2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 1-14-2009 

# M e nde z v . Atty Ge n U SA P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-4678

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " M e ndez v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 2039. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/2039NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 07- 4678

___________ CA RLO S J ULI O M END EZ, Pet i t i oner v . A TTO RN EY G EN ER A L O F TH E U N I TED STA TES, R es pondent

____________________________________ O n P eti ti o n fo r R ev iew o f a n O rde r o f th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls A gencyN o. A 44 701 931 I m m i gr at i on J udge: Fr eder i c G . L eeds

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J anuary6, 2009 B efor e: FI SH E R , J O R D A N and V A N A N T W E R PE N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: J anuary14, 2009)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM C ar l os J ul i o M endez pet i t i ons forr evi ew of an or derof the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A p p e a ls (B IA ), w h ich a f f irm e d th e Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e ’s ( IJ’ s) d e c isio n o rd e rin g h is2

r emoval and deny i ng hi s appl i cat i on fordefe r r al of r emoval underthe U ni t ed N at i ons C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e ( C A T ) . Forthe r eas ons thatfol l ow , w e w i l l gr antthe peti t i on for r eview and rem and for further proceedings. M endez , a nat i ve and c i t i zen of the D om i ni can Republ i c, ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es i l l e ga l l yi n 1 98 8. H e a dj us t e d h i s s t a tus t o p e r mane ntr e s i de nta l i e n thr ou gh hi s U . S. ci t i zen w i fe i n 1 99 3 o r 1994 . M end ez w as l at er pl aced in rem ov al proceed i ng s becau se he w as convi ct ed of a drug t r aff i cki ng cr i m e. A tan i m m i gr at i on hear i ng, M endez c la im e d th a t th e p ro s e c u to r a n d F B I t o ld h im h e w o u ld n o t b e d e p o rt e d if h e c o o p e ra te d . M endez conce ded he w as r emovabl e, butappl i ed forr el i ef unde rthe C A T , cl ai m i ng t hat he w oul d be det ai ned and t or tur ed i n pr i s on i n t he D om i ni can Republ i c, and thati f he w er e t o be r el eas ed fr om pr i s on t her e, he w oul d be t or tur ed byD om i ni can c i t i zens ( peopl e “hi gh up” i n t he mi l i t ary ) w ho w er e fa m i l ym ember s of a pe r s on he t es t i fi ed a g a in s t in th e U n ite d S ta te s . T he I J deni ed r el i ef. T he I J not ed thatM endez had notpr ovi ded anypr oof thathe w oul d be i m pr i s oned i f he w er e t o be r eturned t o t he D om i ni can Republ i c. A . R . 20. T he I J found that , i n anyevent , t o t he ext enthe cl ai m ed he w oul d be t or tur ed due t o pr i s on condi t i ons i n t he D om i ni can Republ i c, thatcl ai m w as for ecl os ed bythi s C our t ’ s deci s i on in A u g u ste v . R id g e , 3 9 5 F .3 d 1 2 3 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ), as th e c o n d iti o n s in H a iti d e sc rib e d in A ugus t e w er e notdi s t i ngui s habl e fr om thos e r epor t ed i n t he U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof St at e’ s 2005 countr yr epor tfort he D om i ni can Republ i c. T o t he ext enthe w as cl ai m i ngI tappea r s t hatt hi s i s nott he convi ct i on w i t h w hi ch M endez w as char ged i n t he 1 N o tice to A p p e a r, as th e N o tice re f e rs to a c o n v ictio n in th e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt, N o rth e rn D istric t o f

