Kadiatou Babila Keita v. Todd Blanche

Summary

The Fourth Circuit held that Kadiatou Babila Keita was not given a reasonable opportunity to present evidence and argument concerning the hardship her United States citizen children might face from removal to a third country. The court granted her petition for review, vacated the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order, and remanded for further proceedings. It dismissed as moot her separate petition challenging the denial of reconsideration.

Holdings

1. The BIA erred in concluding that Keita had a sufficient opportunity to present all arguments concerning cancellation of removal through briefing. The immigration judge's briefing order was limited to the legal question whether withholding of removal categorically barred cancellation, and Keita was not given the promised hearing or another reasonable opportunity to present evidence and argument concerning hardship from third-country removal.
2. Keita's petition for review in No. 24-1226 was granted, the BIA's order was vacated, and the matter was remanded for further proceedings.
3. Keita's petition for review in No. 24-2155, challenging the BIA's denial of reconsideration, was dismissed as moot after the court granted review of the original BIA decision and vacated the underlying order.
4. The court did not decide whether withholding of removal categorically bars cancellation of removal because the agency's written decision did not rest on that theory and the BIA expressly disavowed reliance on it.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the immigration judge and BIA violated Keita's statutory right to a reasonable opportunity to present evidence and argument in support of cancellation of removal by denying her a full evidentiary hearing on hardship associated with third-country removal.
2. Whether Keita's petition for review of the BIA's denial of reconsideration became moot after the court vacated the underlying BIA order.
3. Whether withholding of removal to Guinea categorically barred Keita from seeking cancellation of removal.
4. Whether the court could affirm on the government's alternative constitutional argument concerning the absence of a protected liberty interest in discretionary cancellation relief.

Disposition

other