Karim v. Gonzáles, 04-2206, denies an immigration petition for review. The one non-routine issue is whether “...flaws in the DHS interview would have precluded use of the information there obtained.” The notes that the issue isn’t settled but noted that the defendant really failed to make his case, anyway.
More details below, if you care. And yes, today's opinions were out very early.
The court chides counsel by saying
Much of Karim's brief on appeal is general rhetoric about the need for reasoned agency decisionmaking. In fact, it is fairly easy to follow the reasoning of both the immigration judge and the BIA. That both decisions were short is largely a result of the fact that Karim admitted removability at the outset and gave the immigration judge no good reason for allowing Karim to revisit that concession (which was made through counsel).
Karim had wanted to withdraw his concession of removeability, but the judge did not allow it. Karim argues that he should have been simply because the IJ didn’t give a good reason. The court responds, “ The obligation to explain and articulate depends importantly on the strength of the position being urged. Where no plausible reason is offered for a request, the word "no" is plainly sufficient. Even now, the brief provides no adequate explanation as to why Karim should have been allowed to withdraw his concession nor any reason to doubt that the concession was correct.”
Update: The blog Pnrx provides
some more analysis of it, concluded that the First Circuit’s dicta regarding suppression
of evidence seized from illegal searches is indicative of the notion that “There
are strong arguments for requiring the exclusionary rule to apply in
immigration courts in the same way it applies in criminal cases.” But, since, in Karim, the petitioner conceded
removability, he wasn’t entitled to raise them.
Comments