O h io . A .R . 2 2 6 (n o tice to a p p e a r); A .R . 1 1 6 -2 2 (Ju d g m e n t in O h io ca se). 3 he w oul d be t or tur ed byci t i zens i n t he D om i ni can Republ i c, the I J s t at ed thatC A T r el i ef i s notavai l abl e fort hos e w ho fea rt or tur e byi ndi vi dual s notpartof the governm ent , and M endez had notpr ovi ded anypr oof thatanyi ndi vi dual s w oul d be l ooki ng forhi m i n t he D o m in ic a n R e p u b lic . A .R . 2 1 . A s t o M endez ’ s cl ai m t hatt he FB I had pr om i s ed thathe w oul d notbe deport ed, t he I J found the onl yevi dence backi ng M endez ’ s cl ai m w as a s t at ementi n a j udgm ent ent er ed byt he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tforthe Southern D i s t r i ctof N ew Y or k, r el at ed t o a drug convi ct i on i n N ew Y or k, w hi ch s t at es : “I n vi ew of hi s cooper at i on w i t h t he U . S . A tt o rne yan d d an g er f ac ing h im if d ep o rt ed as a resu lto f h is co o p era ti o n , the C o u rt r ecomm ends t o t he I m m i gr at i on and N atur al i zat i on Servi ce ( I N S) thatthe D efe ndantnot be deport ed. ” A . R . 112. T he I J not ed thatthi s w as j us ta r ecomm endat i on, and thatt he 1 D epart m entof H om el and Secur i t yhad exe r ci s ed i t s pr os ecut or i al di s cr et i on and had deci ded nott o fol l ow t hr ough on t he r ecomm endat i on. A . R . 24. T he B I A di s m i s s ed M endez ’ s appea l , agr eei ng w i t h t he I J ’ s concl us i on that M endez had notes t abl i s hed thati tw as m or e l i kel ythan notthathe w oul d be det ai ned and i nt ent i onal l yt or tur ed i n t he D om i ni can Republ i c as a cr i m i nal depor t ee. A . R . 2. T he B IA n o ted th at th e 2 0 0 5 co u n tryrep o rtd id n o t sug g est th at so m eo n e in M en d ez ’s4

s i tuat i on w oul d be t ar get ed byauthor i t i es i n t he D om i ni can Republ i c. I d. T he B I A found n o m e rit to M e n d e z ’s a rg u m e n t th a t th e IJ e rre d b yf a ili n g to h o n o r h is a g re e m e n t w ith t he U . S. A t t or ney ’ s O ffi ce nott o deporthi m . T he B I A not ed thatther e w as no evi dence of s uch an a gr eementi n t he r ecor d, and s t at ed, ci t i ng U ni t ed St at es v. I gbonw a, 120 F. 3d 437, 444 ( 3d C i r . 1997) , t hatt he r ecomm endat i on bythe fe der al s ent enci ng j udge i n N ew Y or k w as notbi ndi ng on t he I m m i gr at i on C our t . M endez , pr ocee di ng pr o s e, fi l ed a tim e lyp e tit io n f

o r re v iew w ith th is C o u rt. I n hi s br i ef, M endez ar gues t hatthe D epart m entof H om el and Secur i t yvi ol at ed the con t racthe h ad w i t h the U nit ed S t at es A t t orney ’s O ffi ce no tt o d epo rthim . H e al so ar gues t hatt he B I A m i s appl i ed A ugus t e, as hi s s i tuat i on i s di s t i ngui s habl e. T he G overnm entar gues t hatw e l ack j ur i s di ct i on t o cons i derM endez ’ s cl ai m s beca us e he w as convi ct ed of a n aggr avat ed fe l onyand he r ai s es “no s er i ous l egal orC ons t i tut i onal i s s ue w i t h r egar d t o hi s i m m i gr at i on pr ocee di ngs . . . . ” R es pondent ’ s B r i ef a t8. U nders ect i on 242( a) ( 2) ( C ) of the I m m i gr at i on and N at i onal i t yA ct( I N A ) [8 U . S. C . § 1252( a) ( 2) ( C ) ] , w e l ack j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew “anyfi nal or derof r emoval agai ns tan al i en w ho i s r emovabl e byr eas on of havi ng comm i t t ed, ” i nt eral i a, a contr ol l ed s ubs t ance vi ol at i on cover ed i n I N A § 212( a) ( 2) . H ow ever , the R E A L I D A ctof 2005 r es t or ed di r ectr evi ew of cons t i tut i onal cl ai m s and ques t i ons of l aw pr es ent ed i n pet i t i ons fo r rev iew o f f

inal rem o v al ord ers. Se e IN A § 2 4 2 (a)(2)(D ) [8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 (a)(2)(D )]; Papageor gi ou v. G onzal es , 413 F. 3d 356, 358 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . B eca us e M endez has been5

c o n v icte d o f

a c o n tro lled su b sta n c e v io latio n , in o u r re v iew w e m a yc o n sid e r o n ly c o n stitu tio n a l issu e s, p u re q u e stio n s o f law , an d iss u e s o f

a p p lica tio n o f

law to u n c o n te s te d f

a c ts . S e e K a m a ra v . A tto rn e yG e n e ra l, 4 2 0 F .3 d 2 0 2 , 2 1 1 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). “[W ] hen the B I A bot h adopt s t he fi ndi ngs of the I J and di s cus s es s om e of the bas es for t he I J ’ s deci s i on, w e have author i t yt o r evi ew the dec i s i ons of both t he I J and the B I A . ” C h e n v . A s h c ro f

