t e , Cr ot e a u f a i l e d t o pr ov i de a docto r’s n ote. O n A ugu st7, 2008, he eventuall y prov ided m edical rec ords regarding his absence

. Cr o t e a u’ s o ffi c e tha th i s c o un s e lh a d b e e n ho s pi t a l i z e d. 1 A t a f i n al h ea rin g in Sep te m b er 20 08 , th e IJ h ea rd te st im on y o n Lam ’ s § 21 2( h) w ai verappli cati on. Lam t e s t i fi e d th a the and h i s n a t u r a l i z e d wi fe h a d t wo U nited S ta te s ci ti ze n c hi l dr en, the n two y ea r s o l d a nd tw o w ee ks old . H e s ta te d th at h e h ad su p p or te d h is f am i l y b ut thatw h en h e l osthi s per m anent r esi dency ca r d, he was unabl e to wor k

. He a l so s ai d tha t th e f am i l y b ega n to r ely o n hi s wife’ s s al ar y a s a n adj unct pr o fes so r, b uta t th e ti m e o fthe hearingnobo dy i n the f ami l y wor k ed becau se hi s wi fe ha d j us t g i ve n b i r th

. Lam sa i d that the bankhad begun for ecl osur e pr oce edings on th e f ami l y ho m e. He a l so s ta te d tha t i fhe w er e r em ov ed , ne ith er h is w ife n or h is c h ild re n w ou ld l i ve w i th hi m i n Se negal because of discri m i nati on ther e a gainst peo ple o fTai w anese descen t. H e t est i fi ed th athi s wi fe ha d unde r g o ne ps y ch i at ric counse l i nga nd was de pr es se d. La m s ta te d th at he v o l unt ee r s i n the co m m uni tya nd a ss i st s i n a s o up k i tc he n. L am ’s w ife, M s. L in, tes tif i e d t h at sh e h ad be en in d en ialabou t her d ep ression an d that becau se of Lam ’s re m ova lpro ceedi ngs, “e ver ything sno w bal l ed i nto postp ar tu m d ep re ss ion .” Sh e t es tifie d t h at th e fa m ily fac ed fina n c ial d ifficu ltie s b ec au se h er h u sb an d co u ld not obt ai n em plo ym ent with hi s cur re nt s ta tu s a nd that6 N o. 11

- 2576 sh e o n ly h ad a p ar t-t im e, ad j u n c t p os itio n a t a n art co ll e g e . S h e d e n i e d kn o win gth e d e t a i l s o fL a m’ s c r i mi na lc o nv i ct i o n. Lam te st i fi ed about bo ththe e ve nt s l ea di ngt o the convi cti on a nd a p rior ar re st, but the r eco rd i s no t en t i r e l y c lea r as to w h en h e is refe rrin g t o w h ich inc id en t. (W e d isc u ss L am ’s t es tim on y i n g re at er d et ail be l o w). The IJ f o und the t es ti m o ny “ no t credibl e an d not pla usibl e” base d on a docum ent in the re c ord that p u rp orted t o be a U ni ted S tat es Se cre t S er vi ce invest i gatio n of h is c on d u c t. R ely in g on th e d oc u m en t, th e IJ fou n d th at L am h ad n otsh ow n reh ab ilita tio n . Th e IJ als o fou n d th at M s. L inh ad n otsh ow n “c re d ible ev id en c e” th at sh e w o u l d fac e e th n ic d isc rim in at ion in Se negal and s tat ed that her “st re ss” did not re n d er her hardship e xtre m e. The IJ ther ef or e deni ed Lam reli ef un d er I N A § 212(h). L am so u gh t t o a p p ea l th e d ec isio n of th e IJ. In October 2008, Cro tea u, Lam ’ s a tto rney, fi l ed a Noti ce of A p p ea l w ith th e B IA ind i c a t i n g t h at a b rie f w ou ld be fi l ed . A fter r ecei vi ng o ne exte nsi on, Cro tea u f ai l ed to file an y b rie f on L am ’s b e h a lf. T h e B IA th en su m m ar ily dism i sse d Lam ’ s a pp eal

. Lam then fi l ed a Requestf or I nvest i gat i on with the I l l i noi s Attor ney Reg i str ati on Disc i plinaryCom m i ssi on (“A RD C”). ( A RD C com pla i nts al l eging m i sco nd uct had al re ady be en fi l ed aga i nst C ro te au in a t le as t fiv e o th er ca se s.) A ftero btain in g n ew co unsel, Lam fi l ed a M oti on t o Re o pena nd Re m an d wi ththe BI A i n M ar ch 20 10 , a l l eg i ng in effe c tiv e a ss i s t a n c e b y h is p re vio u s c ou n se l. T h e B IAN o. 11

