Opinion ID: 157801
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Inconsistent Grant of Asylum

Text: Petitioners also challenge the BIA's denial of asylum to Mayra and Aura Portillo because it was inconsistent with its prior grant of asylum to their sister, Olga Portillo, on essentially the same facts. They cite Masonry Masters, Inc. v. Thornburgh for the proposition that the INS cannot “make simultaneously inconsistent decisions without providing some explanation for the inconsistency.” 742 F. Supp. 682, 687 (D.D.C. 1990); see also Omni Packaging, Inc. v. INS , 733 F. Supp. 500 (D.P.R. 1990). We review the Attorney General's decision as to whether to grant asylum under an abuse of discretion standard. Id. Because petitioners failed to satisfy their factual burden regarding anticipated persecution, however, we need not address the discretionary refusal of asylum from the alleged persecution. See Castaneda v. INS , 23 F.3d 1576, 1578 (10th Cir. 1994) . Further, as the INS points out, even were we to consider the Board's discretionary decision, unlike the identical visa petitions considered simultaneously in Masonry Masters , here the record is not sufficiently complete as to Olga's asylum application to determine whether it was identical to Mayra and Aura's, nor were their asylum requests considered simultaneously. 9 Additionally, having had evidence of Olga's asylum grant before them, both the INS and the BIA issued thorough opinions explaining their adverse decisions, thus satisfying the explanatory requirement articulated in Masonry Masters . Nevertheless, we pause to make clear that we do find this inconsistency troubling. See Karapetian v. INS , 162 F.3d 933, 936 (7th Cir. 1998) (“The inconsistency the agency has shown -- issuing diametrically opposed judgments to members of the same family, all of whom sought asylum on the same . . . basis, and the same facts -- is very troublesome to us . . . .”). Unfortunately, like the Seventh Circuit in Karapetian , “we do not see where, under the highly deferential standard of review that applies to INS cases, we can take this fact into account.” Id. We suggest that the Board should also find this inconsistency seriously troubling, and note that it might reconsider or reopen the Portillos’ case on its own initiative, see 8 C.F.R. § 3.2(a), or upon a proper motion. Id. at § 3.2(c)(3). See also Karapetian , 162 F.3d at 937 ( “We note that a principal mission of the Board of Immigration Appeals is to ensure as uniform an interpretation and application of this country’s immigration laws as possible.” (parenthetically quoting In re Cerna , 20 I & N Dec. 399, 405 (BIA 1991))).