t, 3 7 6 F . 3 d 2 1 5 , 2 2 2 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). M en d ez h as p rese n ted leg al qu esti o n s fo r ou r rev iew . M en d ez claim s tha t th e B IA err ed i n fai l i ng t o honora contr actbetw een hi m and the U ni t ed St at es A t t orneyr egar di ng h is re m o v a l, a n d h e a ls o a rg u e s th a t th e B IA in c o rr e c tly a p p lie d th e la w to h is C A T c la im . B eca us e M endez pr ocee ds pr o s e, w e w i l l l i ber al l ycons t rue the ar gum ent s i n hi s br i ef. H a in e s v . K e rn e r, 4 0 4 U .S . 5 1 9 , 5 2 0 -2 1 (1 9 7 2 ). M endez ’ s C A T cl ai m has es s ent i al l ytw o component s : fi r s t , thathe w i l l be i m pr i s oned upon hi s r etur n t o t he D om i ni can Republ i c and thathar s h condi t i ons i n pr i s on wi l l c o n s t i tu t e t o r tu r e ; a n d s e c o n d , th a tDo mi n i c a n a u t h o r i t i e s “ wi l l n o tp r o t e c tme agai ns tpeopl e I t es t i fi ed aga i ns tw hen I t es t i fi ed on beha l f of the U ni t ed St at es t o br i ng abo ut cr i m i nal conv i ct i on s of D om i nicans . . . . ” P et i t i on er’ s B r. at2. A s t o the fi rs t component , w e agr ee w i t h t he I J and B I A thatthe depl or abl e pr i s on condi t i ons i n t he D om i ni can Republ i c do notamount t o t or tur e underthe l aw . I n A ugus t e, w e hel d t hat

“ f o r a n a c t to c o n stitu te to rtu re , the re m u st b e a sh o w in g th a t th e a c to r h a d th e in ten t to comm i tt he ac tas w el l as t he i nt entt o achi eve the cons equenc es of the ac t , namel ythe6

in f lictio n o f th e se v e re p a in a n d su f f e rin g .” 3 9 5 F .3 d a t 1 4 5 -4 6 . W e d o n o t ag re e w ith M endez ’ s as s er t i on t hathe has pr oven thathe w oul d be i m pr i s oned and thatD om i ni can author i t i es w oul d “i nt ent i onal l ynotus e governm ent al r es our ces t o pr ovi de me w i t h food and otherbas i c nec es s i t i es . ” See a l s o, Pi err e v. A t t orneyG ener al , 528 F. 3d 180, 190 ( 3d C ir. 2 0 0 8 ) (“ [ A ] p e tit io n e r c a n n o t o b tain re lief u n d e r th e C A T u n les s h e c a n sh o w th a t h is p rosp ec ti v e torture r w il l hav e the g o al or p u rpo se o f in fli cti n g sev ere p ain o r suf fe ri n g . ”). T he I J ’ s and B I A ’ s handl i ng of the s econd c om ponent , how ever , appea r s t o have been ba s ed on an e r r oneous as s um pt i on thatthe dec i s i on bythe D epart m entof H om el and S ec u ri tyto p roc ee d w ith M en d ez ’s rem o v al m ea n t th at a U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt ’s r ecomm endat i on agai ns tr emoval coul d notbe cons i der ed. T he I J , i n hi s or al rul i ng agai ns tM endez , corr ect l ys t at ed that , “[t ] o qual i fyforpr ot ect i on underthe C onvent i on a g a in st T o rtu re , ‘sp e c if ic g ro u n d s m u st e x ist th a t in d ica te a n in d iv id u a l w ill b e p e rso n a lly atr i s k[. ] ’ ” I . J . R ul i ng T r . at3, A . R . 17 ( quot i ng M att erof S- V - , 22 I . & N . D ec. 1306, 1313 ( B . I . A . 2000) ) . T he I J w enton t o s ay , how ever , thatM endez “has demonstr at ed no s uch s peci fi c gr ounds . ” I d. T he I J s ai d t hathi s deci s i on agai ns tM endez w as notbas ed on anycr edi bi l i t ydet erm i nat i on, t hati tw as i ns t ead ba s ed on “l ack of pr oofs as t o s om e of t he s t at ement s m ade by[M endez . ] ” I d. M os tof the I J ’ s or al rul i ng bear s on w hether condi t i ons i n a D om i ni can pr i s on w oul d amount t o t or tur e. H ow ever , turni ng t o w hether M endez w oul d fac e anyt hi ng amount i ng t o t or tur e out s i de of pr i s on, the I J r efe r r ed t o the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s r ecomm endat i on agai ns tdepor t at i on, w hi ch underm i nes hi s “l ack of7