- 2576 7 gr an te d th e m ot ion an d rein st at ed th e p rior ap p ea l. Lam ’ s new c ou n selsubm i tte d a br i efal ong w i th add i ti onalev i dence thatLam ’ s pre vi ous c ounself ai l ed to provi de, i nc l udi ngc o unt r y c o ndi ti o n r epo r ts a nd m edi calrec or d s r el ating to M s. Li n’s depres si on. Lam al l eg ed tha t t he IJ e r r ed i n fi ndi ngtha t hi s qua l i fy i ng re l ati ves w oul d not s uffer“e xtre m e” hardshi p, and that the IJ i m proper l y r el i ed on the r eco rd i n fin d in g a l ack ofr ehabi l i tat i on. H e a l so ar gu ed thatthe f ai l ures o f hi s p r e v i o us c o un s e lp r ej ud i c e d h i s p r e v i o us r e l i e fa ppl i ca ti o n. A three-m em ber p an el ofthe B I A dism issed La m ’s app ea l, fi nd i ng tha t the IJ di d not cl ear l y e rri n i ts advers e cr edibi l i ty deter m i nati on o r i n fi nd i ng tha t Lam f ai l ed to s ho w re habi l i ta ti o n b as ed o n h i s i nc o nsi st en t te sti m ony, whi chwas “ unr el at ed to a ny a ct i o ns o f pr e v i o us c o un s e l

. ” I t a l s o f o un d tha t the new evi dence ofhar dship subm i tte d o n ap pealdi d not w arra n t furtherpro ceedi ngs o r re m and. This peti ti on f o rr e v i e w f o l l o we d.

II. A N A L Y S IS A . T h is C ou rt H a s Ju risd ic tion to E xa m in e E rrors ofLaw W e be gi n ouranal ysi s with the questi on ofj uri sdic

ti on. S ecti on 2 42( a) ( 2) ( B) o fthe I N A g en er al l y depri ves c ou rt s o f ju r i s d ict ion to rev iew d isc re tio n ar y d en ials of im m igr at ion r e l i e f . 8 U .S.C . § 12 52 (a)( 2)(B ); s ee also A liv. Achim , 46 8 F
. 3d 462, 46 5 ( 7th Ci r. 20 06 ). W e m ay re vi ew the disc re ti onar y deci si on t o deny a w ai vero f8 N o. 11

- 2576 i nadm i ssibi l i ty onl y where the pet i ti on f or revi ew r ai ses
“ c o ns t i t ut i o na lc l a i ms o rque s t i o ns o fl a w. ” 8 U. S

. C. § 1 252( a) ( 2) ( D); s e e also Kha n v . M uk a sey, 51 7 F
. 3d 513, 517 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08)

. A s s uch, we l ack j uris d ict i on t o re vi ew the A tto rneyG en er al ’ s e xerci se ofdi scr eti on w hen denyi ng a w ai vero fi nadm i ssibi l i ty, but w e r etain j uri sdic ti on t o exam i n e w h etheran e rr oro fl aw o cc u rre d

. See Khan , 517 F. 3d at 517 (cit in g A li, 46 8 F
. 3d at 465)

. T h at e rrorco uld be a m i si nter preta ti on o fa sta tu t e , re gu lat ion, or co n st itu tio n al p ro vis ion, bu t itco u ld al so i ncl ud e a m i sr eadi ng o fthe BIA’s own pre cedent, th e B IA ’s u se o ft h e w ro n g leg al s ta n d ar d , “or sim p ly a fai lure to exerc ise discretion or to co n s id e r f acto rs ackno w led ge d to be m ate ri alto such a n exer ci se. ” H uan g v . M u k a sey, 5 34 F
. 3d 61 8, 6 20 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 8) ( ci ta ti o ns om itt ed ). Th at err or co u l d a lso be ov er loo kin g a p et iti oner ’ s e vi d en c e. E sco ba r v. Ho lder, 65 7 F
. 3d 537, 54 4 (7t h C ir. 20 11 ) (“E ve n th ou gh ou r re vie w is d efe re n tia l, th e [ Bo ar d] may no t si m pl y o ve r l o o ke vi den ce i n the re cor d that s up port s the appli cant’ s ca se. ” ( in te rnal q u o t a tio n s a n d cit at ion om itt ed )); Igl esias v . M uk a sey, 54 0 F.3 d 52 8, 53 1 (7th C ir. 20 08 ) (“[A ] c laim th at t h e B IA h as co m p let ely ign or ed th e e v i d en c e p u t fo rt h by a p et itioner is an all egation of legal error. ”).

