Opinion ID: 4584100
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Reasoned Consideration

Text: The BIA must give reasoned consideration to an alien’s claims and make adequate findings to permit our review. Ali v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 931 F.3d 1327, 1333 (11th Cir. 2019). A remand for lack of reasoned consideration is not a disagreement with the BIA’s legal conclusions or factual findings, but a determination “that, given the facts and claims in the specific case before the [agency], the agency decision is so fundamentally incomplete that a review of legal and factual determinations would be quixotic.” Id. (emphasis and quotations omitted). Reasoned consideration requires only that the BIA heard and thought about the case, rather than “merely react[ing].” Id. A failure of reasoned consideration results when the BIA decision, “read alongside the evidentiary 7 USCA11 Case: 17-15441 Date Filed: 11/05/2020 Page: 8 of 17 record, forces us to doubt whether we and the [BIA] are, in substance, looking at the same case.” Id. at 1334. The BIA failed to give reasoned consideration to Zaldivar’s claim. See Bing Quan Lin v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 881 F.3d 860, 872 (11th Cir. 2018) (stating we review claims of legal error, including claims the BIA did not provide reasoned consideration in its decision, de novo). Zaldivar argued to the BIA that he was not removable for having been convicted of a controlled substance offense because his offense lacked a mens rea element as to the illicit nature of the substances he possessed. The BIA rejected this argument by stating he remained removable under Matter of Navarro Guadarrama, 27 I. & N. Dec. 560 (BIA 2019). But, although Navarro Guadarrama addressed whether a conviction under Fla. Stat. § 893.13(6) is a controlled substance offense, it rejected a completely different argument for why such a conviction did not qualify; it had nothing whatsoever to do with the lack of a mens rea element as to the illicit nature of the substance possessed, or, indeed, any lacking element. See 27 I. & N. Dec. at 560-63, 567-68 (dismissing an appeal considering whether a conviction for possession of less than 20 grams of marijuana under Fla. Stat. § 893.13(6)(b) was a controlled substance offense, finding although the state’s definition might be more broadly written, the alien had not demonstrated there was a realistic probability the state would actually prosecute conduct involving a substance that was not federally controlled). 8 USCA11 Case: 17-15441 Date Filed: 11/05/2020 Page: 9 of 17 Accordingly, the BIA’s exclusive reliance on Navarro Guadarrama to reject Zaldivar’s challenge shows a lack of reasoned consideration, because the BIA’s decision is not reasonably responsive to the argument made to it, and reveals instead that the BIA “merely reacted” rather than “heard and thought.” See Ali, 931 F.3d at 1333-34. We need not remand for the BIA to consider Zaldivar’s argument anew, however, because as explained below, this issue falls within one of the “rare circumstances” where no additional explanation, investigation, or findings by the agency would be necessary or helpful. Calle v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 504 F.3d 1324, 1329-31 (11th Cir. 2007).