Mejia v. Sessions, No. 15-70155 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CasePursuant to In re M-A-M-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 474, 480 (B.I.A. 2011), if an applicant shows indicia of incompetency, the IJ has an independent duty to determine whether the applicant is competent. In this case, petitioner sought review of the BIA's dismissal of his appeal from the IJ's denial of his claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. The Ninth Circuit granted the petition, holding that the IJ erred by failing to determine whether procedural safeguards were required after petitioner showed signs of mental incompetency. Furthermore, the BIA abused its discretion by failing to explain why it allowed the IJ to disregard In re M-A-M-'s rigorous procedural requirements. The panel remanded to the BIA with instructions to remand to the IJ for a new hearing consistent with In re M-A-M-.
Court Description: Immigration The 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. The 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. The 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-.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.