p ro o f s” c o m m e n t. P erh ap s thro u g h M en d ez ’s ow n fa u lt , the IJ d id n o t r ec eive the D istri ct C o u rt ’s s e n te n c in g s ta te m e n t u n til th e d a yo f th e re m o v a l d e c is io n . I.J . R u lin g T r. a t 9 , A .R . 3 5 . Y et, rathe r th an take the tim e to g athe r i n fo rm ati o n reg ard ing the D istri ct C o u rt ’s extr aor di nar i l ypoi nt ed s t at ementof r i s k, the I J s i m pl yr el i ed on the r epr es ent at i on of the governm entl aw y eratt he r emoval hear i ng t o s ay , “[a ] ppar ent l ythi s cas e has been i n t he Im m i grat i on C ou rt s now for al m ostfou r y ears [, ]” and t he g ov ernm ent had t ri ed to “fl ush out[s i c] t hi s i s s ue and make a de t erm i nat i on of w hatr ecomm endat i ons the U . S. A t t or ney had pr evi ous l y[m ade] . ” I d. T he I J then di s m i s s ed the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s concl us i on that M e n d e z w o u ld b e a t se rio u s ris k if d e p o rte d , sa y in g , “[ u ]n f o rtu n a telyf

o r [ M e n d e z ], th is C o u rt is o n lyf

a c e d w ith a n in d ica tio n o f a re c o m m e n d a tio n , an d th is is s u b jec t to p ro se c u to ria l d isc re tio n , an d n o t so m e th in g th a t th is C o u rt w o u ld h a v e th e a u th o rityto m a k e a d e c is io n in re la tio n to . . . .” Id . a t 9 -1 0 , A .R . 3 5 -3 6 . T h e r e a r e a tl e a s tt wo t r o u b l e s o me a s p e c t s t o th e I J ’ s c o mm e n t s . F i r s t , th e ys h o w a m arked mi s under s t andi ng of the s er i ous nes s of the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s s t at ement . I ndeed, t he IJ seem s t o h ave b een u nd er the im press i on that the u se of t he w ord “recom m end s” betr ay ed s om e l ack of

comm i t m enti n w hatthe D i s t r i ctC our tw as s ay i ng. See i d. at10, A .R . 3 6 (“ T h is C o u rt f

in d s a ls o im p o rt a n t to n o te th a t it ju s t s a y s re c o m m e n d a tio n .” ). B u t , t h e u s e o f

t h a tw o r d s h o u l d n o th a v e c a r r i e d a n y s u c h c o n n o t a t i o n . O n th e c o n t r a r y, gi ven the ca r e w i t h w hi ch di s t r i ctcour tj udges typi cal l ym ake s t at ement s ata cr i m i nalT he I J actual l ys eemed i ncl i ned t o t ake the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s r ecomm endat i on dow n a 2 not ch bycal l i ng i t“an i ndi cat i on of a r ecomm endat i on, ” as i f i tw er e s om ethi ng l es s t han a plai nlyw orded recom m end at i on againstsending M end ez bac k to hi s hom e cou ntry . I. J. R ul i ng T r . at9, A . R . 35. W hi l e ext empora neous r emar ks m ade dur i ng an or al rul i ng can s om et i m es be l es s pr eci s e than a j udge w oul d m ake them i n pr i nt , the I J ’ s choi ce of w or ds does hi ghl i ghtw hatappea r s t o be a l ack of appr eci at i on forthe s i gni fi canc e of the s t at ementw i t h w hi ch he w as confr ont ed. 8 se n ten c in g , an ysta tem e n t th a t a d e f e n d a n t f a c e d d a n g e r b e c a u se o f c o o p e ra tio n sh o u ld have be en tr eat ed byt he I J w i t h t he utm os tgr avi t y . M or eover , the I J coul d not 2 r eal i s t i cal l yhave e xpect ed the D i s t r i ctC our tt o fr ame i t s conce r n i n anyw ayot herthan as a re c o m m e n d a tio n . O u tsid e o f th e stric t co n f

