By: Derek Hawkins//May 2, 2016//
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Case Name: Mohsen Karroumeh v. Loretta E. Lynch
Case No.: 15-2198
Officials: WOOD,Chief Judge,and MANION and ROVNER, Circuit Judges.
Focus: Immigration – Removal
Appellant entitled to new hearing due to inability to cross-examine key government witnesses
“Wright’s statement is marked by contradictions and inconsistencies that call its reliability into question. For example, Wright gave three different dates for her move to Mississippi and two different dates for her return to Illinois She both denied signing leases with Karroumeh and also admitted signing them. Some of her statements beg for an explanation, such as her claim that she did not live with Karroumeh at his Worth address “lease wise.” Wright gave the statement more than six years after her divorce from Karroumeh. In a response that could be interpreted as displaying bias , she said that she divorced Karroumeh because after “constant lie after lie, he never followed through with his plans like getting a house[.]” Karroumeh has been deprived of an opportunity to ask clarifying questions or pursue areas left unexplored by Leslie. In his appeal to the Board, Karroumeh noted that Leslie never directly asked Wright if she was engaged in a fraudulent marriage, never asked for themeaning of the term “lease wise,” never inquired why Karroumeh gave Wright money during the marriage, and never asked whether Wright was prosecuted for marriage fraud. In light of the contradictions and inconsistencies as well as Wright’s motive to testify against her ex-husband, her hearsay statement was unreliable and Karroumeh should have been allowed an opportunity to test it with cross-examination. The admission of her statement under these circumstances was not fundamentally fair. And without this evidence, the government could not meet its burden of demonstrating by clear and convincing evidence that the marriage was a sham. Karroumeh has thus established prejudice.”
Petition Granted