Opinion ID: 3053055
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Indiscernibility of the IJ’s Opinion

Text: Finally, Petitioners argue that the IJ’s decision should be vacated because it is so incoherent that its reasoning cannot be discerned. An indiscernible IJ decision is problematic because “[w]hen the agency’s reasoning is indiscernible, ‘the courts cannot exercise their duty of review.’ ” Recinos De Leon v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 1185, 1189 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80, 94 (1943)). In such cases, remand is proper. See id. at 1187. Because we grant the petition and remand the case based upon the IJ’s errors of law, we need not decide whether the indiscernibility of the IJ’s opinion would independently warrant a remand. A review of the IJ’s opinion demonstrates, however, that large parts of the opinion are incoherent. We note that, whether it is due to antiquated recording equipment, an exceptionally heavy caseload, or some other reason, the deficiencies in the IJ’s opinion certainly have complicated our review.