in e s o f a c a se a n d c o n tro v e rsy ov e r w h ich it has j ur i s di ct i on and i n w hi ch al l part i es , i ncl udi ng anygovernm entagenc i es , have be en hear d, di s t r i ctcour t s do notpr es um e t o i s s ue or der s , s o i ti s no s urpr i s e thati tdi d not ent eran or deragai ns tr emoval . I tdi d onl yw hati tcoul d do i n t he cont extof the ca s e then pendi ng: i tputi t s i ns t i tut i onal w ei ghtbehi nd a bl untas s ert i on that , beca us e M endez chos e t o cooper at e w i t h ourgovernm ent , he w i l l be i n r eal j eopar dyi f s entback t o t he D om i ni can Republ i c. Second, and eve n m or e s i gni fi cant l y , the I J ’ s comm ent s i ndi cat e thathe bel i eved he coul d notgi ve the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s r ecomm endat i on anyw ei ghtatal l beca us e the D epart m entof H om el and Secur i t yhad dec i ded t o pr ocee d w i t h r emoval . T he I J s ai d, “[t ] he D epart m entof H om el and Secur i t y , w hi ch has pr os ecut or i al di s cr et i on, has chos en, i n l i ghtof thei r[s i c] i nves t i gat i on up t o t hi s t i m e[, ] nott o fol l ow thr ough i n t hatm anner [m eani ng t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s r ecomm endat i on agai ns tr emoval ] , and s o t hi s C our ti s l eft9

onl yw i t h deci di ng t he C onvent i on agai ns tT or tur e def err al cl ai m . ” I d. at10, A . R . 36. I f, as i tappea r s , t he I J w as s ay i ng t hathe had no a uthor i t yt o cons i derthe i m por tof the D istric t C o u rt’s r e c o m m e n d a tio n b e c a u se th e H o m e lan d S e c u rityD e p a rtm e n t w a n ts M e n d e z r e mo v e d , h e i s wr o n g b o t h a s a ma t t e ro f l o g i c a n d a s a ma t t e ro f l a w. H e i s w r ong as a mat t erof l ogi c bec aus e bei ng “l eftonl yw i t h deci di ng the C onvent i on agai ns tT or tur e . . . cl ai m ” i s exac t l ythe cha r ge thatr equi r es the I J t o l ook at any“s peci fi c gr ounds . . . t hati ndi cat e an i ndi vi dual w i l l be per s onal l yatr i s k. ” M att erof S -V -, 2 2 I. & N . D e c . at 1 3 1 3 . T h e IJ e x p licitlyre c o g n ize d th a t at th e o u tse t o f h is di s cus s i on. I . J . R ul i ng T r . at3, A . R . 29. I ti s har d t o under s t and w hythe I J di d not acc eptt he di r ects t at ementof the D i s t r i ctC our tas a s peci fi c i ndi cat i on thatM endez i s , or a tl e a s twa s i n 2 0 0 2 , p e r s o n a l l ya tr i s k . To th e e x t e n tth a tth e I J wa s i mp l y i n g s o me d istin c tio n b e tw e e n to rtu re a n d a m o re g e n e ra lize d risk o f d a n g e r, itis a n o n -se q u itu r to s ayone ca nnotl ook i nt o evi dence of dange rbeca us e one i s bus yi nqui r i ng i nt o r i s k of to rtu re . T o rtu re is a su b se t o f p e rso n a l d a n g e r, an d a n in q u iryin to th e latte r m a yw e ll an sw er p erti n en t l eg al qu esti o n s ab o u t th e f o rm er. T he I J i s al s o w r ong as a mat t erof l aw beca us e ther e i s no l egal pr i nci pl e that r equi r es a bl i nd defe r r al t o depor t at i on deci s i ons bythe D epart m entof H om el and Secur i t y . O n t he contr ary , “[a ] deci s i onm akerm us tactual l ycons i derthe evi dence and ar gum entt hata part ypr es ent s . ” A bdul ai v A s hcr oft , 239 F. 3d 542, 549 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks and ci t at i on om i t t ed) . A s C hi ef J udge B ecke robs erved, our10

