B-Z-R
28 I. & N. Dec. 563 (2022)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Immigration adjudicators may consider a respondent’s mental health in determining whether an individual convicted of a crime constitutes a danger to the community of the United States, thereby affecting eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal.
Facts:
- B-Z-R- is a native and citizen of Mexico.
- In April 2017, B-Z-R- was convicted of burglary in New Jersey.
- B-Z-R- was sentenced to four years of imprisonment for the burglary conviction.
- B-Z-R- sought withholding of removal, arguing that he would face persecution in Mexico due to his sexual orientation and mental health condition.
- B-Z-R- had been diagnosed with a serious mental disorder.
Procedural Posture:
- Removal proceedings were initiated against B-Z-R-.
- B-Z-R- applied for withholding of removal before an immigration judge (trial court/court of first instance).
- The immigration judge denied B-Z-R-'s application, concluding that B-Z-R-'s burglary conviction was for a "particularly serious crime" and did not consider B-Z-R-'s mental health due to the precedent of Matter of G-G-S-.
- B-Z-R- appealed the immigration judge's decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), an intermediate appellate court.
- The BIA, as the appellee, upheld the immigration judge's finding that B-Z-R-'s conviction was a "particularly serious crime," reiterating that G-G-S- prevented consideration of mental health in this determination.
- The BIA, however, remanded the case for further consideration of B-Z-R-'s application for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture due to additional evidence of worsening mental health symptoms.
- The Attorney General directed the BIA to refer this case for review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
May immigration adjudicators consider a respondent’s mental health condition when determining whether an individual, convicted by a final judgment of a crime, constitutes a "particularly serious crime" and thus a "danger to the community" that bars eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal?
Opinions:
Majority - Attorney General
Yes, immigration adjudicators may consider a respondent’s mental health condition when determining whether an individual, convicted by a final judgment of a crime, constitutes a "particularly serious crime" and thus a "danger to the community" that bars eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal. The Attorney General overruled Matter of G-G-S-, finding its rationales for excluding mental health evidence from the "particularly serious crime" analysis flawed. The court reasoned that the "essential key" in determining a particularly serious crime is whether it indicates the respondent poses a danger to the community, and mental health evidence can directly bear on this dangerousness inquiry. The first rationale of G-G-S- (that immigration adjudicators cannot go behind criminal court decisions) was rejected because the immigration inquiry into dangerousness is distinct from criminal culpability and can consider information outside the record of conviction. The second rationale (that a mental condition does not relate to dangerousness) was rejected as a respondent's mental health condition may directly bear on whether they pose a danger to the community. The court emphasized that the relevance of mental health evidence in any given case should be determined through a longstanding case-by-case approach. The Board's decision in B-Z-R-'s case was vacated, and the case was remanded to the immigration judge for proceedings consistent with this new opinion.
Analysis:
This decision significantly broadens the scope of evidence immigration adjudicators can consider when determining eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal. By overruling Matter of G-G-S-, the Attorney General has reversed a restrictive precedent, potentially allowing more non-citizens with mental health conditions to argue against being labeled a "danger to the community." This shift acknowledges that mental health can be a mitigating factor or offer context for past criminal behavior, and it aligns immigration law more closely with the evolving understanding of mental illness. Future cases will likely see increased presentation of mental health evidence in "particularly serious crime" determinations, requiring adjudicators to weigh such evidence carefully.
