The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) handles thousands of cases every year, each of which has a profound and life-altering impact on aspiring immigrants that come before it and their families. Because a BIA decision can literally mean life or death for a petitioner, it is especially important that the BIA act fairly, impartially, and lawfully.

Given the importance of BIA decisions, it is distressing to learn, as we did in a recent Third Circuit decision, that the BIA has not been acting in the evenhanded, lawful manner to be expected of an adjudicative tribunal in the United States of America. It is also, however, gratifying to learn that the Third Circuit stands ready to right such injustices when those unfair rulings come before it for review. The case of Quinteros v. Attorney General of the United States, __ F.3d __ (Dec. 17, 2019) is an important decision because of the unusual strength with which the panel chastised the BIA for its deficient reasoning, although, as the court pointed out, it is only the most recent in a series of BIA cases reversed by the Third Circuit for similar reasons. The case is also unusual because a unanimous three-judge panel issued the primary decision (written by Judge Jane Roth) but then the same three judges joined in a blistering concurrence written by Judge Theodore McKee. It is the concurrence that deserves special attention.