FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT January 14, 2020 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court ALVARO A. BARRERA, a/k/a Alvaro Barrera Barrera; a/k/a Alejandra Barrera Barrera, Petitioner, v. No. 19-9505 (Petition for Review) WILLIAM P. BARR, United States Attorney General, Respondent. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _________________________________ Before PHILLIPS, McHUGH, and EID, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Alvaro Barrera, a native and citizen of El Salvador, seeks review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that dismissed Barrera’s appeal from a removal order entered by an Immigration Judge (IJ). Exercising jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, we grant the petition for review, affirm in part, and remand to the BIA for further proceedings. * After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. I. Background Barrera applied for admission into the United States in 2017 and timely filed an application for asylum and other relief. She based her asylum application on claims of past persecution and a fear of future persecution due to her alleged identity as a transgender woman. The IJ conducted an evidentiary hearing on Barrera’s claims via videoconference. The IJ and a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) attorney participated from Colorado, while Barrera and her attorney participated from New Mexico. During the hearing, the DHS attorney and the IJ asked Barrera about inconsistencies between her testimony and (1) an I-870 worksheet containing notes of Barrera’s own statements made during her credible fear interview, and (2) an I-867A form that recorded Barrera’s sworn statement supporting her asylum application. Because the government did not produce these documents before the hearing and did not bring Barrera to Colorado, Barrera did not see copies of the documents during the hearing. But when the documents’ contents were described to her, Barrera confessed on the stand that they accurately recorded several lies Barrera told to government officials. Yet Barrera challenged whether the documents accurately recorded other statements she allegedly made that conflicted with her testimony. At the end of the hearing, the IJ ordered the government to provide copies of the documents to Barrera “immediately.” Admin. R., Vol. 1 at 467. He then gave Barrera 11 days to lodge objections to the documents and to make any request she might have to testify further. Barrera objected to admission of the documents and asked the IJ for a 2 follow-up evidentiary hearing to provide “additional re-direct testimony and closing argument.” Id., Vol. 2 at 823. But Barrera suggested “[i]n the alternative,” that the IJ ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals