Danut and Alina Floroiu, along with their daughter Dania, petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order denying their asylum applications, including withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The Immigration Judge (IJ) had dismissed their claims based on the untimeliness of their asylum application and their failure to prove a likelihood of persecution or torture upon return to Romania due to their religious beliefs. The BIA affirmed the IJ's decision. The Floroius contested the denial of withholding of removal, arguing that the IJ displayed clear bias, which compromised their right to a fair hearing.
The Floroius entered the U.S. as non-immigrant visitors in February 2000. Following an attempt to bring Dania into the U.S. in January 2003, removal proceedings were initiated against the family. During the hearings, Mr. Floroiu recounted several instances of religious persecution in Romania between 1997 and 2000, including threats and physical confrontations with local Orthodox priests while attempting to distribute Seventh-day Adventist literature. Notably, a police report indicated that officials could not assist due to the Orthodox Church's majority support. Mr. Floroiu also mentioned a preventive arrest warrant issued against him in Romania for distributing religious materials, further fueling the family’s fear of future persecution if returned. The appellate court granted their petition for review based on the IJ's bias.
Mr. Floroiu reported that friends and family in Romania advised against returning due to potential persecution, supported by corroborating letters presented to the Immigration Judge (IJ). The Floroius testified about the violation of Seventh-day Adventist teachings in Romania, where work and schooling occur on Saturdays. They confirmed their continued practice of Seventh-day Adventism in the U.S. but did not elaborate on its current form. The Government provided State Department reports indicating Romania's constitutional guarantee of religious freedom and recognition of seventeen religions, including Seventh-day Adventism. However, the reports also noted that some minority religious groups face discrimination and interference from low-level officials and the Romanian Orthodox clergy. Instances of violence against Adventist congregations were documented, and Seventh-day Adventists have reported challenges in teaching their faith in public schools, often being forced into Orthodox classes.
The IJ found the Floroius ineligible for asylum due to their late application, filed three years post-entry, exceeding the one-year deadline mandated by 8 U.S.C. 1158(a)(2)(B). Their claims for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) were also denied, as the IJ determined their past experiences did not constitute persecution and they failed to demonstrate a likelihood of future harm if returned to Romania. The IJ referenced State Department findings affirming Seventh-day Adventists' rights to practice their religion, suggesting that the Floroius' claims were exaggerated and that their conduct might have provoked negative reactions. The IJ characterized the Floroius as "zealots," asserting that their aggressive proselytizing contributed to their experiences and were not solely victims of religious intolerance.
The BIA dismissed the Floroius’ appeal, noting their failure to challenge the one-year asylum filing deadline, with no exceptions applicable. The Board denied their applications for withholding of removal and CAT relief, citing insufficient evidence of persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution despite acknowledging some hostility by the Romanian Orthodox Church toward minority groups. The Board found the Immigration Judge (IJ) had made inappropriate characterizations of the Floroius but still upheld his impartiality and determined that any factual errors did not affect the outcome. The Floroius subsequently filed a timely petition for review and a motion to reopen with the BIA, claiming the IJ inadequately considered their persecution claims and submitted new evidence, which the BIA denied, stating the evidence was not previously unavailable and that no new legal arguments were presented.
In their current petition for review focusing on the IJ's mischaracterization of them as "offensive" religious "zealots," the Floroius argued they were denied a fair hearing due to the IJ’s bias, which hindered proper consideration of their persecution evidence. The court agreed that the IJ deviated from his judicial role, constituting a denial of due process. The BIA's assessment was deemed legally incorrect. The court emphasized that a meaningful opportunity to be heard is essential for due process, referencing several cases to support the need for evidence indicating that the due process denial could have impacted the proceedings. Procedural rights in immigration hearings require that the IJ consider relevant evidence, rule on objections, and allow the alien a fair opportunity to present their case and cross-examine witnesses.
The determination of whether petitioners had a fair opportunity to present their case hinges on the totality of circumstances. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) reviews the Immigration Judge's (IJ) due process findings de novo. The IJ's decision indicated that the Floroius were denied a "reasonable opportunity" for their case as mandated by 8 U.S.C. § 1229a. The IJ labeled the Floroius as religious "zealots" and described their practices as "offensive," reflecting a bias against them based on their religious beliefs, undermining the fairness of the proceedings. The IJ’s language was seen as intolerant, raising concerns about the integrity of the record and the IJ's role in protecting asylum seekers from religious persecution.
The IJ's conclusion that the Floroius were "contributorily negligent" for suffering harm due to their minority beliefs was deemed illogical and contrary to asylum protections, which safeguard individuals against persecution based on immutable characteristics. While the court does not assess the actual persecution faced by the Floroius, it notes that their strong religious beliefs and the unacceptability of their practices in their community should warrant asylum protection rather than a denial.
The court aligns with other circuits that have vacated IJ decisions due to apparent bias, emphasizing that when an IJ's conduct creates an appearance of bias or hostility, meaningful review is impeded, necessitating a remand.
In Sukwanputra v. Gonzales, the Third Circuit vacated a decision due to the Immigration Judge's (IJ) "bias-laden remarks" lacking record support. Similarly, in Wang v. Attorney General, the IJ's manifest hostility was deemed detrimental to the judicial process. Lopez-Umanzor v. Gonzales highlighted bias stemming from the IJ's conjectures about domestic violence, while Ahmed v. Gonzales found bias through the IJ's mischaracterization of petitioners' testimonies. The IJ's conclusion regarding the Floroius family's religious behavior being "offensive to the majority" was unsupported by evidence. Mr. Floroiu's testimony pertained only to his duration of stay in the U.S., and Ms. Floroiu provided minimal information about their religious activities. The IJ failed to consider significant evidence favoring the Floroius, such as the arrest warrant, police threats, family warnings about safety, and reports of attacks on Seventh-day Adventist churches. The IJ's decision lacked thorough analysis and failed to engage with the evidence, treating government reports as conclusive without addressing potential bias. Consequently, the IJ's handling of the case deprived the Floroius of a fair hearing.
The Floroius must be granted a fair hearing, as proper administrative procedures require that their arguments be considered without bias stemming from their lawful religious practices. Due to the lack of a fair hearing and insufficient evidentiary support for the Immigration Judge's (IJ) findings, the ruling is vacated and remanded for further proceedings. Previous cases highlight the necessity of due consideration of evidence favoring petitioners and caution against mislabeling ethnic and religious affiliations, which undermines the integrity of rulings. The court strongly suggests assigning the case to a different judge upon remand to mitigate any appearance of bias. This marks the second instance where the IJ has been criticized for speculative reasoning regarding asylum claims. The Clerk is instructed to notify the Attorney General regarding potential disciplinary actions against the IJ. The petition for review is granted, the Board's decision is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.
