Tadros v. Attorney General of the United States , 142 F. App'x 553 ( 2005 )

Opinions of the United
2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
3-31-2005
Tadros v. Atty Gen USA
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 03-2377
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005
Recommended Citation
"Tadros v. Atty Gen USA" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 1404.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/1404
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2005 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 03-2377
MAGDE WADI TADROS; LIDIA TALAAT SADEK; MIRA MAGDE WADI
TADROS; MAHA MAGDE WADI TADROS
Petitioners
v.
Attorney General of the United States
Respondent
Petition for Review of an Order
of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(Nos. A70-580-537, A70-580-538, A70-580-539, A70-580-540)
Argued: March 10, 2005
Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, ROTH and ALDISERT, Circuit Judges
(Filed: March 31, 2005)
Jeffrey B. Steinfeld, Esq. (Argued)
25 East Salem Street, Suite 400
Hackensack, New Jersey 07601
Attorney for Petitioner
Michele Y. F. Sarko, Esq. (Argued)
Christopher C. Fuller, Esq.
Lyle D. Jentzer, Esq.
William C. Minick, Esq.
United States Department of Justice
Office of Immigration Litigation
Civil Division
P.O. Box 878, Ben Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044
Attorney for Respondent
OPINION OF THE COURT
ALDISERT, Circuit Judge.
Madge Wadi Tadros, Lidia Talaat Sadek, Mira Madge Wadi Tadros and Maha
Madge Wadi Tadros seek review of the final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(“BIA”) affirming without opinion the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ’s”) denial of their
petitions for asylum and withholding of removal. See Dia v. Ashcroft, 353 F.3d 228, 245
(3d Cir. 2003) (en banc) (instructing that where the BIA summarily affirms the IJ’s
decision we have jurisdiction to review the IJ’s decision). Petitioners asserted a fear of
persecution on the basis of their Coptic Christian religion. We will remand to the BIA for
further findings on the issue of changed country conditions.
I.
Because we write only for the parties, who are familiar with the facts,
procedural history and contentions presented, we will not recite them except as necessary
to the discussion.
II.
The IJ denied asylum to Petitioners on April 24, 1998, in part because of a
determination that “there is not a pattern or practice of persecution against Coptic
Christians in Egypt, as the Court understands the background materials that have been
submitted.” (Op. of the IJ at 15-16.) That determination was made on the basis of
information available at that time. The BIA affirmed the decision of the IJ four years later
on April 10, 2003, but did not conduct any additional findings of fact. In 2004, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit expressed the view that recent changes in
country conditions in Egypt may have made life worse for Coptic Christians. Malty v.
Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945-946 (2004). The length of time that has elapsed since the IJ’s
opinion and findings concerning country conditions counsel against reliance on findings
that may be stale.
Congress has committed to administrative judges the task of assessing country
conditions in the first instance. Immigration and Naturalization Serv. v. Orlando Ventura,
537 U.S. 12, 16-17 (2002). We believe that remand “could lead to the presentation of
further evidence of current circumstances . . . that may well prove enlightening” given the
amount of time that has lapsed since the IJ made its findings in 1998. Id. at 18. We will
therefore vacate the opinion of the IJ and remand for new findings about the conditions in
Egypt for Coptic Christians.
*****
The petition for review will be granted and the proceedings remanded to the BIA
with instruction for a new hearing to be conducted before the IJ, all in conformance with
the foregoing.