B. Th e I m m i gr at i on J ud ge and Bur eau ofI m m i gr at i on A pp eal s Over l ooked K ey Evi den ce Th e g r a nto fa wa i v e ro fi na dmi s s ib i l i t y r e qu i r e s b oth a fi nd i ng o f extr em e hardshi p f or a qual i fyi ng r el ati ve andN o. 11

- 2576 9 th e fa vo ra b le e x er c ise of d isc r e t i o n . See I N A § 212(h); 8 U
. S. C. § 1182 ( h). H er e, the IJ denie d the w ai ve r on both gr ounds, fi nd i ng tha t the h ar dship suffer ed by Lam ’ s f am i l y would notbe “extr em e,” and that Lam d id n otw ar ra n t a d isc re tio n ar y w aiv er be c au se of h is l ack ofr eh ab ili tat i on. Fo r us to have j uri sdic ti on o ver the c laim , L am m ust s how a col or abl e cl ai m thatl ega l er ro r occur re d w i th r espectto bo th fi nd i ngs. Lam ar gues that the IJ and BI A o ver l ooke d ke y ev id en c e re lat ed to th e e x tr em e h ar d sh ip cla im . M s. L in tes ti fi ed that sh e “w as al re ady depres sed be f or e [ she] had the chi l dren, ” and that after the bi rth of her fir st ch il d , she “sa w a spike in th e prob lem after [ he r] fi r stpr egna nc y ” an d s uffer ed fr o m “ se ve r e” po st par tu m depressi on. S he al so tes ti fi ed that she “ cann ot c ar e for tw o chi l dren o n [ her] o w n, psycho l ogi cal l y. ” S he st ate d that her doctorhad re com m ended m edi cati on, bu t at th e ti m e o fthe he ar i ng, s he ha d j us t g i ven bir tha nd w as r elu ctant and w as “being ca uti ous about m edi catio n at[th at ] p oin t.” L am su b m itt ed a let te r f ro m h is w i fe’s p sy chol ogi st, wh o sta ted thatM s. Li n suffer ed fr o m “ se ve r e” po st par tu m de pr es si o n a nd tha t sh e w as “t ru ly p sy c h olo gic ally u n ab le t o c ar e fu l l y ” fo r th eir ch il d ren. H er ps y c hologist also stated that La m ’s re m ova lwould pl ace M s. Li n “i n extr em e psy c h ologi cal d ist re ss .” I n fi nd i ng th at t he har dship M s. Li n w oul d suffer was no t “e xt r eme, ” th e IJ o nl y s ta te d t ha t the fam ilyis “curr entl y s tr ess ed” and that M s. L i n f aces “psyc hol ogi cal str ess ” be cause o fthe r e m oval proc e e di ng . The IJ di d not m en tio n or d isc u ss M s. L in ’s d ep re s sio n . B y on ly b rie fly10 N o. 11

- 2576

re fer enci ng her“s tr ess , ” a nd ev en so, o nl y “ str ess ” r el ate d to the rem oval pro ceedi ng, the IJ i gnor ed evi dence tha twa s ma t e r i al to the fi nd i ngo fe xt r e me ha r ds hi p. A s we have previ ousl y hel d, “fail ure to exer ci se disc re ti on o r to consi der f acto rs acknow l edged to be m ate ria l to such an e xerci se

— such as the whol esa l e f ai l ure to consi der e vi dence

— [ i s] an erro r of l aw . . . . ” I gl e s i as , 54 0 F
. 3 d a t5 3 1 ( i n t e r n a lqu o t a t i o n ma r k s a n d c i t a t i o ns om itt ed ); see also C h a m pio n v . Ho lder, 62 6 F

