Two immigration denials from the First

• Beltre-Veloz v. Mukasey, No. 07-1958 denies a petition for review of a guy from the Dominican Republic that sought to an absentia removal reopened based on ineffective assistance of counsel.  Selya uses a lot of big words to show how the petitioner didn’t comply with the procedural requirements for asserting immigration IAC.  Selya then tries to deal with an equitable tolling argument, but says that the petitioner wasn’t diligent.
• Wiratama v. Mukasey, No. 07-1149.  The petitioner is a Catholic from Indonesida seeking protection under the CAT.  However, although the First denies the petition, the First says that the IJ’s findings were not supported by the record or “cogent reasoning.”  Let me say that again, an IJ could not, according to the First Circuit, “reason” “cogent[ly].”  Essentially, as I see it, the IJ held that the petitioner wasn’t credible because other witnesses were not credible.  Yet, despite the IJ’s incompetence, the First affirms on alternative grounds, finding that although the IJ was too dense to make a good credibility ruling, whatever the petitioner did testify to wasn’t persecution in the first place.