No. 23-1156

ALAIN GLODY CIRHUZA BADOSE,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS

Before

Rikelman, Lipez, and Thompson, Circuit Judges.

Gregory Romanovsky, with whom Romanovsky Law Offices was on brief, for petitioner.

Jennifer A. Bowen, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, with whom Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, and Anthony C. Payne, Assistant Director, Office of Immigration Litigation, were on brief, for respondent.

December 19, 2024 LIPEZ, Circuit Judge. Soon after arriving in the United States in 2014 on a student visa, petitioner Alain Glody Cirhuza Badose applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). In 2019, an Immigration Judge ("IJ") denied his claims for relief based on an adverse credibility determination or, alternatively, because Badose had failed to show a sufficient nexus between the harm he described and a protected ground. About two and a half years later, while his appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") was pending, Badose married a U.S. citizen. He then filed a motion to remand to the IJ to consider an adjustment of status based on the marriage -- an independent form of immigration relief now open to him. The government did not oppose the motion. The following month, however, the BIA denied his remand request and affirmed the IJ's removal order, stressing that Badose -- with his "lack of candor" and documented history of "lying to immigration officials" -- was fully "aware that his [immigration] status was in jeopardy" when he wed.

Badose now contends we should vacate the BIA's decision in its entirety because, among other things, the BIA arbitrarily departed from a consistent practice of granting unopposed remand requests for consideration of adjustment-of-status relief. He also asserts that the BIA engaged in impermissible factfinding, and thereby legally erred, when it all but said explicitly his

- 2 - marriage was a sham. We agree. Concluding that the BIA made two errors of law when it denied Badose's motion to remand, we grant Badose's petition for review.

I.

We draw the relevant background from the administrative record, though, in doing so, "we need not detail the totality of [Badose's] dense history before various immigration agencies and entities in order to inform and explain today's outcome." Manguriu v. Garland, 86 F.4th 491, 493 (1st Cir. 2023). A. Badose's U.S. entry and merits hearing

Badose, a national of the Democratic Republic of the Congo ("DRC"), was admitted to the United States in January 2014 on an F-1 student visa. Instead of going to school, however, Badose filed an application with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS") for asylum and withholding of removal -- a Form I-589 -- and also sought protection under the CAT. In his application, he claimed that he would be in danger in the DRC because of his political opinion or affiliation. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b). Removal proceedings were then initiated, with Badose conceding removability as charged. See 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(C)(i) (non-citizen failing to maintain terms or conditions of nonimmigrant status under which admitted, i.e., student).

- 3 - At