While unpublished, the Second Circuit’s decision in Ngassaki v. Holder is notable because federal courts rarely weigh in on motions to change venue in immigration proceedings.
In Ngassaki, the immigrant was scheduled for a hearing in Buffalo, New York, but requested a venue change to New York City. He argued that he lived in NYC and that his witnesses and supporting evidence were there. The immigration judge denied the motion, and the hearing proceeded with witnesses appearing by telephone. The judge ultimately discounted some of their testimony—citing concerns that they may have been reading from written statements and that their demeanor could not be assessed remotely.
On appeal, the Second Circuit found serious flaws in both the Immigration Judge’s and the Board’s handling of the case. First, the BIA mischaracterized the record—confusing one IJ decision with another. Even beyond that error, the court noted that the BIA’s one-line dismissal was “insufficiently detailed for us to review its findings and therefore constitutes an abuse of discretion.”
Critically, the court found that the denial of the venue transfer prejudiced Mr. Ngassaki. Had the hearing been moved to New York City, the witnesses would have testified in person. Instead, the IJ discounted key evidence based on their remote appearance, undercutting the fairness of the proceedings.
This decision underscores the importance of venue transfer motions in immigration court—especially when a noncitizen’s witnesses and community ties are located far from the court where DHS has initiated proceedings. It also reinforces the obligation of the BIA to conduct a thorough review of the record and explain its reasoning with sufficient clarity for appellate review.
Kudos to Lauris Wren and the Hofstra Law School Asylum Clinic for their advocacy in this case.