Opinion ID: 773894
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Ninth Circuit Case Law

Text: 35 Our holding is supported by our own case law concerning the humanitarian exception. While we owe deference to the Board's interpretation of the immigration laws, we do not explicitly apply the principles of deference to questions already controlled by circuit precedent, because a panel may not reconsider the correctness of an earlier panel's decisions. Ladha v. INS, 215 F.3d 889, 896 (9th Cir. 2000). 36 We have never required that a petitioner demonstrate ongoing disability to qualify for the Matter of Chen exception. In Vongsakdy v. INS, 171 F.3d 1203, 1206-07 (9th Cir. 1999), we found the petitioner eligible for asylum regardless of current country conditions because he had sufferedreeducation, physical and verbal abuse, and deprivation of food in a Laotian camp. Although his persecution was so severe that he did suffer a permanent impairment, id. at 1207, this fact was included in a discussion of the severity of the applicant's abuse, and it was not cited as a requirement. Instead, we held in Vongsakdy that the proper approach to the humanitarian exception was to determine whether the petitioner's persecution was roughly comparable to Chen's in Matter of Chen, without applying a mechanical minimum showing of`atrocity.'  Vongsakdy, 171 F.3d at 1207 (quoting and citing Kazlauskas v. INS, 46 F.3d 902, 907 (9th Cir. 1995)). 37 Similarly, in Lopez-Galarza v. INS, 99 F.3d 954 (9th Cir. 1996), we held that the petitioner was eligible for asylum based on the severity of her past persecution, which included rape and physical abuse at the hands of the Sandinista military. We did not find or comment on any ongoing physical or emotional disability to the petitioner. 6 38 Our past case law demonstrates that it is permissible to consider ongoing disability as a factor in applying the humanitarian exception. It is not, however, a requirement that such an impairment exist. The BIA's requirement of ongoing disability is unwarranted under the Matter of Chen humanitarian rule. For this reason, we reverse. 39