Opinion ID: 2610
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: The First Appeal to the BIA

Text: On December 10, 2004, Ali filed a timely appeal to the BIA, arguing (1) that IJ Vomacka should have considered the previous proceedings before IJ Iskra, (2) that, given IJ Iskra's prior decision, IJ Vomacka was collaterally estopped from making an adverse credibility determination, and (3) that IJ Vomacka's adverse credibility determination was clearly erroneous. In an April 12, 2005 decision by board member Juan Osuna, the BIA found that collateral estoppel did not apply, but nonetheless remanded the case because IJ Vomacka failed to consider an integral component of the record: IJ Iskra's decision. See In re Peter Conrad Ali, No. A 39 105 177 (B.I.A. Apr. 12, 2005). [14] The BIA deemed this failure particularly significant given [the] apparently favorable credibility finding in [the] prior decision  unappealed by DHS  which by logic should be afforded substantial deference if it is based upon a reasoned analysis of the evidence then of record and is not contradicted by newly presented evidence. In its order remanding the case, the BIA also discouraged IJ Vomacka from drawing inferences from Interpol's lack of records regarding Ali. [15]