RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 18a0154p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT HUSSAM F., ┐ Petitioner, │ │ > No. 17-3641 v. │ │ │ JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, Attorney General, │ Respondent. │ ┘ On Petition for Review from the Board of Immigration Appeals; No. A 205 191 758. Argued: March 8, 2018 Decided and Filed: July 27, 2018 Before: GILMAN, ROGERS, and STRANCH, Circuit Judges. _________________ COUNSEL ARGUED: Sehla Ashai, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW CENTER FOR MUSLIMS IN AMERICA, Richardson, Texas, for Petitioner. Jessica D. Strokus, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. ON BRIEF: Sehla Ashai, Kristine Cruz, Pei Yu, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW CENTER FOR MUSLIMS IN AMERICA, Richardson, Texas, for Petitioner. Jessica D. Strokus, Anthony C. Payne, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. The court delivered a PER CURIAM opinion in which ROGERS, J., joined in Parts I, II.A, and II.B. ROGERS, J. (pp. 25–28), delivered a separate opinion dissenting from Parts II.C and II.D. of the majority opinion. No. 17-3641 Hussam F. v. Sessions Page 2 _________________ OPINION _________________ PER CURIAM. Four years ago, Petitioner came to the United States on a K-1 fiancé visa, using a Syrian passport. Although he was a Syrian citizen, his family had fled Syria decades ago to escape persecution. Petitioner therefore had difficulty obtaining a passport from a Syrian consulate in the usual manner, and he instead relied on his father to get a passport for him through unknown contacts in Syria. As it would turn out, however, this was a mistake. The passport was not legitimate; it had been stolen from the Syrian government while blank, and Petitioner’s biographical information was later inscribed without official approval. When U.S. immigration officials learned of this, they initiated removal proceedings. An immigration judge (“IJ”) concluded that Petitioner was removable, but granted withholding of removal and asylum based on the risk of religious persecution that Petitioner would face if removed to Syria. The IJ also granted him a waiver of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(H), a statute that, if certain eligibility requirements are met, permits waiver of an alien’s inadmissibility due to fraud or misrepresentation. The Government appealed, however, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA” or “Board”) reversed in part. The Board affirmed the grant of withholding, but concluded that Petitioner was not entitled to asylum or to the § 1227(a)(1)(H) waiver. The Board reasoned that he was statutorily ineligible for asylum, and that he did not deserve that form of relief as a matter of the Board’s discretion because he intentionally failed to tell immigration officials about the non-traditional manner in which his passport had been obtained. The Board also concluded that, with respect to the waiver, Petitioner neither met the statutory eligibility requirements nor merited the waiver as a matter of the Board’s discretion. Petitioner now seeks review of the BIA’s decision. As explained below, the Board’s discretionary denial of asylum amounted to an abuse of ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals