X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
What was a Los Angeles immigration judge thinking when he denied asylum to a Guatemalan immigrant fleeing political oppression? Not much, apparently, according to a unanimous panel of the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. On Friday, the Ninth Circuit overturned Immigration Judge Nathan Gordon for issuing a ruling that it called “incomprehensible” and “extreme in its lack of a coherent explanation.” The panel — Ninth Circuit Judge Marsha Berzon and Senior Judges Betty Fletcher and Edward Leavy — said Gordon’s opinion was so muddled that judges simply couldn’t figure out what was going through his head. It’s easy to see why. The 1999 decision read, in part: “I find the respondent is credible, but I don’t find that his story relates to or meets the burden to establish persecution, per se, under that ground. The credibility issue brings many doubts have arisen in that as to the actual happenings and that what will happen to him if he is to be returned.” The Ninth Circuit conveniently attached Gordon’s decision to Friday’s ruling. Attorneys for Ernesto Adolfo Recinos de Leon aren’t exactly sure what happened in immigration court either. But Clair Cifuentes of Los Angeles, who argued the case in front of Gordon, said the judge appeared to be “dozing” during parts of the hearing. “He’s the sweetest man, a wonderful person, a wonderful judge,” Cifuentes said. “If [he was] awake, he made great decisions.” Gordon, now 78, retired in December 1999, nine months after issuing the Recinos opinion. In a telephone interview Friday, Gordon called Cifuentes’ claims “baloney.” “This is nonsense,” Gordon said, adding that he always paid attention on the bench when listening to asylum claims, even though “the arguments were all the same.” As is common, Gordon did not type up his decision. Rather, it was delivered orally in open court. Transcripts are only made once the matter goes up on appeal, and they’re done by a pool of typists on the East Coast. Usually, the transcripts are sent back to judges for editing before the record moves on to the Board of Immigration Appeals. In this case, Gordon was long gone from the bench when the transcript would have come back. He said no one contacted him in retirement. “If I had read it over, I would have corrected it,” said Gordon, who added that he was one of the “more liberal, fair judges” on the court. The circuit panel cut Gordon — and the immigration court — some slack because of the overwhelming number of pending cases. Immigration courts and government attorneys have been working overtime for years now to reduce the backlog, and, through the controversial “streamlining” procedure, the Department of Justice has shifted much of the burden to the Ninth Circuit, which is now inundated with immigration appeals. “Those sobering realities, however, do not change longstanding principles governing judicial review of agency decisions. � We cannot, with any confidence, discern the grounds for the agency’s action,” Berzon wrote. “The IJ’s opinion — which appears to be an unedited version of a badly transcribed, rambling set of oral observations — is incoherent regarding both the findings made and the legal standards applied.” The case is Recinos v. Gonzales, 05 C.D.O.S. 2156.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.