A lesson in the weight of secondary authority
The September 26, 2005 issue of Massachusetts Lawyer's Weekly contains a summary of an appeal from a Board of Immigration Appeals heard by the First Circuit and decided September 16 in which the outcome turned on the degree of persuasiveness of a piece of secondary authority - in this case, a State Department Country Report. The case is Zarouite v. Gonzaeles, ___F.3d___, 2005 WL2253604.
The immigration judge had discounted the petitioner's testimony of persecution and held the petitioner ineligible for consideration by the Attorney General for asylum, and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. In affirming, the BIA relied solely on a State Department Country Report for the proposition that things had improved in Morocco since the petitioner's departure.
The First Circuit said these Country Reports are "generally persuasive of country conditions", but are "open to contradiction". The Court goes on to say "the government's brief makes no developed argument to show that the report rebuts Zarouite's fear of future persecution; it merely asserts this proposition in conclusory terms and passes on with suspicious swiftness."
Ouch! Our sympathies to the dissed brief-writer, but a teachable moment for the rest of us - persuasive authority, however, well-respected in general, is not persuasive unless it is tied into the facts with logic and careful analysis.
