Original Case Details on Marqus v. Barr

In the Bajoka Law Group case of Marqus v. Barr, our client Marqus is a native and citizen of Iraq who was admitted to the United States as refugee back in 2012, and later became a lawful permanent resident (green card holder) in 2017. As the result of a criminal conviction, the United States government initiated removal proceedings against him. There exists a great likelihood that Marqus would be subject to torture if he was removed to Iraq because he is a Chaldean Christian who was previously tortured by both the Iraqi military and the Popular Mobilization Forces, an Iraqi state-sponsored organization composed of some 40 militia groups that operate within Iraq. After a removal hearing, the Immigration Judge decided that Marqus was not eligible to stay in the United States under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) or under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). This decision was appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). In the appeal to the BIA, we looked to submit additional evidence to be considered on Marqus’s behalf explaining the risks he faces if deported. The BIA summarily denied the motion to submit new evidence in a five-sentence single paragraph that lacked any explanation or reasoning behind their decision. This decision, along with others in this case, was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit for review.

DECISION OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

In deciding this deportation and removal case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that the BIA denied Marqus’s motion “with little more than a bald statement that the new evidence is insufficient to meet his burden of proof to establish his claim for deferral of removal.” The Court also noted that the BIA themselves even recognized that “the new evidence [Marqus] presents on appeal might help with his argument that Iraqi Christians or deportees without identification documents are at risk of detention and torture.” Unfortunately, however, the BIA did not explain why or how they came to the decision to deny the introduction of the new and potentially impactful evidence. The BIA simply denied the motion without much further thought or discussion. The Sixth Circuit Court decision now sends the case back to the BIA and requires them to either explain or change their position on the new evidence.

HOW DOES THIS AFFECT ME?

When a federal case is appealed to a higher court such as the court of appeals or potentially the United States Supreme Court, the decision in that case has the potential to set the law for that federal circuit or potentially the entire country. Most times, the decision and related opinion of a case only applies to that specific case. Other times, a case that is being reviewed raises a new legal question that the higher court decides needs an answer, and “publishes” the case. When a case is “published,” it means that this case can now be cited as an authority on a specific legal issue. In other words, a legal decision in that case has now become the law of the land. In the case of Marqus v. Barr, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has now made a requirement that any potentially significant new evidence to support a claim of obtaining CAT relief is deserving of consideration and legal analysis before any decision is made. This means that the BIA can’t just deny the request without properly assessing the information and stating on the record reasons for or against any denial. The decision in this case has the potential to affect countless non-citizens facing