Mental illness should be considered in deportation cases, 9th Circuit rules

A federal appellate panel on Friday ordered an immigration court to reconsider the deportation of a Mexican who argued that his mental illness should be considered even though he pleaded guilty to assault with a deadly weapon.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel reversed a Board of Immigration Appeals decision that because Guillermo Gomez-Sanchez’s mental illness had not been raised at the state court level, it could not be considered in his deportation case.

Gomez-Sanchez, a U.S. legal permanent resident, requested a stay of his deportation under the Convention Against Torture, contending that he would be subject to persecution or torture in his native country due to his mental illness, would not be able to get treatment, and would be subject to deplorable conditions in Mexican public facilities.

The 9th Circuit disagreed with the board’s published decision that it could not look behind the facts of a criminal case. Gomez-Sanchez pleaded guilty to assaulting a store owner with a weightlifting bell and his mental health had not been brought up at the state trial. Gomez-Sanchez v. Sessions, 2018 DJDAR 3091.

“What the 9th Circuit said was no, that’s wrong, the mental health is part of the totality of circumstances that the immigration court must properly consider in deciding whether this was a particularly serious crime,” said David Loy, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of San Diego and Imperial Counties.

The panel found that previous Board of Immigration Appeals cases had looked beyond the facts of a case to determine whether a person was eligible for withholding of deportation.

“The board here offers no explanation as to how an individual’s mental condition at the time he or she committed a crime differs from other factual determinations the statute authorizes [immigration judges] to make related to the circumstances of a crime of conviction.” wrote Judge Janet Bond Arterton, a Connecticut district judge who sat by designation on the 9th Circuit panel.

“What’s important here is that the BIA decision in this case was published, which meant that it would impact immigration courts all over the country,” Loy said. He added that the case had turned on the panel applying a key feature of administrative law known as the Chevron Deference. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 468 U.S. 837 (1984).

Immigration rulings fall under administrative law because the courts are part of the U.S. Department of Justice. Because the statute designates some crimes as particularly serious and Gomez-Sanchez’s crime was not one of them, the immigration courts are required to undertake a case-by-case analysis, Loy said.

“The BIA’s decision was inconsistent with that rule because it categorically barred the immigration courts from considering evidence that is relevant to a case-by-case analysis,” he added.

Bardis Vakili, senior staff attorney at the ACLU of San Diego & Imperial Counties, argued the case. The appeal was originally briefed by the ACLU of Southern California.

The decision remanded the case back to the Board of Immigration Appeals.

A spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Justice declined to comment on the case in an emailed statement.