and Submitted June 9, 2017 Pasadena, California
Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals Agency No. A071-583-259
Matthew J. Smock (argued) and Amy J. Laurendeau,
O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Newport Beach, California, for
K. Pergolizzi (argued), Trial Attorney; Emily Anne Radford,
Assistant Director; Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant
Attorney General; Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil
Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington,
D.C.; for Respondent.
Before: Susan P. Graber and Mary H. Murguia, Circuit Judges,
and Edward J. Davila, [*] District Judge.
panel granted Edwin Eduardo Campos Mejia's petition for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision
dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's denial
of his claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
under the Convention Against Torture, and concluding that
remand to the immigration judge was not warranted for further
consideration of Campos Mejia's mental competency.
panel held that the immigration judge erred by failing to
determine whether procedural safeguards were required after
Campos Mejia showed signs of mental incompetency. The panel
concluded that under In re M-A-M-, 25 I. & N.
Dec. 474, 480 (BIA 2011), there were clear indicia of
incompetency that triggered the immigration judge's duty
to explain whether Campos Mejia was competent and whether
procedural safeguards were needed.
panel further held that the Board abused its discretion by
failing to explain why it allowed the immigration judge to
disregard In re M-A-M-'s rigorous procedural
requirements. Accordingly, the panel remanded to the Board
with instructions to remand to the immigration judge for a
new hearing consistent with In re M-A-M-.
DAVILA, District Judge
Edwin Eduardo Campos Mejia seeks review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") dismissal of his
appeal from the immigration judge's ("IJ")
denial of his claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and
relief under the Convention Against Torture
("CAT"). Petitioner showed signs of mental
incompetency during proceedings before the IJ. Petitioner
argues that, under governing BIA precedent, these signs
triggered the IJ's duty to determine whether procedural
safeguards were needed, but that the IJ failed to do so. We
agree. Accordingly, we grant the petition and remand.
a native of Guatemala, entered the United States without
inspection at some point between 1986 and 1991. The
Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings
in 2004 in a Notice to Appear. Petitioner admitted the
factual allegations in the Notice, and the IJ sustained the
charge of removability. Petitioner's case was
administratively closed for most of the next six years while
he served prison ...