Browse cases by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Other
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Torts
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
Kerciku v. Immigration and Naturalization Serv.
314 F.3d 913 (7th Cir. 2003) ; Clearinghouse Number: 55127
Description
INS Judge Violated Due Process by Not Allowing Immigrants to Present Testimony to Support Their Application for Asylum
Abstract
The Seventh Circuit held that because the Immigration and
Naturalization Service (INS) judge terminated the removal hearing
without allowing petitioners to present their testimony, he
deprived them of “a meaningful opportunity to be heard”
and violated their due process rights. Petitioners—a married
couple from Albania—applied for asylum; they claimed that
Albanian communists had persecuted their family for their political
views and activities and that they feared for their lives should
they have to return to Albania. At the removal hearing, husband
indicated his plan to testify about the long history of persecution
mentioned in the application. Petitioners were also prepared to
present testimony from an expert on Albanian affairs; the
expert’s affidavit indicated that he could have substantiated
the claims of past persecution and the couple’s fear of
deadly harm if they returned to Albania. INS contended that the INS
judge properly terminated the hearing once he determined that
husband was not credible. Rejecting that argument, the Seventh
Circuit said that an applicant’s right to present testimony
to support the applicant’s claim was not nullified by adverse
considerations, including negative credibility findings, which
might weigh against, or even ultimately doom, the applicant’s
case in the judge’s eyes. The critical issue was whether the
applicant received a “fair” hearing. Petitioners
received none. The Seventh Circuit remanded with instructions.