. 3d 952, 95 6 ( 7th Ci r . 2 01 0) ( fi ndi ngj ur i sdi ct ion a nd r emanding t o the BI A whe r e the IJ a nd BI A “ v i r t ua l l y i gnor e d” an d “fa iled to c o n sid er ” e vid en c e re lat ed to h ar d sh ip for can cellati on of rem oval). The go ver n m en t ar gues that the BI A co nsi dered such evi dence, but the BIA o n l y r efer enced M s. Li n’s depres

si on wh en di scu ssingLam ’ s ineffecti ve ass i sta nce ofco unselar gum ent. Even the n, the BIA onl y m enti oned i n passi ng M s. Li n’s “ d ep ressi on f ol l owing the b i rth of her chi l d.” M s. L in , however, te sti fi ed to depres si on pri orto herpre gnanci es, thr oughout h erse cond preg

na nc y, a nd a fterthe ( th enr ec en t) b i r tho fhe rs ec o nd ch i l d. W e do no t fi nd s ucha pa ssing r efer en ce i n the in effect i ve ass i sta nce co ntext t o be c onsi derat i on o f thi s cr i ti calco m ponent o fthe “e x tr em e har dship” a nal ysis . W h ere the IJ and BI A o ver l oo k s uch evi dence, an er r o ro fl aw o ccurs a nd the pr o perr emedy i s a r emand for rec on sid er at ion
. Cham pi on , 62 6 F .3d at95 6-5 7; see a l s o Ko ne v . Ho lder, 6 20 F
. 3d 76 0, 7 63

- 64 ( 7th Ci r . 2 01 0); H uan g, 53 4 F .3d a t 620 ( sta ti ng tha t a f ai l ure to consi der f acto rs a c kn owledge d to be m ate ri alto an e xerci se of d iscretion am ou nt s to l egal error)

.N o. 11

- 2576 11 C . T h e Im m igr ation Jud ge R elied on I m p rope r Eviden ce W e tu r n n ex t to the IJ’ s di sc r et i o na r y de ni alo fthe § 2 12( h) w ai ver . The IJ f ound that L am fa il ed to sho w r e hab i l i t a t i o n b e c a us e h e wa s n o t“ f o r thr i g htand c r e dible in h is t es tim on y a b ou t t h e a c tiv itie s w h ich cu lm i nated i n hi s convi cti on. ” A t the hear i ng, Lam ’ s co unsel as k ed hi m abo uthi s 20 02 fede r al fr au d c o nv i ct i o n. L am te st ified th at a frie n d n am ed “O l i ve r” h ad p aid hi m $2 00 to pickup an I suzu atOak Park S u zu ki. A ccor ding to Lam , Oli verhad gi ven the deal er shi p a f ake na me. Whe n La m wen tt o r e t r i e v e the c a r, h e s i g ned Oliver’s nam e o n the vehi cl e r egi str ati on ca rd and w as subsequentl y a rr est ed by the Oak ParkPol i ce. A t t h e h ea rin g, L am ’s c ou n se l int ro d u c ed int o e viden ce a f o ur-page do cumenttha t appe ar s to b e th e se co nd o ft wo rep o r ts fr o m the Chi ca g o fi el d o ffi ce o fthe U ni ted S tat es Se cre t S er vi ce s um m ar i zi ng an i nvesti gati on th at f ol l owed Lam ’ s a rr estbyautho ri ti es i n Oak Park, I l l i noi s. That docum ent s tat es that Lam co ntacte d Gat e wa y C h e v r o l e t
- O l d s mo b i l e i n Ap r i l2 0 0 1 ab o u tthe pu rchas e o fa car . O n A p ril 3 , 20 01, Ken M i zdrak, a sal esm an at the deal er shi p, m et w i th Lam ’ s co - si gner, an “A ar on M eye r. ” A w eekafterLam purchas ed a 1 997 Lex us ES 30 0, he be g an ha ving di ffi cul ty wi th the e ngi ne. M i zdrako ffer ed to r epl ace the v ehi cl e with an I suzu Vehic ro ss and m et w i th M eye r to get the n ec essar y paper w or k si gned. A l though the docum ent no tes that federa lautho ri ti es ar re ste d Lam f orfra ud o n J u n e 4, 20 01 , i t d oe s n otin d i c a t e w h at th e a c t o f frau d w as . A12 N o. 11

