Introduction

Leston Augustus Scarlett, a Jamaican national and former police officer, challenged the United States government's decision to deny his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The case, Scarlett v. Barr, reached the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on April 28, 2020.

Scarlett argued that his fear of persecution stemmed from both former police supervisors and gang members in Jamaica. He contended that Jamaican authorities were either unwilling or unable to protect him from retaliation due to his refusal to engage in corrupt activities. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upheld the denial of his relief, prompting Scarlett to seek judicial review.

Summary of the Judgment

The Second Circuit partially affirmed and partially vacated the BIA's decisions. Specifically:

• Affirmed the denial of Scarlett's asylum claim due to untimeliness and lack of extraordinary circumstances.
• Affirmed the denial of withholding of removal and CAT relief concerning persecution by former police supervisors.
• Vacated and remanded the denial of withholding of removal and CAT relief related to feared gang violence, citing insufficient consideration of relevant evidence and incorrect application of legal standards.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced key precedents that shape asylum and withholding of removal law:

• Matter of Lozada: Established standards for ineffective assistance of counsel.
• INS v. CARDOZA-FONSECA: Defined the threshold for credible fear in asylum claims.
• Matter of Fuentes: Clarified that harassment by police officers must reach a certain threshold to constitute persecution.
• Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council: Affirmed Chevron deference, where courts defer to administrative agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes.
• Matter of A-B-: Provided guidance on the "unwilling or unable" standard for withholding of removal, particularly concerning gang violence.

Legal Reasoning

The court's analysis hinged on the “unwilling or unable” standard, a crucial threshold in immigration relief cases. This standard requires applicants to demonstrate that the government of their home country is either unwilling or unable to provide protection against persecution.

For claims against former police supervisors, Scarlett failed to provide objective evidence that the threats constituted persecution or that Jamaican authorities would not protect him. Regarding gang violence, the court identified that the BIA did not adequately consider whether Jamaican authorities were truly unable to protect Scarlett, especially given the nature and timing of the threats.

The court emphasized the need for the BIA to perform a thorough analysis of all relevant evidence, especially in light of the Attorney General's clarifications in Matter of A-B-, which refined the understanding of government unable to protect against private violence.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the stringent requirements for proving withholding of removal and CAT relief, especially in cases involving threats from non-state actors like gangs. It underscores the necessity for clear, corroborative evidence that governmental authorities are either unwilling or incapable of protecting individuals from persecution.

The decision also clarifies the application of the "unwilling or unable" standard post-Matter of A-B-, setting a precedent for how courts and the BIA should assess similar cases moving forward.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Withholding of Removal

This is a form of relief that prevents an individual from being deported to a country where they are likely to face persecution based on specific protected grounds such as race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.

Convention Against Torture (CAT) Relief

CAT relief protects individuals from being removed to a country where it is more likely than not they would be tortured by or with the acquiescence of government officials.

Chevron Deference

A legal principle where courts defer to an administrative agency's interpretation of ambiguous statutes related to their domain, provided the interpretation is reasonable.

"Unwilling or Unable" Standard

A legal test used in immigration law to determine if an individual should not be deported because their home country's government is either unwilling or unable to protect them from harm or persecution.

Conclusion

The Scarlett v. Barr decision serves as a pivotal reinforcement of the "unwilling or unable" standard in immigration law. By affirming the necessity of objective evidence and a thorough analysis of governmental capacity to protect individuals, the court ensures that relief from removal is granted only when genuinely warranted. This judgment not only guides future cases involving threats from non-state actors but also emphasizes the high bar applicants must meet to secure withholding of removal and CAT relief. Legal practitioners and applicants alike must heed the meticulous standards set forth, ensuring robust and corroborated claims to withstand judicial scrutiny.