Opinion ID: 2978028
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Burden of Proof at the First Hearing

Text: While some of the IJ’s comments at the first hearing regarding the burden of proof were erroneous, they do not justify a remand. Even if the IJ’s statements at the hearing were erroneous, his legal reasoning in his order was not, the Government met the correct burden of proof, and the IJ’s actions during the hearing showed an acceptable handling of the case. In alleging that Myrtaj was removable, the Government had to prove by “clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence” that he had attempted to help his brother illegally enter the country. See Tapucu v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 736, 738 (6th Cir. 2005). The IJ misstated this burden at the hearing at least once. But other statements about the burden of proof show that the IJ considered the entire burden of proof discussion to be more about the order of presentation of evidence than about who -5- No. 08-3884 Myrtaj v. Holder bore the ultimate burden of persuasion. Particularly of note is the IJ’s statement to the Government’s attorney that “what I was trying to tell you by putting in your evidence I was basically saying that you had the burden of proof and you introduced it. Then it was up to [Myrtaj] to come back and rebut it.” The IJ’s actions at the hearing largely conformed to this statement—he required the Government to put on evidence of Myrtaj’s misconduct, invited rebuttal by Myrtaj, and allowed the Government a chance to respond further. That pattern strongly resembles the normal pattern at a trial in which the government bears the burden of proof. Moreover, the IJ’s statement in his findings that Myrtaj “has not satisfactorily rebutted the testimony of the Government’s witnesses or its written documents,” is at worst ambiguous with respect to the burden of proof issue of which Myrtaj now complains. That remark might imply that the IJ thought that Myrtaj had to prove affirmatively his entitlement to remain in the country, but it can more easily be read to mean that Myrtaj failed to overcome the prima facie case the Government had made. The record ultimately does not suggest that Myrtaj was required to prove affirmatively his entitlement to remain; rather, it appears to show Myrtaj’s failure to overcome the strong case that the Government made that he violated the Act. Moreover, the BIA adopted only the IJ’s decision, as opposed to every statement made by the IJ during a hearing. Thus, Myrtaj would have to point to error in the IJ’s reasoned decision, not to any stray error the IJ made during the entire proceedings. This he has not done. Upholding the BIA decision moreover does not violate the principle that a court should not “enforce the [agency]’s order by applying a legal standard the [agency] did not adopt.” See N.L.R.B. -6- No. 08-3884 Myrtaj v. Holder v. Ky. River Cmty. Care, Inc., 532 U.S. 706, 721 (2001). Nothing in the record suggests that the BIA has adopted any standard other than the proper one in allocating burdens of proof in cases such as this, nor does anything suggest that the BIA would not reverse if an IJ not only misstated but misapplied the law. Because the IJ’s misstatements regarding the burden of proof do not appear to have corrupted the proceedings or his reasoned opinion, and because the BIA did not adopt these misstatements, remand is not warranted on this issue.