## Facts

- Abou Cham, a citizen of The Gambia, entered the United States in February 2001 using his cousin’s Gambian passport.
- Cham applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture (CAT) protection, claiming fear of political persecution tied to his family’s opposition to the Gambian regime.
- An immigration judge (IJ) conducted hearings in April and June 2003 and denied all requested relief, ordering Cham removed to The Gambia.
- The record reflected an unusually hostile, demeaning, and “bullying” style of questioning by the IJ, which the court viewed as inconsistent with basic expectations of respect and fairness in adjudication.
- The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ’s decision, effectively relying on the IJ’s credibility assessment and related findings.
- Cham petitioned for review in the Third Circuit, arguing that the hearing was fundamentally unfair and that the adverse credibility finding lacked adequate support given the IJ’s conduct.

## Issues

1. Whether the IJ’s hostile and bullying conduct deprived Cham of a full and fair hearing required in removal proceedings.
2. Whether the adverse credibility determination and resulting denial of asylum, withholding, and CAT protection were supported by substantial evidence when the hearing process was tainted.
3. Whether the BIA erred by affirming a decision resting on factfinding and credibility determinations produced through an unfair hearing.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit granted the petition for review.
- The court vacated the agency’s denial of relief and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held that the IJ’s conduct compromised the fairness and reliability of the hearing, undermining confidence in the credibility determination and the resulting denial of relief.
- Because the credibility finding was intertwined with the unfair manner of questioning and record development, the court declined to uphold the decision under substantial-evidence review.

## Legal Principles

- Noncitizens in removal proceedings are entitled to a full and fair hearing before an impartial adjudicator; adjudicative hostility and demeaning treatment can violate this requirement.
- Judicial deference to agency factfinding and credibility determinations presupposes a fair process and a reliable record; abusive questioning can distort testimony and compromise record integrity.
- When an IJ’s conduct undermines the fairness of the proceeding and infects credibility findings, a court of appeals may vacate and remand for reconsideration in a procedurally fair manner.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit set aside the denial of asylum-related relief because the IJ’s hostile conduct denied Cham a fair opportunity to present his case and rendered the resulting credibility determination unreliable, requiring remand for renewed agency proceedings consistent with basic procedural fairness.


Cham v. Att’y Gen. of U.S., 445 F.3d 683 (3d Cir. 2006)