C our thas s ugges t ed thati m m i gr at i on author i t i es denyan al i en due pr oces s w hen they “a ct as a m ere rub b er-stam p . ” Id . at549- 50 ( quot i ng M ar i ncas v. L ew i s , 92 F. 3d 195, 202 n. 7 ( 3d C i r . 1996) ) . I n t hi s cas e, the I J w as pr es ent ed w i t h evi dence of a f eder al cour t ’ s cons i der ed j udgm entaboutthe r i s k M endez fac ed i f r eturned t o t he D om i ni can R epubl i c. T he courtr ecor d r efl ect i ng thats ent enci ng r ecomm endat i on, w hi ch w as m ade i n t he pr es ence of D epart m entof J us t i ce l aw y er s and expr es s l yi nvoked the i nvol vement of D epart m entof J us t i ce l aw y er s ( i . e. , “coope r at i on w i t h t he U . S. A t t orney ”) , pr ovi des at l eas tan i nfer ence t hats om e agr eementw as r eac hed betw een M endez and the D epart m ent of J us t i ce r egar di ng a r ecomm endat i on agai ns tr emoval . T hati s evi dence thatcoul d have a n d s h o u ld h a v e b e e n c o n s id e re d , n o t ig n o re d . T he B I A adopt ed the err oneous appr oach of the I J . I n i t s or derdi s m i s s i ng M endez ’ s appea l , i ts ai d, “[r ] evi ew of the r ecor d r evea l s no evi dence confi r m i ng . . . an a g re e m e n t” b e tw e e n th e D e p a rtm e n t o f Ju stic e a n d M e n d e z re sp e c tin g d e p o rta tio n . T h a t, of cour s e, i s t rue onl yi f one i s pr epar ed t o s aythatthe D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s s t at ement cons t i tut es “no evi dence . ” I tm aybe that , aft erw ei ghi ng thatevi dence , a fa ct - fi nder w o u ld still sa yth a t M e n d e z h a d f a iled to e sta b lish th e e x iste n c e o f a n a g re e m e n t, bu t it c a n n o t f a ir ly b e s a id th a t th e re w a s “ n o e v id e n c e .” I n addi t i on, t he B I A m i s s ed the I J ’ s i m pr operr efus al t o cons i derthe D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s s t at ement . T he B I A s ai d t hat , “[i ] n anyevent , an I m m i gr at i on J udge i s notbound b yeith er a n ag ree m en t w ith a g o v ern m en t at torn eyo r a rec o m m en d ati o n fro m a c o u rtOf

c o u r s e , t h e De p a r t me n to f Ho me l a n d S e c u r i t yc o u l d ma k e a r e c o r d t o o v e r c o me 3 t he j udi ci al r ecomm endat i on. I tobvi ous l yhas a cruci al r ol e i n as s es s i ng r i s ks , and i thas acc es s t o expert i s e and i nform at i on t hata courtm ayw el l l ack i n a gi ven ca s e. 11 w i t h r es pectt o an al i en’ s depor t at i on[, ] ” w hi ch i s ent i r el ycorr ectbuti r r el evant , s i nce the IJ d id n o t re v iew th e re c o m m e n d a tio n a n d re jec t it . In ste a d , the IJ d e c lar e d , “th is is su b jec t to p ro se c u to ria l d isc re tio n , an d n o t so m e th in g th a t th is C o u rt w o u ld h a v e a u th o rity t o m ake a deci s i on i n r el at i on t o . . . . ” I . J . R ul i ng T r . at9- 10, A . R . 35- 36. I ti s that err oneous bel i ef thathe had no pow ert o cons i derthe evi dence and make an i ndepende nt d ec isi o n that req u ir es u s to rem an d this m att er. W e ther efor e gr antM endez ’ s pet i t i on forr evi ew and r emand t he ca s e for cons i der at i on of the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s r ecomm endat i on and i t s i m pl i cat i ons as evi dence of r i s k t hatm aybe pert i nentt o an ana l y s i s of M endez ’ s C A T cl ai m , evi dence thats houl d be s peci fi cal l yaddr es s ed byourgovernm ent . T hi s pr o s e pet i t i oners houl d be gi ven an addi t i onal oppor tuni t yt o adduce fur t herevi dence , i f he ha s any , w i t h r es pectt o t he agr eementt hathe cl ai m s exi s t ed betw een hi m and the U ni t ed St at es governm ent . T he g o v e rn m e n t o u g h t als o to w ill in g lyc o m e f o rw a rd w ith th e in f

o rm a tio n it h a s in th is r egar d, s o t hatt he I J can c ons i deri tw i t h gr eat ercar e than w as pos s i bl e w hen the D i s tr i ct

3 C our t ’ s s t at ementw as handed t o hi m atthe l as tm i nut e on the dayof the r emoval hear i ng. Fort he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l gr antthe pet i t i on forr evi ew and r emand for further proceedings.