Opinion ID: 4507879
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Merits Appeal and Motion to Remand

Text: Sow, represented by new counsel, appealed to the BIA. He argued that the IJ erred in failing to assess Sow’s well-founded fear of future persecution. Sow also filed a motion to remand based on ineffective assistance of counsel,5 which included several attachments. For example, he attached an affidavit from Djibril explaining the inconsistencies in his previous affidavits, both of which Gurian submitted to the IJ. It stated that Djibril had intended to send only his second affidavit and that the earlier version had been written by his younger brother, who had helped write the statement while Djibril was hospitalized. When Djibril was discharged, he noticed the mistakes and sent a corrected affidavit. Djibril also 5 Sow styled his motion as a “motion to reopen and remand,” but we construe it as a motion to remand because he filed the motion while his appeal to the BIA was pending. See 8 C.F.R. § 1241.1. 8 Case: 17-15245 Date Filed: 02/14/2020 Page: 9 of 15 stated that he had tried to help Oumou draft her affidavit. He characterized Oumou as “not very well” and noted that she “forgets things.” Sow also attached an affidavit from Ibrahim. Ibrahim stated that, when he was gathering evidence, he noticed inconsistencies in the affidavits and informed Gurian of those inconsistencies. Gurian dismissed his concerns. Despite the warning, Ibrahim thought Gurian seemed surprised about the inconsistencies when they spoke after the merits hearing. When Ibrahim asked whether Gurian had even read the evidence before the hearing, Gurian said he had not had much time to review the documents. Sow also attached an email chain between Ibrahim and Gurian from March 2017. In the emails, Ibrahim offered to serve as the interpreter and asked Gurian the dates and times he needed to be available. Gurian never responded with a proposed date. The BIA denied Sow’s motion to remand. It held that the IJ did not clearly err in making an adverse credibility determination and the record did not establish that Sow was entitled to relief “independent of his discredited claim of past harm.” It also denied Sow’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim, reasoning that Gurian “reasonably relied on, and submitted the evidence provided by, the respondent and his friends.” According to the BIA, “submitting evidence that [Sow] was involved in collecting” did not “render[] [Gurian’s] performance ineffective.” 9 Case: 17-15245 Date Filed: 02/14/2020 Page: 10 of 15