- 2576 separ ate ar re st re porti n the re cor d show s that l oca l po l i ce a r r es te d La m o n May 11 , 2 00 1, i n Oa kPark o n a f or ger y c harg e. The g ov ernm ent di d not s ubm i t a t the hear i ng ( oro n appeal ) the fullr eco rd o fco nvi cti on fro m Lam ’ s guil ty ple a, so ther e i s no pl ea agr eem ent o r coll oquy that m i g htshe d l i g hto n the f ac ts l ea di ngt o La m ’ s co nv i ct i o n. T h e in d ic t m e n t o n ly st at es th at on M ay 11 , 200 1, in OakPa r k, I ll inoi s, La m “ k no wi ng l y us ed, wi th o utl awful au th or ity , a m ea n s o f id en tifi c a t ion of an ot h er p er so n . . . w i th the i ntent to com m i t, and to ai d and abet, an unl awful activi tytha t co ns ti tu te d a fel o ny unde rthe l aws o fthe S ta te o fI l l i no i s, na m ely f o r g ery . ” The j udg m en t d oes no t pr o vi de th e f ac tu alb as i s o fthe ple a e i ther

. A t o ra lar gu m en t, the g ove rnm ent di d not have any furtheri nsi ght t o offer a bout the a ctualev ents th atl ed to La m ’ s c onv ict i o n a nd c o nc ede d tha t o n the basi s o fthe curr ent r eco rd, th e un derl yi ng f acts o f Lam’ s co nv i ct i o n a r e unkno wn. W e hav e hel d that a n IJ m ay r el y o n hear sayev i dence “so l o nga s i t ’ s p r o b a t i v e a nd i t s u s e i s n o tfun dam ental l y unf ai r. ” O gb ol um aniv. Napol i t ano , 55 7 F
. 3d 729, 73 4 (7 th Ci r. 20 09) ( ci ti ng O low o v. A shcroft, 36 8 F
. 3d 692, 69 9 ( 7th Ci r. 2 00 4) )

. H er e, the l ack ofpro bati ve val ue o fthe S e c r e tS e r v i c e do c ume nti s c l e a ro n i ts f ace: it h as to do with eve nts a t a Gateway Chevro l etO ld sm ob ile d ea ler sh ip

— a d ea ler sh ip th at L am ac kn o w ledged i n hi s t est i m ony ( and the g ove rnm ent d oes not co nt es t) i s l o ca te d o n Nor thM i l wauk ee Ave nue i n the Jeffe rs on P ar k n eig hb or h oo d of C h ica go , ap p ro x im at elyN o. 11

- 2576 13 ni ne m i l es nor th o fOak Par k a nd under the j uri sdic ti on ofthe Ch i cago Pol i ce Depar tm ent. Giv en thatthe i nd ictm ent s tat es that the e vents underl yi ng the federa l charg e o ccurr ed i n Oak Par k, I llin ois, the Se cre t S er vi ce docum ent was nota p ro per sour ce o n w hi ch to r el y t o fin d d i s c r ep an c ies in L am ’s t es tim on y re ga rd in g h is fede r alc o nv i ct i o n. The go ver nm ent a rgues that Lam ’ s t est i m ony on cr oss ex am ination itselfi s enou g h to su p p ort the IJ ’s exerci se o fdi sc r etion an d s tr i p us o fj ur i sdi ct i o n. Butthe on l y thi ng that Lam ’ s testim on y re ve als is h is ( an d po ss ibl y the g o ve r nm en t’ s) c o nfus i o n r eg ar di ngthe Gat ew ay d eal er shi p i nci dent. I t i s cl earfro m the re cord that ther e were tw o deal er shi ps i nvol ved and that the IJ r el i ed on i m properev i dence i n m akin g hi s di scr etio n ar y d et er m in at ion th at L am fa i led to ex h ibitreh ab ili ta ti o n . B e c a u s e L a m i s n o td i s a g r e e i n gwi th th e we i g ht th at th e IJ an d B oa rd p lac ed on th e e vid e n c e, s e eH uan g, 534 F.3d a t 62 1, b uto n mi sc ha r ac te r i za ti o n o fthe do cum ent a s i m peachm ent e vi dence, we h ave j uri sdic ti on o ver Lam’ s cl ai m . W e fi nd tha t r el i an ce o n the do cum en t w as im p r o p er. I t is not clear to us w he th er the IJ ’s disc re ti onar y dete rm i nati on would st and w i thout re l i an ce o n the i m pr o pere vi den ce , s o we r emand to the B IA for re c on sid er at ion
.

I I I . C ONC L US I ON Forthe re aso ns se t for th a b ov e, w e G RANTLa m ’s p et itio n for re vie w , V ACATE the o r dero fr emov al, a nd14 N o. 11

- 2576 R EMA ND to the agen cy for r econ side r a t io n of L am ’s appli cati on f ora w ai vero fi nadm i ssibi l i ty.

10- 16- 12